what a joke ruling by the courts

[DKSuddeth]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/15/gun.law.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the District of Columbia's gun control law that prohibits ownership of handguns, rejecting a legal challenge by a group of citizens backed by the National Rifle Association.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the 28-year-old law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that others, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.

"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.

He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.

He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.

A gun control advocate welcomed the ruling.

"It's a big victory for those who overwhelmingly believe that we need fewer guns on our streets, not more," said Matt Nosanchuk, a spokesman for the Violence Policy Center.

Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, said the group's lawyers had not seen the ruling on Wednesday night but noted that other courts have taken the opposite opinion.


They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!!!

 

[jimnyc]

With as much crime as there is in DC, I say give everyone guns! I'll bet the crime rate drops.

 

[DKSuddeth]

isn't there a saying that goes "an armed society is a polite society"?

 

[Johnney]

Ive said it before and ill say it again, the only thing they are doing is making it harder for the average citizen to get a gun, be it a pistol/ revolver or a long gun. they arent making it to hard for a felon to get one. not one bit. so they "say "that they arent supposed to have one, big fucking deal. say all you want, but when are they going to actually act on it?

 

[5stringJeff]

This judge is a joke. But, now you know why the liberal establishment is so adamant about not allowing Bush's more conservative judicial nominations to be confirmed - the liberals who believe this tripe don't want to lose control of the courts, where they can get away with these kind of inane rulings.

 

[Moi]

Ugh...hope this guy retires soon.

 

[NewGuy]

"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.

Now where does it say that?

Amendment II

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.

If that is what it said, there would not be a comma between "State" and "the". There would be a colon. Instead, these are multiple ideas being seperated by commas as appropriate.

If the judge would learn English, he would be qualified.

 

[winston churchi]

So listen up for all you would be or current murderers - no handguns in DC - got it?

I wish people would realize that gun control does NOTHING to stop a person from obtaining a gun that wants one. If I wanted to rant about the streets of DC and shoot - I could. I do not need some law telling me I can't - if you are planning to use a gun for illegal reason than thats how you obtain it.

Gun control is useless.

 

[NewGuy]

I always use the argument that if they ban guns, they will have to go after knives next......then forks......then spoons.

As dumb as this sounds, the origins of martial arts with weapons follows the same course.

The point being, we will kill ourselves with whatever we have.

The founding fathers knew that and considered our personal welfare against government tyrrany was more important. -Mainly because individual morals and ethics, being spiritually based, kept things in line.

They let us have "ARMS", not "guns". They used the term "gun" in common language as we do. They MEANT "arms" because we individually are entitled to the same technological defenses our government has in order to keep them in line as last ditch enforcement. -This is referenced by other documents stating that when we get into the same situation of government tyrrany again, we are to overthrow again, and start over.

Get a judge to tell you that, and it will be a freakin' miracle.

 

[Zhukov]

Imagine if judges interpreted every other ammendment as narrowly as the liberal activist judges interpret the 2nd.

On the other hand, were it that they interpreted it as broadly as all the others, it would be mandatory for everyone to have an assualt rifle.

Just another example of the double standard.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Imagine if judges interpreted every other ammendment as narrowly as the liberal activist judges interpret the 2nd.

On the other hand, were it that they interpreted it as broadly as all the others, it would be mandatory for everyone to have an assualt rifle.

Just another example of the double standard.

The issue is that a judge is not legally entitled to INTERPRET anything. That is the problem. That is the function of a jury. The power to interpret has been changed. These sort of things have been taken from common jury courtrooms to courtrooms WITHOUT juries in order for government ot dictate policy.

 

[Zhukov]

A judge determines the constitutionality of a law by their understanding of the Constitution itself. Unfortunately, though it is a incredible document it could not account for every future eventuality individually and specifically, therefore it is neccessary for judges to interpret how it applies to modern day problems. That is their only job. It's called judicial review.

Judges do interpret. It's a matter of whether they interpret something broadly or narrowly. With respect to the Second Ammendment, left leaning judges tend to interpret it very narrowly. So narrowly in fact, it is my opinion that their interpretations are completely wrong and illegal because the ammendment clearly says "will not be infringed."

infringe -> transgress, encroach, violate

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
A judge determines the constitutionality of a law by their understanding of the Constitution itself. Unfortunately, though it is a incredible document it could not account for every future eventuality individually and specifically, therefore it is neccessary for judges to interpret how it applies to modern day problems. That is their only job. It's called judicial review.

Judges do interpret. It's a matter of whether they interpret something broadly or narrowly. With respect to the Second Ammendment, left leaning judges tend to interpret it very narrowly. So narrowly in fact, it is my opinion that their interpretations are completely wrong and illegal because the ammendment clearly says "will not be infringed."

infringe -> transgress, encroach, violate

Well, forseeeing where this will lead, we will have to agree to disagree on the basis your understanding and my understanding of this document are radically different.

While it appears you would consider this a document open to change, I do not. I believe it is quite clear, by the Constitutions own wording, that it is to be a fixed set of rules to be set without compromise in any fashion for any reason.

To do anything different IS to interpret, and IS to compromise, as you point out. The document was not intended to protect against future events, it was intended to protect against HUMAN NATURE which CAUSES events. When this point is not observed, it leads to exactly what you are talking about which will never be anything more than a slippery slope of decline.

 

[Zhukov]

Ok, then what defines 'cruel and unusual'?

 

[Zhukov]

How about:

unreasonable

just compensation

speedy

Excessive


The Constitution is full of words that Judges must interpret.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
How about:

unreasonable

just compensation

speedy

Excessive


The Constitution is full of words that Judges must interptret.

When taken in context of the documents ENTIRETY, there is no room for interpretation. Look at the entire section around the word in question. Take into account the whole document's perspective regarding the entire body of people, branch, or office.

THAT gives you the simple answer.

Modern people don't often take anything in context.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
When taken in context of the documents ENTIRETY, there is no room for interpretation. Look at the entire section around the word in question. Take into account the whole document's perspective regarding the entire body of people, branch, or office.

THAT gives you the simple answer.

Modern people don't often take anything in context.

Nonsense. Context has nothing to do with it. If you think it does then define 'cruel and unusual' in context, as the constitution defines it. Use the whole document. Do the same for the other terms I listed.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Nonsense. Context has nothing to do with it. If you think it does then define 'cruel and unusual' in context, as the constitution defines it. Use the whole document. Do the same for the other terms I listed.

Sure thing. Just be sure that if you are going to make me do the full logical analysis of the entire set of words you list, you at least have the gonads and grey matter to prove your point as well.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Sure thing. Just be sure that if you are going to make me do the full logical analysis of the entire set of words you list, you at least have the gonads and grey matter to prove your point as well.

Excuse me. My point is that these are subjective terms open to interpretation. You argue the opposite. Now go on and define them since they are, as you say, concrete terms.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Excuse me. My point is that these are subjective terms open to interpretation. You argue the opposite. Now go on and define them since they are, as you say, concrete terms.

They are YOUR words, you listed. If you want me to tie up the board giving you a lesson in how to read and comprehend a basic foundational document in it's multipage entirety, that is not the proper way to prove a point.

I am not here to give a course in paying attention by dissecting any given document to every word and then spoon feeding it to you in tiny bite size bits.

If you want things taken in context, you usually take 1 concept or word, and then take all other references to it and collect them together for understanding. Then you also apply the concept of the section in question, then the stance of the whole document.

You want me to do this 5+ times so you can argue the validity of the idea of context?

I think you just invalidated the whole thing by your inability to deal with more than a microwave mentality approach to documentation.