Patty

Judge Rules D.C. Gun Ban Unconstitutional



Finally!

A federal judge has ruled that the city of Washington D.C.’s ban on guns is entirely Unconstitutional!

Washington D.C. has some of the most Draconian gun laws in the United States. For years the city has flouted accepted Constitutional law and treated their citizens as if they were s***es to the city with no right to defend themselves.

But now a federal judge has finally been forced to acknowledge what everyone already knew… D.C.’s gun ban was illegal.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”

The decision leaves no gray area in gun-carrying rights.

2ndJudge Scullin extensively referenced the Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) to concluding “there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”

The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.

Judge Scullin wrote that the court “enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of [D.C. firearms laws] unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

And Judge Scullin did have to be “forced.”



The case has been sitting in his hands for over five years, having first been argued way back in 2009. One wonders if Judge Scullin was worried about his political career, or perhaps hoping that someone else would be forced to make the decision for him. In either case, the court system finally forced his hand, and he made the only decision a reasonable judge can make.

Now we’ll have to wait and see how the city responds. Will the Democrat leaders abide by the laws, or will they (like President Obama) decide they are above our laws and act as dictators continuing to assault the rights of Americans as long as they keep getting elected?

If you’re hoping to carry a gun in the capitol… I wouldn’t hold my breath. Democrats have a unique way of breaking laws without facing repercussions.

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/7605/judge-rules-d-c-gun-ban-unconstitutional/#sKrHYp2fepkbGSWq.99

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

I have been saying this: haven't I? My state has an open carry law, no reason to conceal it.

bahmer

Slowly very slowly the liberals learn the constitution very very slowly. I think that they all need a class in the constitution so that they could forgo these court cases. But if nothing else they are persistent that is for sure.

Patty

Can you imagine being on one of these juries and walking out as the DA is ready to mark a win in his win column and saying "Nullification"?
Man that would be more fun than body surfing on Red Frog beach.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Oops, Obama and his people missed one. Stacking the courts sometimes backfires.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

The proggies will somehow conjure up a way to circumvent this judge's decision.

Patty

Any case brought against a peaceful citizen in regards to gun laws should be dismissed through Nullification".
Role of Jurors and Jury Nullification

No one who asserts his right to trial by jury can be convicted unless a jury cooperates with the prosecution.

And that role is not limited to the factual issue of deciding who may have done what. It includes refusing to convict where the government prosecutes someone for violating an unconstitutional law.

Jurors are not told that they have that right; and if they ask, they will be told they do not have it. However, this is where a Connecticut citizen must act as a citizen who knows the historic purpose and role of the jury — to protect his fellow citizens from the burden of defending against an illegal prosecution.

Fortunately, unless a defendant plea bargains his case — or waives his right to a jury trial and chooses to be tried by a judge — he will be tried by a jury of his peers. Indeed, more than 550,000 individuals are randomly selected each year and called to serve as jurors in Connecticut, with about 110,000 actually serving as jurors.9

Jurors have a vitally important role to play in a constitutional republic — which is a central, final check against arbitrary power. Since they are not told of that role by judges, they must learn it before they are ever called to jury duty.

The ultimate power that the government has over citizens is the power of the sword — the power to arrest, prosecute, convict, and sentence lawbreakers. What if the law that the defendant is accused of breaking is unconstitutional? The jury has the power to stop such an injustice. Vesting this power in citizens was no an accident of history.

In a constitutional republic, interpretation of the Constitution is too important a responsibility to be left to the lawyers, even if they serve in the role of judges.

Indeed, the origin of jury nullification in the United States is often traced to the prosecution of John Peter Zenger for s*******s libel against officials in the colonial government in New York. His crime was to have criticized the government without its prior approval.

At Zenger’s trial in 1735, he asserted that his criticisms were true, but the judge instructed the jury that t***h was no defense, that Zenger admitted his guilt, and that they should find Zenger guilty. The jury paid little heed to the judge, acquitting Zenger after only minutes of deliberation.10

Inherent in the right to trial by jury is the jury’s right to determine the law as well as the facts. Sadly, a government that seeks ever greater power over citizens has sought to erode the jury’s authority.

In the distant past, jurors were told the t***h; they were told they had the right to nullify a prosecution for an unconstitutional law. But since then, the government determined they need not be told. And then the government determined that they could not be told.

Today, most judges tell juries that their only role is to determine the facts, and the judges “instruct” them as to what the law is.

Hogwash!

As in the Zenger case, a modern juror has the power, and responsibility, to acquit a defendant if he believes the law the defendant is charged with violating is unconstitutional.

Jury nullification is certainly not an antiquated notion. In fact, it is making an important comeback in the states. For example, in 2012, New Hampshire enacted HB 146 which formalizes the jury’s right to nullify. It provides that “[i]n all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”11 Connecticut should have a law like that as well.

At this perilous time, the duty of every liberty-loving Connecticut citizen is to embrace the responsibilities of a citizen, taking up the mantle of defending his fellow citizens and the U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions, against attack from a lawless government."
By Publius Huldah