Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban

A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...ZiDGM&refer=us

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/09/D8NOQQ480.html

[ASWnut101]

HUUUUURRAYYYY!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

HUUUUURRAYYYY!!!!!!!

I knew you'd like this.

BTW SCOTUS is under no obligation to hear any appeal to the lower court ruling.

As Skynard would say, 'Give Me Back My bullets'

[elite_hunter_sh3]

excellent...... now american population will kill each other faster :rotfl::rotfl:

no seriously though,, i lov the rules for shooting ranges, i can fire enything i want under 18 with parental supervision. but i dont like the public gun laws and how easy it is to get a gun..

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

excellent...... now american population will kill each other faster :rotfl::rotfl:

no seriously though,, i lov the rules for shooting ranges, i can fire enything i want under 18 with parental supervision. but i dont like the public gun laws and how easy it is to get a gun..

An armed society is a polite society. Now the criminals won't be the only people with guns, and the criminal element, will think twice before harming another human being. Sh1t, man, that lady might have a gun!

[Bort]

Wow, I'm somewhat surprised anyone would be that excited about a court ruling only affecting a place you don't even live in. The people of DC decided they didn't want guns in their city, and it was overturned by the HEAVILY conservative DC court of appeals.

This neatly brings me on to the issue of whether or not the District should be given at least quasi-state status, if nothing else for fairness sake. The US congress has far reaching powers into their governance, despite the fact that they do not have any voting representatives in either the house or the senate. I say they should be given 2 senators and a fair apportionment of congressmen, and that the Mayor of DC should have powers approximating a governor. What does everyone else think?

BTW, if you have never been to DC, they are very aware of their unusual status. Here's what their license plates look like:

Originally Posted by Bort

Wow, I'm somewhat surprised anyone would be that excited about a court ruling only affecting a place you don't even live in. The people of DC decided they didn't want guns in their city, and it was overturned by the HEAVILY conservative DC court of appeals.

This neatly brings me on to the issue of whether or not the District should be given at least quasi-state status, if nothing else for fairness sake. The US congress has far reaching powers into their governance, despite the fact that they do not have any voting representatives in either the house or the senate. I say they should be given 2 senators and a fair apportionment of congressmen, and that the Mayor of DC should have powers approximating a governor. What does everyone else think?

BTW, if you have never been to DC, they are very aware of their unusual status. Here's what their license plates look like:

The decision was rendered by a US Apeals court so it affects the entire nation (see the supremacy clause of the US Constitution) and gives all US citizens the ability to defend themselves.

As far as giving DC statehood, the District of Columbia, founded on July 16, 1790, is a federal district as specified by the United States Constitution. An amendment is required to change that status.

[Bort]

I am not in argument that DC was made a federal district in the constitution, my question is whether or not the people that live within the district should be given powers equivalent to a state, although whether or not DC should become a state is a different question.

As far as the court ruling goes, this only effects the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is DC only. Although the DC appeals court does have some powers over government not available to other Circuits, they do not have the power to overturn laws outside the District.

So sorry if that ruined your party, but this has zero effect on the laws of the 50 states.

Originally Posted by Bort

I am not in argument that DC was made a federal district in the constitution, my question is whether or not the people that live within the district should be given powers equivalent to a state, although whether or not DC should become a state is a different question.

As far as the court ruling goes, this only effects the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is DC only. Although the DC appeals court does have some powers over government not available to other Circuits, they do not have the power to overturn laws outside the District.

So sorry if that ruined your party, but this has zero effect on the laws of the 50 states.

I took this from your post.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appeals from the D.C. Circuit, as with all the U.S. Courts of Appeals, are heard on a discretionary basis by the Supreme Court. It should not be confused with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

I have no particular position as to whether or not DC should be given statehood. An amendment to the Constitution is all that is necessary.

[Tchocky]

I thought the point of DC was to keep the seat of government geographically apolitical, as it were?

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I thought the point of DC was to keep the seat of government geographically apolitical, as it were?

That didn't work.

[Bort]

Federal courts of appeal make rulings that are only binding within their jurisdiction, for instance, remember that stupid pledge of allegiance thing that the 9th circuit said was unconstitutional? That ruling only applied within the 9th's jurisdiction. Same thing here. Unless the case goes before the Supreme Court and the ruling is upheld, it means nothing outside of the District.

I thought the point of DC was to keep the seat of government geographically apolitical, as it were?

That was the idea, and it was a good one and it worked for quite a while, until DC became a major city and not just some backwater where congress met and the President lived. As of the last census, there were 582,049 people living in the District, which is a pretty big number to disenfranchise.

[stabiz]

Originally Posted by waste gate

An armed society is a polite society. Now the criminals won't be the only people with guns, and the criminal element, will think twice before harming another human being. Sh1t, man, that lady might have a gun!

That is some warped logic right there.

Lets continue your thinking a bit. Lets say every human on the planet had a gun. Nobody would fire at each other then? lol

One more time. The judgements of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are enforcable, based on the supremecy clause of the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf

[Bort]

Agreed, they are enforceable thanks to the supremacy clause WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA! Until the Supreme Court rules (if they ever do) it means nothing outside of the jurisdiction of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is, as the name may suggest, the District of Columbia. Thats it. Nothing else.