I haven't read the gun control ruling yet;  just saw notice of it on the NYT 
website.  But if the court did cite Dred Scott in making its ruling that is 
passingly strange, since CJ Roger Taney specifically excluded Washington, 
D.C. from the rulings he made regarding federal territories.  The 
distinction Taney made in his opinion for the majority (here I am working 
from memory) was that all the western territories were held by the federal 
government in trust for the states.  This, of course, not true to DC, which 
had been ceded by Maryland and Virginia to create a national capital under 
complete federal control.

Why was this distinction important in 1857?  In 1850, in the complex 
"Compromise of 1850," Congress had outlawed the slave trade but not slavery 
in Washington D.C.  Had Taney not differentiated DC from the other federal 
territories, his ruling would have had the effect of overruling that 
legislation, which the southern pro-slavery interests were not much 
concerned about.  What they wanted was for the 1820 Missouri Compromise 
slavery-non slavery line in the Louisiana Purchase territory overruled and 
Dred Scott did just that.

Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Basil Forest" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: DRED SCOTT DECISION


>
> Interestingly, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit cites Dred Scott
> v. Sandford as precedent in its finding today that DC cannot ban the 
> possession
> of fire arms by citizens.  See, Parker v. DC DC Cir 04-7041.
>
> Looks like Dred Scott remains viable legal precedent, at least as far as 
> the
> DC Circuit is concerned.
>
> I note that the court in dictum finds the decision's aspect of Negroes as
> non citizens as misguided.
>
>
>
> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
> email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
> http://www.aol.com.