| Skybird |
04-17-07 02:17 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by August's link
(...) D.C. government officials offered no immediate word about possible appeals, but it appears likely that the city, under new Mayor Adrian Fenty, will at least seek an en banc review of the ruling. "The fact that, even on this panel, there was one dissent is a sign that the decision is open to question," says David Gossett, a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in the District, which wrote a brief for the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Center in support of the D.C. ordinance. (...)
Even if the high court rules in favor of an individual right, it would not spell the end of all gun regulation. As even Silberman points out, the high court has allowed reasonable restriction of other individual rights such as freedom of speech. But such a decision could trigger litigation over a range of laws, including those that make criminal penalties more serious if they involve possession of firearms. (...)
The Miller court in 1939 and many scholars since have viewed it as an articulation of the right of state militias -- not individuals -- to bear arms. Over the years, the high court, apparently glad to avoid the hot-potato issue, has consistently declined to take up Second Amendment challenges to laws restricting gun use and possession. (...)
Henderson's dissent dismisses the majority decision as "superfluity" because, in her view, the Second Amendment applies only to states -- not to the District of Columbia.
|
Havinf red the article three times, I found it a bit difficult to see it as such a definite case.
The article August linked to, is from the imminent past: five weeks ago, early March 2007. But Miller-US is from 1939 - almost seventy years ago.
@Subman,
nice zig-zagging of yours. Will there come anything substantial from you? The guy gave solid references to legal aspects of the issue, and additionally referred to the questionable quality of several crime statistics as well. Can you, will you counter it, or zig-zag even more? I am no expert on these things, so if you can proove that it is all wrong what he says, me and probabaly others as well would be interested to learn about where the guy is misinformed. If you have substantial legal arguments, now is the time to bring them and give up loudness instead. |
