Article

2007-03-09 Home Front: Politix

DC Circuit Upholds Individual 2nd Ammendment Rights

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2007-03-09 10:38|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Like all things liberal, citizens get rights IF and ONLY IF it helps their agenda. That is after all, a citizen's only purpose to the left, to support their agenda via taxes, serfdom and to gape in awe at their 'betters' as the graciously let the serfs have a crumb or two.

It's amazing how many liberal ideas seem dedicated to not only mankind's detriment, but to actual extinction. One has to wonder if there is perhaps a kind of self destruct gene buried in our DNA or if this is completely learned behavior.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2007-03-09 11:09|| 2007-03-09 11:09|| Front Page Top

#2 "Unlike the States, the District hadand hasno need to protect itself from the federal government because it is a federal entity created as the seat of that government.

A possession of the government, just like the people that live there?

Posted by BrerRabbit 2007-03-09 11:56|| 2007-03-09 11:56|| Front Page Top

#3 Gun law can get terribly confusing in a hurry.

For 30 years (Nixon administration), the Justice Department argued that the 2nd Amendment applied to only government ordered militias; but ironically, this meant that individuals had *more* gun rights, *because* they do not need to be "ordered", that is, regulated, by the government.

However, in 2001 (Bush 2), this was reversed, so that now it is policy that the 2nd Amendment *does* apply to an individual's right to bear arms. And it is being argued that in turn *this* means that individuals have *more* rights to bear arms.

On top of that, for years, the federal government has ignored blatantly unconstitutional actions on the part of (blue) States, as far as gun control.

For their part, those States have been careful to not let such things be appealed too high up, where they had a strong chance of being overturned.

For example is NYC's gun laws, regularly used to intercept and arrest people who are legally transporting guns in interstate commerce, such as at the airport. Entirely illegal, and should be stopped.

However, if this decision is appealed to the SCOTUS, and they affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms, then many of these blue State laws go right out the window. Anyone arrested can go right to a federal judge to ask that their arrest be voided.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-03-09 13:01|| 2007-03-09 13:01|| Front Page Top

#4 "Unlike the States, the District hadand hasno need to protect itself from the federal government because it is a federal entity created as the seat of that government"

This is VERRRRRRYYY interesting. This is the first time I'm aware of that the REASON for having guns was for protection from the Federal government.

To me this dissent opens up a bigger Pandora's box for the gun-grabbers than the opinion.

Doesn't this dissent automatically mean that if you don't live in DC you SHOULD have arms to protect you, not from criminals, but from the US Gov't.?

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2007-03-09 14:53|| 2007-03-09 14:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Exactly, Alan C. You win the Supie Doll! That is exactly the reason given by Thomas Jefferson and others for guarenteeing the Citizens' "Right to Keep AND BEAR Arms". Jefferson said, "The Second Ammendment should never be construed as to give Congress the power to deprive law-abiding citizens of their arms".

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-03-09 15:02|| 2007-03-09 15:02|| Front Page Top

#6 Damn! I ment the cupie Doll. PIMF.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-03-09 15:05|| 2007-03-09 15:05|| Front Page Top

#7 Thank you, Alan, Deacon. You guys get it. Even most of my Second Amendment friends don't. It's not about target shooting, or hunting, or even self-defense (though those are nice fringe benefits): THE reason for the Second Amendment is to enable the people to overthrow the central government should it become tyrannical. Sadly, though the government has become tyrannical, the people as a whole don't care. Maybe someday they will.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-03-09 15:12|| 2007-03-09 15:12|| Front Page Top

#8 As this country has gotten older, more populated, and more prosperous I find most people are willing to trust their well-being, safety, and wellfare to the Federal Government. People are no longer self-sufficient and have no other means in times of crisis other than to turn to the Government.The Government, i.e. the Politicians, have taken advantage of this dependency to erode the freedoms we enjoyed as little as 30 years ago. I believe this happened as a result of moving from a majority agrarian society to more industrial, big city centered society. I'm not advocating an agrarian vs industrial society but something was lost in the transition.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-03-09 15:25|| 2007-03-09 15:25|| Front Page Top

#9 Exactly Deacon...can you say Katrina Refugees? Stop waiting for the Feds to bail you out...

Posted by Warthog 2007-03-09 19:23|| 2007-03-09 19:23|| Front Page Top

#10 It's the difference between being a citizen of the republic and being a prole. Simple as that.

Posted by mac 2007-03-09 19:42|| 2007-03-09 19:42|| Front Page Top

23:56 Barbara Skolaut
23:52 WTF
23:43 WTF
23:35 WTF
23:33 GORT
23:32 WTF
23:31 Grunter
23:27 Grunter
23:25 exJAG
23:16 Shipman
23:10 Shipman
22:56 Shipman
22:53 Shipman
22:51 SCpatriot
22:51 ed
22:46 SCpatriot
22:43 Skidmark
22:41 ed
22:40 SCpatriot
22:38 ed
22:31 SCpatriot
22:28 Grunter
22:27 ed
22:26 abu do you love