Its out the parker decison

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by ber950, Mar 9, 2007.

  1. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,559
    1
    38
    http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

    I am still reading it.

    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.
     
  2. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    Holy crap! Individual right! Too good to be true! I'm sure there is something horrible in there.

    Edit... nope... it's the bomb!
     

  3. Watch_Their_Hands

    Watch_Their_Hands New Member

    775
    0
    0
    I have read it, and am reading it again now. =D>
     
  4. S&W 40

    S&W 40 Active Member

    2,202
    0
    36
    It is clear to me around page 20..

    :cheers: :bowdown: :righton:
     
  5. pro2am

    pro2am New Member

    1,861
    0
    0
    I have a few observations as a novice to reading court decisions/opinions

    1. This is easier to read than I expected.
    2. Who knew that court decisions are such a great history lesson?
    3. Judges have (or THIS judge has) a wry sense of humor.

    It sounds like good news. I wonder if this will go to SCOTUS.
     
  6. rajl

    rajl New Member

    391
    0
    0
    Is it just me, or do they quote the Emerson case A LOT?
     
  7. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    The reference to, and clarification of, Miller!
     
  8. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    I have now read the whole thing. What a wonderful, refreshing opinion. I only pray now that the Sup Ct. takes this up, in order to impose this thoughtful interpretation, together with the 5th Circuit, on the nation.
     
  9. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    252
    83
    Interesting that they mention hunting. A lot of people attacked me over at the High Road for mentioning my view on hunting and the Second Amendment.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    252
    83
    Silberman does. During oral arguments, he is the one who asked the DC attorney about his standing argument, (paraphrasing here) "Yeah, really, what if DC said it would not issue handgun licenses to blacks? Would black DC residents have standing?"

    When the DC lawyer hesitated for a long time but finally answered "still no standing," Silberman switched to Koreans (the national origin of the DC attorney).

    :lol:
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    252
    83
    A reminder that Georgia's Attorney General signed on to an amici brief supporting the individual rights interpretation and going even further, asserting that the Second Amendment protected the right of nonresidents of DC, properly licensed, to carry firearms in the nation's capital without fear of arrest and prosecution (which the brief termed unconstitutional arrest and proscecution).

    Carry is not really at issue in Parker, but it took guts to sign on to a brief like that. Only 13 states, including Georgia, signed on.
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    252
    83
    Well, I read this link, but I have not yet studied the opinion. Is it true that the DC Court of Appeals declared the safe storage law (trigger lock) unconstitutional as violating the Second Amendment, as the link asserts toward the end?
     
  14. rajl

    rajl New Member

    391
    0
    0
    Tis true Malum. The reasoning they gave was that because the right to keep and bear arms supports the right to self-defense, forcing a person to keep a firearm in a non-functional state essentially guts the intent and purpose of the second amendment.

    In plain English, it's pointless to protect the right to keep and bear arms if all weapons are non-functional.
     
  15. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
  16. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,559
    1
    38
    It is a well written opinion. Boiled down it says what part of "the people" and "shall not be infringed" do you not understand :?:

    I also love the logic that the term free state means the country as a whole.

    Its long but very easy to read and understand. The way judcial rulings should be.

    The dissent sounds just like Coweta County in the preemption case.

    No its not No its not. Where are you people getting this the internet :?: :D
     
  17. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Yes. And what part of "keep and bear" is unclear? Seriously, they do basically say that no rational reading of the 2nd in context of the bill of rights and the practices at the time could really be construed not to include an individual right.

    The judges clearly take time to point out that there are many other questions at hand, such as:

    Does the 14th apply the 2nd to the states? Nice footnote on this.

    Carry outside the home?

    Is registration really OK?

    And yes, Malum, they strike the carry within the home, safe storage, and pistol prohibitions.

    As Clarence Thomas has mentioned, lets hope the Supremes give this one a go. They have turned down review of the 5th Circuit and the 9th Circuit in opinions which are flatly opposed to one another. There is now (and has been) a significant and substantitive split between the circuits which makes this case ripe for review. The other case may have had procedural problems that this one appears not to have. This case also affords them the opportunity to settle the individual vs collective rights position without having to apply the 14th as well. While I wish that would happen, that will likely have to wait for another case that is framed correctly and procedurally correct from an anti-state with no state constitutional prohibition.
     
  18. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    These have to be some of my favorites:

    Hmmm ... I wonder if an automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 could be considered "Arms referred to in the Second Amendment".
     
  19. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    I don't care for these very much (emphasis added):

    Yeah ... gives them information ... that kind of information came in real handy when the fascists began their conquest of Europe.
     
  20. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0