At least in D.C.: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-healy061002.asp[/url]

Seems like people like that hold a double standard.... say they believe it's an individual right, but won't move to strike down laws that CLEARLY violate that.  

The word that comes to mind is... 'spineless'

I'm hoping that this will open the floodgates.  Something has to eventually get to SCOTUS.  They can't keep dodging forever.  

The district bans the possession of unregistered handguns, and prohibits, with few exceptions, the registration of any handgun not validly registered in the district prior to 1976. The law survived a Second Amendment challenge in the 1987 D.C. Court of Appeals case Sandidge v. United States. But [b]that case stated baldly that "the right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution"[/b] — a statement that's rather hard to square with the Second Amendment, which speaks of the "right" of the "people" to "keep and bear arms."

[b]The Sandidge court also held that the Second Amendment guarantees "a collective right [of the states] rather than an individual right" — the view that the Justice Department has supposedly rejected.[/b] And since the district isn't a state, the two gun-ban violators are being prosecuted by the U.S. attorney, who, coincidentally, works for John Ashcroft. In a November 9, 2001, memo to all the U.S. attorneys, Ashcroft endorsed the individual right to bear arms and reminded the prosecutors "to respect the constitutional rights guaranteed to Americans." Thus, you'd expect the public defender's motions to go unopposed.

[b]Oddly though, Ashcroft has allowed the D.C. U.S. attorney's office to rely on Sandidge to defend the district's gun ban. It's hard to know what to make of this. It's tempting to read it as indicating that Ashcroft isn't serious about the individual rights view of the Second Amendment. Sure, he'll reward political allies like the NRA with public statements supporting the view, but when it comes to getting people who work for him to act on it, he demurs.[/b]

But whatever Ashcroft's motivation for defending the gun ban, the consequence is that the issue will be squarely presented to the courts. [b]If the D.C. U.S. attorney's office simply declined to defend the gun ban against Second Amendment challenges it would remain unreviewable by the courts and protected by mere policy instead of precedent.[/b]

"protected by mere policy instead of precedent"

That pretty well sums up the Republicans to me.  They want to hold gun owners hostage -- "Keep voting for us, and we'll 'protect' you from the nasty Democrats.  Remember, if you let them back into power, you're fucked!"

We will never get what we want in one fell swoop. It'll take time, chip by chip. the 5th circuit's decision moves us a little itty bit closer by suggesting a RKBA even exists. No one law, or one court decision will give us everything we want. {insert buddah/yoda quote about patience} [|)]

The chances of that happening are between slim and none, and slim has just left the building.

I have seen for too many years, too many republicrats waffle and do what is politically expedient to save their own careers rather than what is Constitutional. It will be business as usual.

There's a big suprise.

I want to see actions, not just words. Even Shumer says that he respects the 2nd amendment. His actions speak otherwise, just like Bush and Ashcroft.

One of the biggest problems with validating legitimate rights is that of dealing with the courts.  Note that I say "validating," and would consider "ratifying," although the latter gives away too much power.  MAny want to "get" rights, and that puts power into the hands of the opponents.  

The courts are unreliable because, all too often, the findings are based on personal opinion or bias of the judges rather than the law.  A good example is the ruling earlier on in this thread.  I am not a lawyer, but anyone whou would talk about the Constitution of the United States "conferring" rights on the people is full of donkey leavings.  The only alternative is the judge is just one of those crooks trying to dictate from the bench.  The Constitution reserves to the people all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government or to the States.  It is not to the government to confer rights, rather, specific powers are given to the government, and the people have all the rest.

I suspect this problem is why various administrations have refrained from taking the 2nd amendment case to the courts.  What happens if you get some of the closet commie-liberals in the Supreme Court going against you.  Then the rest of the liberal establishment will take that as the loss of our rights being cast in concrete.  With some of the surprises we've seen in seemingly "conservative" court appointments, and the turncoats (wonder what that grinning moron got for it) in the congress, there's no telling where it could all wind up.  I don't blame the administration, and someone like Ashcroft who knows this all too well, having had to deal with it, I'm sure, being cautious.

I am very interested in seeing how the NRA responds to the acts of the supreme court and asscroft in their "Freedom Index". If they ignore it, or try and rationalize it with a "freedom got a raise", I AM NOT RENEWING MY MEMBERSHIP.

I have had it with the political party sheeple organizations and their goddamn "compromises".

I already joined GOA and will continue to support them from now on.