http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-834.pdf
Finds that most of the plaintiffs lack standing because they have not applied for a permit, so that the case is not ripe for review. "The plaintiffs are uanble to establish any hardship that they would sustain by utilitzing the administrative process and awaiting an actual case or controversty should their applications be denied." But Plaintiff Hailes "currently possesses in her home a registered shotgun which she keeps bound by a trigger lock." The Court finds that this is legally distinct, and therefore "the Court must consider whether the provision" requiring a trigger lock "offends the Second Amendment". The Court does quite an extensive analysis of state court cases that others (Clayton?) will surely find interesting. Blaksley, Aymette, Brown, Duke, and Workman are all discussed. Judge Walton concludes that none of these cases are consistent with an individual rights model. Walton specifically says that there is now a circuit-split, and says "one would think that this debate, which has resulted in a circuit-split, is a prime subject for review by the Supreme Court." The conclusion? "For the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds that the Second Amendment was adopted to ensure the effectiveness of state militias as protectors of the states, and thus the people, from the potential of an oppressive national government. Accordingly, the Court must conclude that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias. Having concluded that the traditional individual rights model does not withstand a contextual and historical analysis of the Second Amendment, this Court needs not determine whether the Amendment protects the rights of individual state militia members to possess firearms to resolve the issues raised in this case. This determination does not have to be made because, as the Court will explain below, the Second Amendment's scope does not extend to the District of Columbia, but, even if it did, plaintiff Hailes has failed to assert that she is part of the District of Columbia's militia and therefore has a right to possess firearms as a result of such membership." --Jimbo _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
