Washington D.C. Gun Ban - Update

[JohnRich 4]

News:

D.C. Petition for Rehearing of Gun Ban Case Denied

Today, in a 6-4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a motion by the D.C. government to reconsider the court's blockbuster opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia. On March 9, the court held in Parker that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms," striking down a 31-year old ban on guns in the nation's capital.

Moreover, the court continued, activities protected by the Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

That means the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional and, unless the Supreme Court overturns the Parker decision, the ban will have to be lifted. Most likely, the D.C. government will now ask the Supreme Court to review the appellate court decision. If so, the high court could decide this summer whether to take the case...

Source: PRNewswire

[quade 4]

Correction; "SOURCE CATO Institute"

PRNewswire is a company that disseminates press releases from other organizations. PRNewswire is not to be confused with an actual news organization. In fact, the exact opposite is true since organizations pay to be distributed via PRNewswire.

Nothing, NOTHING, you ever read with the words PRNewswire associated with it should EVER be taken as balanced news in any way, shape or form. It is, by DESIGN, ONLY telling one side of a story.

The CATO Institute, on the other hand is a conservative funded lobbying group. Funded in part by . . . the NRA.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Correction; "SOURCE CATO Institute"

PRNewswire is a company that disseminates press releases from other organizations. PRNewswire is not to be confused with an actual news organization. In fact, the exact opposite is true since organizations pay to be distributed via PRNewswire.

Nothing, NOTHING, you ever read with the words PRNewswire associated with it should EVER be taken as balanced news in any way, shape or form. It is, by DESIGN, ONLY telling one side of a story.

The CATO Institute, on the other hand is a conservative funded lobbying group. Funded in part by . . . the NRA.

So? Does that make the report untrue?

There's not a news organization out there that is completely "balanced". Should we then discount all news from any of those sources?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Correction; "SOURCE CATO Institute"

The facts as reported by PRnewswire are correct.

Verify this with another news source if you wish:

Jurist

New York Times

Washington Post

Perhaps you prefer a version of the news with more than just the basic facts, like this great quote:

"D.C. Assistant Police Chief Winston Robinson said he's sorry that some residents don't feel safe in their homes without guns but stressed that the recent massacre at Virginia Tech should remind them that guns don't increase safety. 'More than likely, that weapon in their home will be used against them,' Robinson said. 'Just think about what happened recently in Virginia: guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.'"

What an idiot - he's not only ignorant of facts on armed self defense, but he thinks that every citizen with a gun is no better than a mass murderer. It's a shame that a free citizenry has someone like this in a position of power over them.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

"D.C. Assistant Police Chief Winston Robinson said he's sorry that some residents don't feel safe in their homes without guns but stressed that the recent massacre at Virginia Tech should remind them that guns don't increase safety. 'More than likely, that weapon in their home will be used against them,' Robinson said. 'Just think about what happened recently in Virginia: guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.'"

What an idiot - he thinks that every citizen with a gun is no better than a mass murderer. It's a shame that a free citizenry has someone like this in a position of power over them.

Robinson is an asshat city boy that doesn't respect the abilities of the average guy. I also bet he owns a gun or two.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

...striking down a 31-year old ban on guns in the nation's capital.

Sweet. Can't wait for the Chicago ban to die under this precedent.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Correction; "SOURCE CATO Institute"

The facts as reported by PRnewswire are correct.

No. While there are some facts in the story, the conclusions drawn are OPINIONS.

Quoting here the part you, yourself, JohnRich, quoted and bolded;

Quote

That means the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional . . .

The OPINIONS expressed by the CATO institute were passed along to news organizations by NPNewswire.

There is a difference.

This is how spin works. A group gets in front of a story and controls it by getting the information to a reporter first. The Law of Primacy takes over and the first impression the reporter has of the story is the one he's most likely to follow; especially if they're lazy or if they're predisposed to believe the story (biased). Exceptionally lazy news outlets will even go so far as to just reprint the "story" in full.

This is why, as a child, it makes sense to run to your parents and say your brother did "the bad thing" first. They are more likely to believe the first thing they hear rather than any explanation that comes afterward.

I actually feel sorry for the folks that don't understand how this sort of thing works, because those are the people most easily deceived by it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quoting here the part you, yourself, JohnRich, quoted and bolded;

Quote

That means the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional . . .

The OPINIONS expressed by the CATO institute were passed along to news organizations by NPNewswire.

Perhaps you should have read the majority opinion in the case...

Quote

The District responds that,
notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would
likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted
with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a
constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying
a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on
the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold
it unconstitutional.

*bolding mine*

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quoting here the part you, yourself, JohnRich, quoted and bolded;

Quote

That means the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional . . .

The OPINIONS expressed by the CATO institute were passed along to news organizations by NPNewswire.

Perhaps you should have read the majority opinion in the case...

Quote

The District responds that,
notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would
likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted
with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a
constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying
a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on
the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold
it unconstitutional.

