DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

It hasn't been reported on yet in mainstream news, but here's a copy of the Court of Appeals's ruling.

Quote:

"[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual."

Talk about a "no shit" ruling.

Quote:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Originally Posted by paraphrased

Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever the entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

By saying that the Second Amendment doesn't establish an individual right, the interpretation of it is in the context of militias. This perspective, as established by Henderson declares that the right to bear arms exists so that militiamen can't be denied their arms when called into service for the militia, but since the District isn't a state and can't have a militia, no such right exists in the District of Columbia.

Does the Second Amendment establish an individual or public right?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

In my opinion, it establishes both an individual and a public right.

Because a militia is essentially under the control and regulation of the government, to restrict firearms to militias only is dangerous because at anytime, the government could in effect strip the militia of its armaments.

Therefore, individuals are allowed to own firearms as well so the government doesn't become in effect the sole issuer of firearms.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Banning guns could only lead to more violence, really. The illegal arms trade is big enough as it is.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Except last I heard, this ruling concerned almost all firearms, even automatic weapons.

I always considered it a right of the militia, not an individual one. The notion that the citizenry need firearms to resist the government in its current form is dangerous because then we inevitably get situations like Waco. While I recognize the history of the founding, keep in mind that it was in response to dictatorial rule.

The democratic tradition is too strongly rooted in the US to justify keeping arms on an individual level for the defense of liberty.

Besides, it also does bring down crime rates.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Adamgian1

Besides, it also does bring down crime rates.

Which is funny, since while the District of Columbia has had among the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, it has also had some of the highest crime rates in the country to go along with them.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

The notion that the citizenry need firearms to resist the government in its current form is dangerous because then we inevitably get situations like Waco.

Of course, you know the British considered the Colonist's rebellion to be on the same level as Waco.

You're one of the types that claim that the government is infringing on our liberties way too much (Patriot Act, etc.) but at the same time, don't believe individuals have the right to bear arms in order to resist such a government. You believe that the right rests with the militia, which is inherently controlled and armed by the government, which makes the entire idea that the citizenry can resist an oppressive government pointless because the government has ultimate control over the means of resistance.

He who has the guns runs shit. You are in effect saying that the government should control who has access to weapons and when.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

As much as I don't like it, Night Phoenix is right here. Besides, the notion that legislature can eliminate crime is, quite frankly, absurd. Legislature such as the one in question never works to reduce crime, since those who want to evade the law will do so, and then the problem becomes trying to smoke out the ones evading the law (a difficult task at best; remember the Prohibition period?), instead of trying to solve the actual problem.

You don't treat the symptoms when you draft legislation like this. You treat the cause.

FELIPE NO

Besides, Waco went down because the ATF fucked up, not Karesh.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I believe that in the context of the time that the Bill of Rights was written, the right to bear arms was in fact, an individual right. Weaponry in those days was not what it is today. It served as a hunting tool and a defense against the very real threat of an indian attack. Also, if one were to analyne the shift in the government, the Bill of Rights was created to assuage doubts about what would have been a very centralist government. It was mostly intended to convince the "liberals" of the time that the Consitution would not turn the new government into an oligarchy akin to Britain's consitutional monarchy. Thus, I believe that the right to bear arms was intended to be on an individual basis, somewhat to cater to the republicans (i.e liberals of that time) who were wary of a centralized government, and to appease the lower class people who relied on firearms in daily life.

