S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,473
Posts545,164
Members14,409
|
Most Online1,335 Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155 |
This is a new, landmark decision affirming our individual right to keep and bear arms! Please take the time (and have the patience) to read and understand the court's decision at http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdfThe Federal Appeals Court decision lays out all the arguments, pro and con, examines the history of the Second Amendment and legal precedent, denies the 'collective right' (organized militia only) on which the gun banners depend, and affirms the RKBA as an individual right for hunting and self-defense as well as militia purposes! This is an elegant defense of the RKBA. Read it. Remember it. Pass it on.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 740
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 740 |
Keep outa the wire...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,087 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,087 Likes: 1 |
For the meat of the opinion cut to page 46. I wanted to save the pdf to my computer but they don't allow it as an option. I guess I'll have to print all 75 pages.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 377 |
Let us all be greatful and give thanks that contrary to most decisions there are some sane, "real" people in the DC area. Best, DR. Bill
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155 |
From the decision: 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).That's about as good as we could hope for!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Good decision. Will it go to the Supreme Court or will it stand? This would surely force a SC decision on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,983
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,983 |
Sounds good, so far. Heard about it on Rush's show, this AM.
> Jim Legg <
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
High risk night for stroke or heart attack among the national news analyassts. Doubt they can just ignore it!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47 |
Yes and no. The ninth circuit and the DC circuit courts of appeal now have opposed viewpoints. This obviously must be settled in the supreme court... someday. Now? Do we have the requsite judges in our pocket? The stakes are VERY high...
It appears that finally a supreme court hearing is unavoidable. They have historically avoided the issue. They seem to understand that a ruling against the individual freedoms guaranteed by the 2nd amendment would result in civil unrest and perhaps an armed uprising - this is why they have not accepted a case for so long. The fray now seems unavoidable.
The good thing is that the supreme court now has a well researched decision in our favor by the DC appeals court.
Good sense could well prevail... but remember they overturn themselves seldom, and 'Miller' is still the law of the land. Miller says, if you read the text of today's decision, that you have no intrinsic right to any weapons without militia applications. That the item in question in 'Miller' was one banned under NFA is a moot point.
This could still go either way. Remember, these are the self-same idiots who ruled after strict reading of The Constitution, that the government does have a compelling reason to racially discriminate (UM law admissions) and the same folks who ruled against the very concept of private property by extending the power of eminent domain to non-governmental bodies.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 482
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 482 |
I would imagine that due to the overreaching language of the 2nd amendment ("shall not be infringed"), that if this stood it could potentially be the death knell for every bit of legislation that has chipped away at it for the last 200 years. If so I'd be very surprised if it didn't wind up in front of the supreme court before too long.
|
|
|
|
|