Affirming the right of the people to keep and bear arms, especially in self-defense, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled Friday that key parts of the District’s handgun ban were unconstitutional.
Needless to say, opponents of self-defense were livid.
In the ruling, (PDF) the court said in its 2-1 decision that while the District could require firearms to be registered, it could not ban them outright or require them to be disassembled while in a private home, saying the ban violated the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
The case could wind up before the Supreme Court, which has not ruled on Second Amendment issues since 1939, and even that ruling was widely misunderstood. The District of Columbia is expected to appeal the decision.
The residents filed their lawsuit against the District in early 2003, months after then-Attorney Genral John D. Ashcroft declared that gun bans violate the Second Amendment. They were aided by the Cato Institute, a non-profit group that advocates personal liberties. . . .
Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, issued a statement saying, “This is a tremendous victory for the civil rights of all Americans. The case has implications far beyond the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. The court today affirmed that the Bill of Rights means what it says.”
Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement: “The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit inParker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.” — Washington Post
The Brady Center to Disarm Victims and Promote Gun Violence disregards some crucial facts, foremost among them is that the “democratically-expressed will of the people” doesn’t trump the Constitution unless the people choose to amend it, and that their whole crusade is designed to turn the streets of our cities into killing fields, by taking guns away from honest people, so that only criminals will have them. This sort of self-defeating activity is common to people, such as those at the Brady Center, who act out of raw emotion, without thinking about the consequences of their actions.
Last year, Congress considered a bill which would have allowed D.C. residents to own firearms for self-defense, but the bill died in committee. Perhaps this year, the Supreme Court will recognize the rights of the people where Congress has failed to do so.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
John Simmons
Mar 09, 2007
This country is a REPUBLIC! I am so tired of hearing ignorant people refer to “democratic” ANYTHING. It was created a republic to protect ALL from the changing whims of the majority. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights. If Paul Helmke were voted by a majority to be guilty of some crime, do you think he would yield to the majority, or fall back on the constitution??
Bob Roberts
Mar 09, 2007
The “democratically-expressed will of the people” was to make blacks drink out of separate water fountains, sit on the back of the bus, and go to substandard schools. The “democratically-expressed will of the people” elected Hitler to power for god’s sake.
Thank god for the court ruling that an INDIVIDUAL has a right (EXPRESSED in the Constitution) that can’t be taken away by the ‘democratically-expressed will of the people”.
bill smith
Mar 09, 2007
The mayor is crying because these bans helped crime in his city, did he know he has the highest crime city in the nation? Let people protect themself and only the deaths of criminals will increase all other crimes will decrease.
But with the mayors in DC, I guess they are the criminals also!!
Mar 09, 2007
FreedomSight » Blog Archive » 2A Victory in Parker vs. DC
Nick Kasoff - The Th
Mar 10, 2007
Is anyone surprised by this?
Anonymous
Mar 11, 2007
Now, we must Hope that the Supreme Court sees the truth in this 2nd Amendment right to the individual, and YES there are Several other historical Statements that were made by the founders that do indeed PROVE it was INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS they were speaking of. A simple search into History will prove this to those that doubt it. The people will KNOW who the Supreme Courts works for and serves very shortly. Many government agencies, and court systems have lost the TRUST of the people, and this is their OPPURTUNITY to begin to gain some of that trust back. We will see if their personal interests are more important to them, than the law abiding citizens as a whole. We should look to history on what happened in countries with gun bans, you can research that online also. Only the law abiding citizens gave them up, and then the criminals KNEW nobody would have guns to protect themselves, and Crime went rampant !!!!!! I agree with the statement, that more criminals will be dying now, instead of innocent victims. This is how it should be. Death is ugly situation, but when people choose to violate the rights of law abiding citizens, do they deserve to live in society ??
Anonymous
Mar 11, 2007
Will anyone ever stand-up for the right of so called mentally ill individuals to purchase firearms???
UncleJerry
Mar 11, 2007
Pow!
To the moon Alice!
Mooninites
Mar 11, 2007
We are not barking only, we are biting.
30 percent of your base belong to us.
this is not jolly for you.
Gölök (B.J.) Buday
Mar 12, 2007
Thank heavens!
It’s about time, impeachment of BUsh Jr/Clinton/Bush Sr. and prosecution for not upholding the constitution as they were legally mandated to plus some congressmen for subverting it, if they can stop making up official days and silly unconstitutional laws to stay in session to avoid prosecution as long as possible and aid in their Bar Association brotherhood as they violate the seperation of powers (there fore being treasonist and not protected in session if someone would second that suspicion of treason).
Best
Mar 14, 2007
2nd Amendment Blogburst at Traction Control
The Chump
Mar 15, 2007
I wrote an Op-Ed on this, discussing the text of the 2nd Amendment, and using an analysis by Professor Roy Copperud, Journalism Professor from USC, and probably the best qualified person in the known world to analyze and English-language sentence. See it on Chimpschumpspolitics — google it up!
It is high time the liberal left realized the importance of the Constitution, not just their misinterpretations of it!
susan 28
Mar 20, 2007
i’ll stand up for the mentally ill’s rights, anonymous. as long as they have a proven track record of not hurting anyone, i don’t see a past hospital stay as a mitigating factor. their imaginary friends are no threat to me and as far as depression goes, well hey, with the world being as it is, i’d say happiness is more evidence of a break with reality than a few tears now and then. same for responsible drug users.
there’s also the chilling effect that the stripping of rights has on treatment-seeking – especially for addictions – wherein a sick person is rewarded for not getting help, while an ill person who stepped up to the plate and took steps to manage their condition is punished, deterring others from doing the right thing for the sake of keeping up appearances.
i can’t say i’m nuts about the current SCOTUS, but if we can get a pro-2A ruling out of ‘em they can at least partially atone for the travesty of the Raich ruling..
matthew tauriainen
Mar 24, 2007
Becoming a “democracy” is unconstitutional. If you don’t believe me it’s here: U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. That is what makes me mad about flaming liberals who think that we are AND preach about being a “democracy.”
forstand
Mar 27, 2007
I have lived most of my life in California and grew up doing a lot of hunting. I recently moved back after an absence of 14 years. Frequently we wore a pistol on our hip with snake shot as California has many rattlesnakes (mmm, delicious). Now in some counties I cannot even open carry a handgun while hunting.
I just was told by a gun dealer that I MUST register my handgun(s) (separately with a $19 fee for each one) with the California Department of Justice (facts verified online using scroogle) even though I originally purchased them in California while a resident! Fortunately I have retained my original sales receipts. I am considered an ‘Importer.’
I am beginning to regret my decision to return to California. I will purchase lifetime hunting and fishing licenses, then move to Nevada as it is more friendly towards gun ownership and manufacturing business opportunities–another topic entirely.