That being said, the framers knew that the circumstances under which the Constitution was created would change over time, thus the interpretation of the Consitution was designed to be plastic. Every new generation of the Supreme Court has the ability to reinterpret the Consitution to benefit society in the best manner. Had the framers desired a stagnant interpretation, they could have spelled it out, or stated that once an issue was interpreted, it was no longer up for review. Even the idea of amending the Constitution indicates its plasticity. The types of firearms that we required then are no longer needed. Although it is unconstitutional for the government to ban firearms completely, it is completely to their discretion which firearms they deem necessarhy in this day. Whether it be semi automatic or simple handguns is really up to them. Finally, to address the issue of Washington DC, I think it is likewise unconsitutional to deprive citizens of Washington DC of the right to bear arms. The key word in that statement is citizens. It matters not whether DC is a "state". It is a part of the mainland United States, and the people in DC are considered US citizens, people who should be under the protections of the US Constitution. DC is not a state mainly for political reasons. Any state with DC would by conjecture gain a great deal of power and be considered the figurehead of the nation. By making the capital independent, it ensured that no state would exercise that kind of control. This does not mean that the residents of DC should be deprived of their constitutional rights.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Although it is unconstitutional for the government to ban firearms completely, it is completely to their discretion which firearms they deem necessarhy in this day.

Based on what admendment or article?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

probably because i'm from canada, I would like to understand this: why would restricting people to bear arms restrict the formation of a militia? I mean, I interpret it only like this: only people forming the army (or who have served it, whether by conscritpionor vonluntarly service) can bear weapons.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Well, a militia would most likely be under the control of the government. So, if the government is who you're trying to form the militia against, it's kinda hard to equip yourself legally with weapons.

Though if you're rebelling against the government, I'd image one of the least of your concerns should be getting arrested for having a gun without authorization. Treason might be a bit more of a problem. =\

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

why would restricting people to bear arms restrict the formation of a militia?

Because militias need guns to exist. Otherwise they're a bunch of dicks running around the woods with swords and not AR-15s.

Quote:

Although it is unconstitutional for the government to ban firearms completely, it is completely to their discretion which firearms they deem necessarhy in this day.

I have to disagree with you there. One of the important necessities of the 2nd Ammendment is equality of arms. If a citizenry is forced to arm themselves with inferior weapons, then the balance of power is shifted overwhelmingly in the favor of government militaries or any invading army. Without an effective ability to resist, the 2nd Ammendment doesn't mean much.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, a militia would most likely be under the control of the government. So, if the government is who you're trying to form the militia against, it's kinda hard to equip yourself legally with weapons.

Do you think at the time the concern is more of a states right vs federal government rather then individual rights vs government in general? Maybe there is an assumption that states/local government is much closer to the people.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I think at the time it was more of a concern that any government would become oppressive. As in, the state government could try to pass laws trying to prevent federal troops from carrying weapons on their soil, or the federal government might try to set rules not allowing a state's militia to maintain weapons.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Because militias need guns to exist. Otherwise they're a bunch of dicks running around the woods with swords and not AR-15s.

This just gave me the most awesome mental image of a bunch of LARPers getting owned by some Green Berets.

FELIPE NO

Since I live in Canada I really don't know what its like to have the right to bear arms in public. But I just can't see it been a good thing. I mean at least here if you get into a bad fight your are most lickley just going to get the crap beat out of you not shot. But I can also see how the mentality of needing fire arms has arrisen. The america's have never been a really freindly place to settle in, historicaly. At first you had the natives that were a causing problems, then foreign powers been overly oppressive, and now the threat of terrorists. The only major problem I find is that it is far to easy to just shoot some one that to figure out why they are angry/disagree with you in the first place. As for needing arms so you can form a milita against the government just remember most of the successful revolutions historicly have been completed with rebels/freedome fighters using weapons significantly less advanced than the current people in power. Most of the time its just a matter of numbers. And as for running around with swords :P I think it should go back to that wars were much more personal when you actualy got to see the bugger that was going to chop your head off.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

As for needing arms so you can form a milita against the government just remember most of the successful revolutions historicly have been completed with rebels/freedome fighters using weapons significantly less advanced than the current people in power.

That's not true at all. The French Revolution was a failure, and they had the military on their side. On the other hand, the American Revolution was fought by men with much better firearms than the british. The Brown Bess was designed to be manufactured, not as a high-performance firearm. In fact, military conventions of the time didn't demand high-performance firearms because volleys were supposed to eliminate the necessity of accuracy.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Thanks for the correction, I was thinking a bit furthure back in history myself. It is true that in the more modern times the revolutionaries have been similarly equiped as the people in power. As for the American Revolution don't forget you also had a foreign government helping.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

This just gave me the most awesome mental image of a bunch of LARPers getting owned by some Green Berets.

LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

As for the articles to back up my claims in reponse to Night Phoenix, it is merely interpretation. The Second Amendment is vague in defining whether or not the government has the authority. As I said before, the interpretations and nature of the Constition (including and amendments) is plastic, meaning that they are open to interpretation based on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has exercised this right in many situations. If this explanation is unsatisfactory, then please bear with me while I address Bradylama and I'll address the reasons I believe that government should be allowed to regulate posession of firearms. Feel free to harass me with more questions should you still disagree. To equip all the citizens with weaponry equal to that of the militias would severely diminish the effectiveness of militias in dealing with public disturbances. Imagine how hard the riots in LA that happened as a result of the 2000 NBA playoffs would be to deal with if the rioters were equipped with AK-47s. I'm not saying that people should be inequipped to deal with a tyrannical government, but if people choose to rebel against the government, then there is no reason for them to be bound by the gun restrictions in place. Once a populace decides to rise against its government, then the government loses all authority and thus is laws hold no restriction over the rebels, who have rejected the legitimacy of the government over them. This is quite an idealistic view, I admit, but one that seems most applicable in today's era. The individualistic rights of anyone regardless of what they are are not unlimited under any government. I allude to John Locke's social contract under which people must give up certain of their natural freedoms in order to obtain the security that the government can provide. It is thus the responsibility of the government to defend its populace against any invading armies. If the government becomes inept at doing so, then all able citizens immediately gain the right to bear arms, because the government has thus become inable to do the very thing it was created for and is thus dissolved. Even the natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property are limited. Those rights are immediately limited when the rights of another become infringed. For example, if I were to attempt to kill you, both of us have a right to lilfe. However, my right to life would be forefeit the moment I tried to take yours, because I was infringing upon your rights. To use a more concrete example, I would like to use the First Amendment. Many are under the myth that the First Amendment is absolute, when in fact, it is not. The First Amendment does not apply to speech that would incite a riot "fighting words". speech that would cause a clear and present danger to anyone (such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, or spouting anti-semitic statements in front of a synagogue), or any words or printings that would be considered obscene by today's standards placed by society (Although this part is difficult to enforce because there is no definate definable standard for obscenity). Thus, when a person admits that a government has authority over them, they place their trust in the government to protect them from harm (hence the formation of military forces). The people are allowed only to defy governmental regulations to the right to bear arms if they believe that the government is either tyrannical, or has lost the ability to protect them, at which point it becomes obligatory on the people to despose of the current government and institute one that better protects the interests of the people. (Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Indepence)

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Which is funny, since while the District of Columbia has had among the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, it has also had some of the highest crime rates in the country to go along with them.

For the simple fact that only the law-abiding respect gun control laws. Criminals couldn't give a flip about one since....well....they're criminals. They break laws, and exactly how is this law supposed to lessen gun violence?

And you can't say that "it reduces the supply of illegal arms". The black market is chock full of guns and other illegal crap. And it's no trouble for most criminals to get a gun that way. And if they can't, then they'll just get whatever they can find to use in commission of a crime: baseball bats, lead pipes, knives, stun guns, etc,.

Since the law-abiding can't protect themselves from criminals without being dragged into jail, it's no wonder areas with strict gun control laws end up with the highest crime rates.

I was speaking idiomatically.

DC has one of the worst crime (specifically murder) rates in the country because it has a large contingent of poor blacks that are neck deep in the drug trade.

I like to think of it as poetic justice. (for the Fed not black people)

How ya doing, buddy?

Brady's a bureaucratist?

FELIPE NO

I like the idea that the district of an entity which has narrow-mindedly pushed the unconditional waging of a war on drugs since the Reagan administration suffers the worst of its runoff.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?