March 09, 2007

The Nanny State Takes a Hit

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
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."
The court also rejected the specious argument, that could only arise in the mind of a lawyer, that DC residents aren't covered by the Second Amendment because they don't live in a state.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:11 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Poor libs...now it will be honest people who can have them unlike the thousands of criminals.

Posted by: Randman at March 09, 2007 02:49 PM (Sal3J)

2 As I recall, Ann Coulter wrote a firsthand account of how an unarmed man tried to mug her in broad daylight because he knew he wasn't in any danger. Another passerby clearly, a decent fellow, came to her aid. Looks like now the muggers may have an extra thing to worry about.                USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 09, 2007 03:29 PM (2OHpj)

3 That's fantastic!! Now, they need to push for a "shall issue" concealed carry law and adopt the "stand your ground" clauses other states throughout the country have adopted.

Posted by: Billy at March 09, 2007 03:32 PM (1SzWp)

4 Simpoly because the District of C olumbia has a much higher muslim population than any state should not be a reason to deny them gun ownership

Posted by: JOHN RYAN at March 09, 2007 04:02 PM (TcoRJ)

5 John,
 
I'm not sure your statement is entirely accurate. I would think 'most states' could be substituted for 'any state.' I have to believe Michigan with the muslim population in Dearborn alone would be higher.
 
In any event, the decision was based on the Constitution of the United States, not the makeup of any religious or ethnic group within a geographical area. It will be interesting to see if the dominoes in Puerto Rico and The US Virgin Islands will fall. I'm not sure what the laws regarding handguns in Guam are.

Posted by: Billy at March 09, 2007 04:21 PM (1SzWp)

6 John Ryan is just being retarded. D.C. has a higher concentration of muslim crack babies than any other state, you know.

Posted by: wooga at March 09, 2007 04:45 PM (t9sT5)

7 "Simpoly because the District of C olumbia has a much higher muslim population than any state should not be a reason to deny them gun ownership"........as DC has one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of firearms crimes, this despite their draconian firearms laws, I don't see how the islamofascists, or the criminal elemnt for that matter,  have been prevented from arming themselves up to this point. On that point alone your statement is pointless and inane, not unlike other constitution revisionists and freedom haters. Next idiocrat, please.

Posted by: Edward Lunny at March 09, 2007 05:00 PM (QkaPP)

8 Problem:  If what the the Second Amendment enshrines is as much an inalienable right as the rights in other Amendments, like free speech and press, then you cannot forbid people from owning guns merely
for being ex-convicts.  After all, if a man who just finished serving a 20-year sentence for child rape has a right to speak his mind about politics without government intervention, then why wouldn't he also have a right to get himself a .50 Desert Eagle, if his right to free speech is equal to his right to bear arms?

Posted by: Northern Cross at March 09, 2007 06:05 PM (Jwdal)

9 I hope CHICAGO is next!!

Posted by: mrclark at March 09, 2007 06:29 PM (QSqIX)

10 Those aren't inalienable rights - anymore than the right to vote. All of the rights in the Constitution can be taken away from you, provided the government follows the right procedures (i.e., noise ordinances restrict my free speech, but are still constitutional).

Posted by: wooga at March 09, 2007 06:31 PM (t9sT5)

11 " Problem:  If what the the Second Amendment enshrines is as much an inalienable right as the rights in other Amendments, like free speech and press, then you cannot forbid people from owning guns merely for being ex-convicts "........The 2nd amendment is as important and as inalienable as the others, or, it wouldn't be a part of the Bill of Rights. In some states those convicted of crimes, particularly felonies, lose certain of their rights as a consequence of their conviction, including the right to vote and the right to keep/bear arms. The incarceration is only a portion of the criminal sentence. The term "ex-convict" is something of a misnomer, in that once convicted, short of a pardon or vacated sentence, one will always be a convict, the sentence might be fulfilled, but, the conviction is not expunged. In as much as one may fulfill ones incarceration requirements, other restrictions may continue after release. One can be forbidden to associate with particular individuals and/or organisations after the serving of a sentence. Other restrictions may be applied as a condition of release ,or may be a part of the punishment beyond the period of incarceration.

Posted by: Edward Lunny at March 09, 2007 07:35 PM (QkaPP)

12 This ruling has a much greater signifigance to it then all the petty smokescreen bullshit being put up here. All you "what if's" can go fuck yourselves and you damn sure aught to pay attention to what I'm going to say because this cuts to the bone.. For a many # of years, people have forgotten that the 2nd is the keystone of freedom. It ensures the ability of the people to throw off a corrupt government and start over. It has been most interesting to watch who has had the biggest problem with that. ANYONE who does not fully support that RIGHT, not privledge, is ANTI AMERICAN. Let me tell you straight up.... the goverment being allowed to govern us is a priveledge FOR THEM TO DO SO. Not the other way around. Don't let these dipshit actors piss on your back and tell you that it's raining.

