Hollowpoint Posted July 20, 2007 at 10:48 AM Share Posted July 20, 2007 at 10:48 AM JETZT wird's ernst! Die Stadtverwaltung von Washington DC will gegen das Urteil eines Bundesgerichts gegen das Waffenverbot in der Stadt Revision beim Supreme Court - den höchten Gericht der USA - einlegen! Nun können dreierlei Szenarien eintreten: 1.) Das Gericht sagt de facto "Arschlecken" und weigert sich, den Fall zur Entscheidung anzunehmen. Damit wäre das Waffenverbot in DC Geschichte. 2.) Der SCOTUS entscheidet, daß das 2nd Amendment ein Burgerrecht ist, das für den einzelnen Bürger unmittelbar gilt. Damit wären dann wohl sämtliche Waffengesetze seit 1934 mit einem Schlag hinfällig. 3.) Der SCOTUS urteilt, daß das 2nd Amendment kein individuelles Bürgerrecht ist, sondern nur die Aufstellung und Bewaffnung von staatlichen Milizeinheiten regelt. Dann wäre Antilegalwaffengesetzen aller Art Tür und Tor geöffnet! Es wird spannend werden! Ich persönlich vermute, daß Fall 1.) eintreten wird. Die Mehrheit der Richter wird wohl kaum so weit gehen und SÄMTLICHE Waffengesetze der USA auf den Müllhaufen der Geschichte befördern, wo sie zweifellos hingehören. Und für Szenario 3.) gibt es derzeit beim SCOTUS wohl keine Mehrheit. Also werden sie den einfachsten Ausweg suchen und gar nichts dazu sagen. Damit wäre aber immer noch das Waffenverbot für DC gekippt. Selbst das wäre doch ein sehr schönes Ergebnis! 8) http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/07/second_amendmen.html Second Amendment case headed to Court Posted by Lyle Denniston at 10:57 AM UPDATE Tuesday a.m. Attorneys for the D.C. citizens who challenged the local handgun control law said Tuesday they will join in urging the Supreme Court to hear the city's appeal. They will oppose an extension of time to file the city's petition, however. Local government officials in Washington, D.C., announced Monday they will appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home -- an issue on which there is now a clear conflict among federal Circuit Courts. The city will be defending the constitutionality of a local handgun control law that is regarded as the strictest in the nation. The petition would have been due Aug. 7, but city officials said Monday that they would ask Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for a 30-day extension of time to file the case. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and city Attorney General Linda Singer disclosed the appeal plan at a press conference, along with local Police Chief Cathy Lanier. (A news release announcing the action can be found here ) The Mayor said: "We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents. Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves." The D.C. Circuit Court ruled on March 9 that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to possess a gun -- at least within one's own home. The ruling was the first by a federal appeals court to strike down a gun control law based on that view of the Amendment's reach. The case is Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (Circuit docket 04-7041). On May 8, the Circuit Court refused by a 6-4 vote to rehear the case en banc. The mandate is scheduled to be issued Aug. 7, but will be withheld after the city files its Supreme Court petition. Thus, the existing gun law would remain in effect temporarily. In an earlier filling in the D.C. Circuit, city officials said their appeal to the Supreme Court would present some variation of these questions: "(1) whether the panel majority's decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), as Judge [Karen LeCraft] Henderson concluded in dissenting from the panel majority's decision; (2) whether the Second Amendment protects firearms possession or use that is not associated with service in a State militia; (3) whether the Amendment applies differently to the District because of its constitutional status, as Judge Henderson also concluded; and (4) whether the challenged laws represent reasonable regulation of whatever rights the Amendment protects." The city noted that the panel had acknowledged that its ruling conflicts with decisions "of most other federal courts of appeals, many State courts, and the highest local court in this jurisdiction, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals." The Circuit Court majority found that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge to the local gun control law had a right to bring the lawsuit. That individual is Dick Anthony Heller, a special police officer who works at the Federal Judicial Center (home of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts) near Capitol Hill in Washington. He is licensed to carry a handgun on his