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.
This is more than just a bit in opposition to the 9th Circuit's opinions. Perhaps it sets the stage for a Supreme Court decision?
[District of Columbia Mayor Adrian] Fenty said the city government will exercise petition for a rehearing, which will be an "en banc" review to take place before all the court's judges instead of the three-judge panel that considered the case. Depending on the court's decision, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
So, an appeal might be filed with the Supreme Court that is directly on point. The process of getting it there will take some time, which makes the 2008 election mighty interesting, right?
Oh, what I'd give to eavesdrop on Saint Hilary's conversations for a few weeks ...
And GeekWithA.45's comment is priceless, if a bit odd:
Sweet smoking Jesus, is this the open door we've been praying for?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/03/voices.html (5 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Ah, but there's breaking news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html
It was the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. You can find the entire decision at:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
Here is the money quote:
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.
This is more than just a bit in opposition to the 9th Circuit's opinions. Perhaps it sets the stage for a Supreme Court decision?
I've seen that. I started reading the decision at lunch, but haven't had a chance to finish it yet.
Expect a long piece this weekend on the topic.
The courts will not save us, but this didn't hurt!
Question now is, will this go to the Supreme Court, or will they duck the question once again?
The updated Fox News story states:
[District of Columbia Mayor Adrian] Fenty said the city government will exercise petition for a rehearing, which will be an "en banc" review to take place before all the court's judges instead of the three-judge panel that considered the case. Depending on the court's decision, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
So, an appeal might be filed with the Supreme Court that is directly on point. The process of getting it there will take some time, which makes the 2008 election mighty interesting, right?
Oh, what I'd give to eavesdrop on Saint Hilary's conversations for a few weeks ...
And GeekWithA.45's comment is priceless, if a bit odd:
Sweet smoking Jesus, is this the open door we've been praying for?
I'll have some commentary on that.
Short answer: Maybe.
Long answer: Maybe not.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>