Friday, March 09, 2007


For decades I have had to sit and take it as one goofy judicial ruling after another gets handed down affirming that "Freedom of Speech" includes the right to bugger juvenile penguins in the town square at high noon on Sunday or to steal the flag from my front yard and use it as a breechclout at the next Code Pink rally. Now the D.C. Circuit court hands down the ruling that "the People" in the Second Amendment actually means "the People", and what do the lefties have to say about it?
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."

"Judicial activism", my left foot.

Cry me a river. Suffer, beeotches.

(H/T to Unc.)


Anonymous said...

Second para. of VPC/Brady press release reads in part;
"... 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. ”

The inference that can be drawn here is that VPC, by arguing that a ban is a reasonable restriction, is tacitly agreeing that the 2nd is an individual right - unless they are dumb enough to argue that a total ban applies to State forces.
Then, of course, they stomp on the cowpie by inferring that the Justices 'policy preferences' are to go with the Constitution rather than 'elected representatives'.
I'd like to call them morons, but the truth is, they understood all along that it is an individual right. They are simply evil.

SpeakerTweaker said...


I've commented here before as I enjoy reading your blog, but now it's a bit different.

Oh, and your post about that M1 Carbine you just "happen" to have made me sick to my stomach (for lack of fundage), and I thereby created my long-overdue blog. Feel free to drop by!

3yellowdogs said...

Dontcha just love how, to the Brady bunch, judicial activism is defined as actually upholding the constitution as it was written? You know, as opposed to making it up from whole cloth as you go along (i.e., penumbras and emanations).

staghounds said...


staghounds said...

Reading the opinion, I note that this is well set up for appeal. Go, supreme court!

I HOPE it goes quickly. There will probably be en banc review first, and the DC Circuit is slooooow and likely to rule against the panel. One3 hopes that it's before the SC while the U. S.D. O. J. still accepts and argues the individual right.

The standing question seems pretty well in favour of at least one plaintiff's case. The dissent DOES make some sense, and the SC can use it if it wants to avoid a decision. It shouldn't- but oe never knows. I expect a couple of the Justices would love to write the BROWN decision for the second amendment.

If the second amendment is strictly interpreted, it only gusarantees the individual right to own an m4, m16, or m9. Maybe an m14, Barrett, or the Remington sniper rifles. Hold hard, there's also 1911s, shotguns, mp5s, usps.... SILENCED mp5s and usps...

Favourite irritated Justice crack-'But this proposition assumes its conclusion, and we do not take it seriously.

Favourite interjustice snark-"The dissent suggests that our opinion consists largely of dicta. But dictum refers to reasoning that does not support the holding of a case. We think all of our reasoning (whether correct or not) directly supports our holding. By contrast, the dissent’s “free State” discussion might be thought superfluous.

The actual opinion is at

Money quote, p. 46:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Yuri Orlov said...

So it's judicial activism if you don't agree with the decision, but not if you do?

Come on Mr. Helmke, you can't have it both ways. Besides, The Bill of Rights was set up specifically to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of what the "Majority" think. America is constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Thank God!

Anonymous said...

No correlation, but, interestingly, this decision was announced the same day of the 300 premiere. Which I just got back from, BTW. I predict certain excerpts will be on YouTube in due course. As for the VPC/Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership, the sour grapes response isn't surprising. Sucks to be you, etc.

Billy Beck said...

"That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution..."

I've been saying that forever.

To hell with the Second Amendment.

Someday, this fight will progress -- what with indoctrination of rising generations, etc. -- to the point where they're just going to erase it. And when that happens, not one of you harping all this 2nd Amendment jazz is going to have a leg to stand on, anymore.

My rights -- and yours -- precede the whole bloody constitution, and until the thing is conducted on that central moral premise, this matter will just keep getting pushed around in political battle like two side of a fat lady's ass.

Don't get excited over this.

Anonymous said...

With apologies to billy beck, I AM excited. It's especially nice coming on the heels of the Zumbo incident.

Billy Beck said...

Nobody needs to apologize to me, Anon.

Time and events will demonstrate my point to you.

Carry on.

Anonymous said...

This must have been the greatest day in history to be a pistol dealer in northern Virginia. "Come and get them," indeed.

Anonymous said...

Ha Ha!

Anonymous said...

If you think that was funny, you'll love this;

"Handguns are a type of firearm that did not exist before or after the Constitution, until they became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn’t exist at the time?"

Source 'the gunguys' website.

Anonymous said...

The deadly problem for all this is the fact that the Nation at large mostly slept through Civics class & therefore doesn't recall that Washington DC is not part of ANY state. The Congress is the ruling body of DC & has been since its inception. Therefore, the argument could be made that the Constitution recognizes no rights in DC because it really doesn't COVER DC, just the rest of the nation. Just look at the present situation in DC to see what it means NOT to be covered by the Constitution! The Brady bunch & my own Congresswoman (sigh) are adamantly opposed to liberty. They & justices trained under their aegis will use this technicality to render the 2nd Amendment moot. They're already pushing for the AWB again.

Power corrupts, people. Please elect government representatives (any level) who respect the Constitution & not those who say "We can do ANYTHING we want" (Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, to a library supporter who decried the 1990's 50 % budget cuts.)

If this is the attitude at the local level, imagine what is going on in DC!

I hope that SCOTUS has brass ones.

markm said...

"Handguns are a type of firearm that did not exist before or after the Constitution,

Thereby proving that he's not only ignorant of history (hint: Burr and Hamilton didn't duel with muskets), but didn't read the decision. It cites a militia act that lists the minimum equipment that a militiaman must bring with him, for infantry and for several classes of cavalry. The cavalrymen needed pistols of a certain minimum caliber. The court quite reasonably describes the Glock as a modern descendant of those hand-held muzzleloaders.

Really fun to see them grasping at straws, eh?