Ammo For Sale

« « Parker thoughts | Home | DC: Gun Owner’s Mecca? » »

Quick, call a Waaaahmbulance

Guess who:

The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia.

Bleat, bleat.

Lies in bold.

12 Responses to “Quick, call a Waaaahmbulance”

  1. Tam Says:

    Haa-haa!

  2. #9 Says:

    is judicial activism at its worst

    First they want the guns, then the cars, then the cheeseburger, then the economy. They won’t be happy until America is Denmark. What is the hell happened? That quote is a sign of mental illness.

  3. gattsuru Says:

    Seventy years of judicial precedent? This didn’t overturn Miller (in fact, from what I can read, it relied on Miller), and I’m unaware of any similarly aged precedent from the Supreme Court on guns.

  4. Snowflakes in Hell » Reasonable Regulations Says:

    […] points to the Brady release that “striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its […]

  5. jimmyb Says:

    Man, they really hate it when “we the people” win.

    Telling.

  6. Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report Says:

    This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

    Suppose this wasn’t a lie. Does the fact that the courts have ignored the 2nd amendment for two centuries mean that they should continue doing so forever? I know they’re very busy finding penumbras and nuances, but I’d appreciate if they’d take a few minutes to consider the plain written language of an oft ignored point of law.

    Nick Kasoff
    The Thug Report

  7. retro Says:

    I bet Marion Barry is crying… alligator tears. What more could you expect from a man who once said, “If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC

  8. retro Says:

    uhhh… nevermind… I guess Barry is no longer mayor of DC. Still kind of ironic, IMO.

    Move along folks, nothing to see here…

  9. Ron W Says:

    I wonder if the ruling elites of D.C. who loudly decried this ruling for the right of the people to at least keep guns, are themselves protected by guns? As usual, they probably are. They have armed protection with hired guns provided by “the people, yet they want to deny “the people” the choice to acquire their own armed protection. That is the way of tyrants.

  10. SayUncle » Sore losers Says:

    […] Helmke: The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports […]

  11. markm Says:

    This didn’t overturn Miller (in fact, from what I can read, it relied on Miller), and I’m unaware of any similarly aged precedent from the Supreme Court on guns.

    Right, but the gungrabbers have been misrepresenting Miller for so long that they think reading it correctly overturns precedent. The SC actually said that there was an individual RKBA to militia-type weapons, but that Miller had not presented evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun was such a weapon. Revolvers and semi-auto pistols certainly are militia weapons, and the Parker decision discusses this at great length.

    The feces will hit the air impeller when some court realizes that a full-auto M16 is even more a militia weapon…

  12. 2nd Amendment Blogburst at Traction Control Says:

    […] Quick, call a Waaaahmbulance Guess who: […]

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills


blog advertising is good for you

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives