Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
From Associated Press
March 09, 2007 1:53 PM EST

WASHINGTON - The District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns was overturned Friday by a federal appeals court, which rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

[Eric Brenneman]

Looks like someone got something right for a change!

[Al Willits]

Its about time......

Considering DC is one of the worst spots for crime, its been to long a coming.

Al

[Jim Becker]

Please do not let this get political or, um...too spirited. The thread will be pulled if it does.

Jim
SMC Moderator

[Dennis Peacock]

Understand that this is political enough already. While this is a topic of much discussion, it has an even greater tendency to stir up......well...you know.

Calm comments are all that's welcomed to this thread. Otherwise, it will be removed.

[Gary Keedwell]

I will calmly say that it is in the Constitution and they are only restoring what has been taken away. Gee, I only see 2 comments and 2 warnings. Wonder what has been deleted.

Gary K.

[Dennis Peacock]

I will calmly say that it is in the Constitution and they are only restoring what has been taken away. Gee, I only see 2 comments and 2 warnings. Wonder what has been deleted.

Gary K.

Nothing deleted....just watched closely.

[Mike Weaver]

Cliff,
Thanks for the information!

I missed that [great] tidbit yesterday since I was preoccupied with a Church/Boy/Cub Scout Spaghetti dinner.

-Mike

[Jim Dunn]

That they got it right or not it's still somewhat political, and scarey.

[Joe Mioux]

Guns aren't political, people are political.

[Keith Outten]

A legal interpretation of the Second Amendment is probably more of a Judicial issue than Political. A final interpretation of our right to bear arms is long overdue, I think it is clear to most of the citizens of the USA but not necessarilly the members of the Judicial System.

Considering the time frame when the second amendment was written it is clear to me that civilian soldiers were primarrily responsible for establishing our independence from King of England. Without civilians owning firearms how could this have been successful? Another point is that our ability to own firearms is the only protection we have from our own Government and our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.

.

[David Wilson]

Although it is warming up, it is still too cold in Minnesota for bare arms.

[Bill Grumbine]

A legal interpretation of the Second Amendment is probably more of a Judicial issue than Political. A final interpretation of our right to bear arms is long overdue, I think it is clear to most of the citizens of the USA but not necessarilly the members of the Judicial System.

Considering the time frame when the second amendment was written it is clear to me that civilian soldiers were primarrily responsible for establishing our independence from King of England. Without civilians owning firearms how could this have been successful? Another point is that our ability to own firearms is the only protection we have from our own Government and our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.

.

Quoted for Truth.

Amen Keith! Too often the debate is framed in terms of hunting or shooting sports, but when we go back to why these guys were writing this in the first place, it all comes clear - well, to a lot of people anyway.

On another forum where I participate, a similar thread ran to over five pages in less than a couple of hours. Of course, it is more focused on the subject matter at hand.

Bill

[Jack Hogoboom]

Wish I could agree with you guys, but I'm afraid my conscience won't let me. If you look at history, one of the things the British tried to do during their occupation of America was to strip firearms from the population, precisely for the purpose of disarming the "civilian militia." With all due respect, if you read the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings of the time, it isn't at all clear that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to do anything other than to allow for the formation and arming of a local militia.

I don't begrudge someone the right to own a gun if they have a rational reason for having it and have demonstrated their competence with it. Personally, I wouldn't want a gun anywhere in my house, nor would I let one of my children play in a house if I knew there was a gun there. It simply isn't worth the risk.

It can't possibly be denied that America has the highest murder rate in the civilized world. It is no coincidence that our society makes guns more readily available than almost any other society on the planet. Just to the North of us, Canada has a murder rate that is a fraction of ours. In many other places, the police don't even carry firearms.

As a parent of four small kids, I am all for reasonable restrictions on the availability of firearms. Those who want them and can demonstrate responsibility in using them should be free to have them. However, it is very difficult for me to see why someone should be allowed to own a handgun without restriction. It is easier to get a gun in this country than a drivers' license. Yet no one doubts the wisdom of having people prove their basic competence before giving them the right to drive a car....

The NRA and other gun proponents like to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. That is exactly the point. If you limit the right of someone to own an unlicensed handgun, you make it that much harder for someone to kill someone else in a fit of anger or passion. If it is harder to do or requires something other than the pulling of a trigger, maybe it wouldn't hapen as much.

So for those of you cheering this decision, please continue to be safe with your firearms. For me, this is yet another sad example of how special interests triumph over common sense. Your joy will be more than offset by the anguish and grief of a parent in D.C. whose kid gets killed next week in a drive-by shooting.

[John Shuk]

I don't begrudge someone the right to own a gun if they have a rational reason for having it



Who decides what is rational?