Posted by: wb at March 09, 2007 08:12 PM (kkUy5)

13 John Lyin: I piss on yyou.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 09, 2007 09:18 PM (SKtGv)

14 Edward Lunny:

Admittedly, criminal law isn't my thing, and you're probably much more well-informed about those issues than I am.  So I'll concede your points about that.  But if you're right about the 2nd enshrining an individual right every bit as important as the other rights in the Bill of Rights, then at the very least it means every law-abiding citizen gets to own a gun.  And if that's the case, then every nutcase Islamist citizen who hasn't been convicted of anything gets to arm himself to the teeth, and the government would be powerless to stop it.  Why shouldn't we be worried about that?

Posted by: NorthernCross at March 09, 2007 11:28 PM (7vz05)

15 mmmm nice warm rain...... wake the fuck up.

Posted by: wb at March 09, 2007 11:30 PM (kkUy5)

16 "Why shouldn't we be worried about that?"  Because now more honest people can do the same. Before only the crooks nd the cheaters could do it in places like DC. Now the balance of power is back with the people, not just the hoodlums.  It is the people who ultimately are resposable in the USA. No one else. As it should be.
 
                          USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 10, 2007 02:07 AM (2OHpj)

17 " Admittedly, criminal law isn't my thing, and you're probably much more well-informed about those issues than I am "......It isn't mine either, I'm aware of just enough to get me in trouble. In reference to your question though, do you advocate restricting the freedom of speech, religion and assembly for the islamofascists in this country as well, since the 1st amendment is an individual right ? Admittedly the islamic extremists bear watching ,but, punishing all of us because of the potential law breaking by a segment of the population isn't crime control or security...it's tyranny.

Posted by: Edward Lunny at March 10, 2007 07:51 AM (QkaPP)

18 Naw! Just run the muslims back to their own lands. OUTLAW ISLAM.

Posted by: curdogr at March 10, 2007 10:27 AM (SKtGv)

19

The liberals will be using this they will call a big news confrence and make all sorts of rediclous predictions.RIVERS OF BLOOD WITH FLOW DOWN PENNSYLVANIA AVE,PILES OF COURPES LYING EVERYWHERE,NATION CAPITAL WILL LOOK LIKE STREETS OF BAGHDAD,MINOR AGRUMENTS WILL END IN BLOODSHED AND CARNAGE. Yeah just like the rediclous predictions made by the liberals when KENNESHAW GEORGIA got a GUN IN EVERY HOME LAW or when KING WILLIAMS rediclous gun ban ended in 2004 all the redculous predictions and when a judge struck down a gun ban in CINNCNATII there were the usial chicken littles making rediclous predictions THE VULTURES FROM THE MEDIA WENT TO GEORGIA AND CINNCINATTII AND STARVED TO DEATH


Posted by: sandpiper at March 10, 2007 11:56 PM (jAP6C)

20 Regarding militias:

Title 10 Section 311 of the US Code:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied

males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section

313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a

declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the

National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard

and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the

Naval Militia.



So, those of us who fit the above description are
in the militia, and I proudly consider myself a member of the
unorganized militia of Tennessee, and will fight to defend my homeland
to the last drop of blood from the scum that has infested our fair
state, especially the occupation forces from Washington and the foreign
invaders they have invited into our country to usurp the authority of We the People.
America was born in revolt againt tyranny, and with any luck, it will
be reborn so after the idiots in Washington screw things up enough to
piss off enough people.

Armed rebellion is the only thing that can save this country now, and
for all of you effeminate nancy-boys who piss your pants at the
thought, then I leave you with this; "If ye love wealth better than
liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams

Get ready to fight or stay back with the rest of the women.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 11, 2007 01:00 PM (eGb9y)

21 yeah cause they will show us their big boobies.

Posted by: wb at March 14, 2007 10:41 PM (Cxxtv)

22 Don't worry wb, you're not in much danger of seeing any I expect.  

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 15, 2007 05:44 AM (eGb9y)

23 yeah.... I know. It's always the same thing.... wb, go get the clips, wb go get more ammo wb, my night sight isn't working wb what do you do for a hang fire..... damnit! I just wanted to see some boobies! No one told me the Big Guns club was for real freakin guns!!!!! I thought it was another private Hooters deal. Man, if I wasn't trading sex for safe passage at the border, I'd never get any action! Kin I join your deal?

Posted by: wb at March 15, 2007 08:46 AM (x8U0u)

24 Big 'uns.... Big guns.... thump thump thump .... helloooo?

Posted by: wb at March 15, 2007 06:11 PM (2g5nL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
42kb generated in CPU 0.2, elapsed 0.4296 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.4174 seconds, 179 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.