Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,593 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

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

Edit... nope... it's the bomb!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
It is clear to me around page 20..

In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee
is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most
important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
holders of the rightâ€"“the people.†That term is found in the
First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has
never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,
interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendmentâ€"“The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the peopleâ€â€"indicates
that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of
distinguishing between “the people,†on the one hand, and “the
states,†on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the
people†in the Second Amendment would accord with usage
elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
:cheers: :bowdown: :righton:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,861 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,972 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,972 Posts
pro2am said:
3. Judges have (or THIS judge has) a wry sense of humor.
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:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,972 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,972 Posts
kkennett said:
Lyle Denniston, over at scotusblog, has a well-thought out post on the case's position and likely progression.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/a ... .html#more
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,593 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
ber950 said:
Boiled down it says what part of "the people" and "shall not be infringed" do you not understand
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
These have to be some of my favorites:

The dissent provides no case holding that “the people,†as used in the Tenth Amendment, are distinct from “the people†referred to elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
it has been suggested by some that only colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a “search,†the Second Amendment protects the possession of the modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol.
Once it is determinedâ€"as we have doneâ€"that handguns are “Arms†referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them.
Hmmm ... I wonder if an automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 could be considered "Arms referred to in the Second Amendment".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
I don't care for these very much (emphasis added):

For instance, it is presumably reasonable “to prohibit the carrying of weapons when under the influence of intoxicating drink, or to a church, polling place, or public assembly, or in a manner calculated to inspire terror . . . .â€
Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.†The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service.
Yeah ... gives them information ... that kind of information came in real handy when the fascists began their conquest of Europe.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top