job, but he applied for permission to have a pistol in his home; he was denied a license under the local law. Heller has said in court papers that he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in the city. Heller, according to the Circuit Court, had standing to sue to challenge the gun registration provisions of the local law, as well as the clause that bars anyone from carrying a pistol without a license and a provision requiring all owners of licensed guns to keep them disassembled or with a trigger lock engaged when not in use. The D.C. law has been in effect for nearly 31 years -- since September 1976. The lawsuit to strike it down was filed in February 2003. GRUß Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alter Herr Posted July 20, 2007 at 11:43 AM Share Posted July 20, 2007 at 11:43 AM Ach, es geht um den gun ban..... ich dachte schon, du hättest in der Überschrift zwei "g" vergessen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollowpoint Posted July 20, 2007 at 12:29 PM Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 at 12:29 PM Grrrmmbl..........schays Rächdschraihpunk! GRUß Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nasenbär Posted July 20, 2007 at 12:37 PM Share Posted July 20, 2007 at 12:37 PM alles quatsch. hollow befindet sich am urlaubsort und macht jede nach tierisch einen drauf. hat schon die dritte familienpackung condi´s leer .... warum man da nur von "familienpackung" redet ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollowpoint Posted July 20, 2007 at 03:38 PM Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 at 03:38 PM Ne Nacht mit Condi wär bestimmt schön! GRUß Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaconda.44 Posted July 20, 2007 at 05:45 PM Share Posted July 20, 2007 at 05:45 PM Du meinst hoffentlich Condoleezza? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollowpoint Posted July 20, 2007 at 06:42 PM Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 at 06:42 PM Wen denn sonst?!? GRUß Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbysoldat Posted July 21, 2007 at 08:34 AM Share Posted July 21, 2007 at 08:34 AM Du Reiskocher!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaconda.44 Posted July 21, 2007 at 08:40 AM Share Posted July 21, 2007 at 08:40 AM Wen denn sonst?!? GRUß Nuja, manchmal werd ich hier auch "Condi" genannt...und soweit geht die Liebe nicht....:mrgreen: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollowpoint Posted July 21, 2007 at 10:52 AM Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 at 10:52 AM Also DARAN hatte ich nun wirklich nicht gedacht!!! GRUß Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaconda.44 Posted July 21, 2007 at 11:00 AM Share Posted July 21, 2007 at 11:00 AM Dann bin ich ja beruhigt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollowpoint Posted July 21, 2007 at 11:04 AM Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 at 11:04 AM Ich auch! :mrgreen: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmaag Posted July 21, 2007 at 11:56 AM Share Posted July 21, 2007 at 11:56 AM Darf ich darauf hinweisen, dass der in Eurpoa vielgeschmähte NRA freundliche Präsident Bush Bundesrichter ernannt hat, welche für Szenario 2 sind, sich aber wahrscheinlich mit Szenario 1 begnügen müssen, ansonsten das linke Geheul einmal mehr losgeht. Hans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarcDW Posted July 22, 2007 at 08:07 PM Share Posted July 22, 2007 at 08:07 PM Ich denke mal, dass schlicht und ergreifend das Urteil so bestaetigt wird, dass dem Buerger grundsaetzlich nicht voellig verbotern werden darf Waffen zu besitzen und damit Schluss. Das heist allerdings nicht, dass keine Gesetze erlassen werden koennen die den Besitz und das Fuehren regelt. Niemand wird bestreiten, dass zB Verbrecher keinen Zugang zu Waffen haben sollten. Was die Art der Waffen anbelangt, so halte ich den Mist von 1934 bis hin zu AWB fuer illegal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter375 Posted July 22, 2007 at 08:32 PM Share Posted July 22, 2007 at 08:32 PM Niemand wird bestreiten, dass zB Verbrecher keinen Zugang zu Waffen haben sollten. Aber gerade das werden §§ nie verhindern, da können Gerichte und Politiker beschliesen was sie wollen! Gruß Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarcDW Posted July 22, 2007 at 08:46 PM Share Posted July 22, 2007 at 08:46 PM Aber deshalb brauch man es nicht obendrein erlauben! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter375 Posted July 22, 2007 at 08:58 PM Share Posted July 22, 2007 at 08:58 PM Aber deshalb brauch man es nicht obendrein erlauben! Da haste allerdings recht! Gruß Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now