What I find most interesting is the dissenting voice, Judge Karen Henderson,
Whether the majority decision was right or wrong, this mindset would seem to negate the entire Bill of Rights, not to mention big hunks of the Constitution.
I haven’t read the decision, so maybe she has a good argument, but it’d better be a DAMN good argument.
I’m putting this thread here because I’m sure that 100% of all Dopers do not agree with the decision and it’ll eventually end up here or the Pit anyway.
Obviously I love the result. Would like to read the opinion. Don’t have time to find it right now. Will check around later.
Major win for gun owners 
I’m excited about this ruling, because it a) affirms an individual right, and b) the SCOTUS cannot duck the subject anymore. If they grant cert they have to set a precedent, which they undoubtedly would have liked to avoided doing, and if they don’t grant cert they set a precedent with the Circuit Court ruling.
I’ll tell you one thing: Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein are positively apoplectic right now. I wish I could have seen the look on their faces when they heard about it.
Hee, hee! I’m loving this decision. Here’s another version of the story. It’s about time the citizens of DC got their rights restored.
I’m doing the happy dance at my desk right now.
As a former DC resident who actually owned a gun there (a legally registered shotgun), let me say that I’m glad this day finally came. It’s fairly obvious to anyone who lives in DC that there are plenty of guns there. The criminals paid absolutely no attention to the law. The only ones who bothered to do so were people like me, who went through the absolute hassle of taking the gun to the court house (you should have seen the looks I got!), being fingerprinted, paying the fee, etc. And, of course, if I had ever used it in self-defense, I’m sure I would have been prosecuted. The law was a ridiculous failure as well as being unconsitutional, and I’m just sorry I’m not there to take advantage of it.
Careful. You keep a gun in that desk?
Now THAT is funny. Judicial activism? It is to laugh. Or is it only funny when the conservatives say it? Goose, gander and all that.
Here’s the full opinion. (PDF, 75 pages)
Regardless of your joy or sorrow over this, it bears careful reading.
Seems to my untrained eye that they just sort of glossed over the whole “organized militia” part. I can see how it’s controversial, but those words are probably there for a reaon.
Untrained, indeed. The word “organized” appears nowhere in the 2nd Amendment.
Read the opinion, in which both sides talk about that.
Is DC a state or not?
The dissent, at the end, is fascinating reading. The dissenter claims that the District of Columbia is not a state, so it is immune to constitutional wording that defines rights of states.
Did the framers consider DC a state for practical purposes? They didn’t leave us much to go on. I imagine they just overlooked this little detail, since if DCers aren’t citizens of any state, how can they be citizens of the United States?
Maybe this will force the country to look again at past proposals to make DC a true 51st state. It would certainly clear up a lot of ambiguity.
The streets will run with the blood of the damned!
Rue the day we allow guns in the hands of people who don’t vote, for on that day The Sparrow will balk, The Seed shall not grow, The Mayor will find a loophole, and The Grass shall be as The Sky.
So… then Judge Henderson believes that DC residents are not necessarily guaranteed the right to free speech, a jury, etc.?
What does this mean for San Francisco and NYC?
Err, regulated. I was close.
Anyone got a few hundred bucks I can borrow?
Right now, nothing. The DC Circuit’s opinion is binding only in its area.
Since the likely result is that the losing side here will appeal, since if they don’t, they have to dump thier gun ban, and since there is a conflict in the circuits, the SCOTUS will likely grant cert, and THEIR decision will be binding on San Francisco and NYC.
What do you want?
* First Amendment
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.* No "state".
* Sixth Amendment
*In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. * Includes the word "district"
Oddly, only the 2nd specifies “State” "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" and thus the dissent may have a point. :dubious:
SF’s law was tossed out already. Clearly illegal under the CA Const. and case law.