*bolding mine*

Exactly, "As such, we hold it unconstitutional." means that THEY thought it was unconsitutional . . . however, it doesn't mean that it actually IS unconstitutional. Constitutionality will be decided by the Supreme Court not the district court.

I can only imagine your reactions if the 9th Circuit actually held sway over certain issues.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The facts as reported by PRnewswire are correct.

No. While there are some facts in the story, the conclusions drawn are OPINIONS.

Quoting here the part you, yourself, JohnRich, quoted and bolded;

Quote

That means the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional . . .

The court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, not just state militias, and Washington D.C. is denying gun ownership to individuals. Therefore, the D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional.

How do you figure, according to this court and their finding as of right now, that the above statement is not true?

Yes, the Supreme Court can uphold or reverse this decision. But as of now, this ruling counts. It's not like all court rulings are null and void unless confirmed by the Supreme Court. Because very darned few cases ever get that far. You can't just ignore the other court rulings just because you don't like them. They are law unless they are overtuned.

Re: the 9th Circuit. The same applies there. They issue a lot of goofy rulings, but nevertheless, they are law in that jurisdiction, until overturned by higher authority.

[quade 4]

Please see responce in post just above yours.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Please see responce in post just above yours.

I did. It doesn't change my statement in message #10.

[quade 4]

Quote

It's not like all court rulings are null and void unless confirmed by the Supreme Court.

It's like Yogi Beara said . . . "It aint' over 'til it's over."

And clearly this one is going up to the Supremes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quoting here the part you, yourself, JohnRich, quoted and bolded;

Quote

That means the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional . . .

The OPINIONS expressed by the CATO institute were passed along to news organizations by NPNewswire.

Perhaps you should have read the majority opinion in the case...

Quote

The District responds that,
notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would
likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted
with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a
constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying
a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on
the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold
it unconstitutional.

*bolding mine*

Exactly, "As such, we hold it unconstitutional." means that THEY thought it was unconsitutional . . . however, it doesn't mean that it actually IS unconstitutional. Constitutionality will be decided by the Supreme Court not the district court.

I can only imagine your reactions if the 9th Circuit actually held sway over certain issues.

You put forth the impression that the "unconstitutional" statement was a fabrication of the Cato Institute, when it was in fact the actual language of the court.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

You put forth the impression that the "unconstitutional" statement was a fabrication of the Cato Institute, when it was in fact the actual language of the court.

But it IS a fabrication . . . either that or a misrepresentation.

Please see quibbling points between JohnRich and myself on that subject a few posts higher than this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You put forth the impression that the "unconstitutional" statement was a fabrication of the Cato Institute, when it was in fact the actual language of the court.

But it IS a fabrication . . . either that or a misrepresentation.

Please see quibbling points between JohnRich and myself on that subject a few posts higher than this.

I'll be interested to see your letter to the court telling them that they can't find the gun ban unconstitional... please make sure to post their reply to you, as well.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Exactly, "As such, we hold it unconstitutional." means that THEY thought it was unconsitutional . . . however, it doesn't mean that it actually IS unconstitutional. Constitutionality will be decided by the Supreme Court not the district court.

I can only imagine your reactions if the 9th Circuit actually held sway over certain issues.

You misunderstand the court system, Quade. Deliberately in this case, I suspect, with false hope that the court will reverse the decision.

It has been declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may choose to review it, or not, but we don't have to wait until that day. The SC is the final authority on the matter, but not the only authority.

[Douva 0]

Quote

News:

D.C. Petition for Rehearing of Gun Ban Case Denied

Today, in a 6-4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a motion by the D.C. government to reconsider the court's blockbuster opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia. On March 9, the court held in Parker that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms," striking down a 31-year old ban on guns in the nation's capital.

Moreover, the court continued, activities protected by the Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

That means the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional and, unless the Supreme Court overturns the Parker decision, the ban will have to be lifted. Most likely, the D.C. government will now ask the Supreme Court to review the appellate court decision. If so, the high court could decide this summer whether to take the case...

Source: PRNewswire

Now let's work on overturning 922r. I'm tired of trying to count the number of American made parts vs. foreign made parts in my rifles.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

You put forth the impression that the "unconstitutional" statement was a fabrication of the Cato Institute, when it was in fact the actual language of the court.

But it IS a fabrication . . . either that or a misrepresentation.

If you believe that every court ruling other than the Supreme Court has no power and means nothing, then you are revealing yourself to be out of touch with reality.

The fact is, the second highest court ruled the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional, and that ruling stands as law, unless and until the Supreme Court overturns it.

Just because it might be overturned some time in the future, doesn't mean that you can just ignore it in the meantime.

Heck, every law can possibly be overturned in the future. So by your way of thinking, any laws not made by the Supreme Court itself, don't really exist! And that is ludicrous, as is your position on this ruling.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

The fact is, the second highest court ruled the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional, and that ruling stands as law, unless and until the Supreme Court overturns it.

Just because it might be overturned some time in the future, doesn't mean that you can just ignore it in the meantime.

Quade: that really is the bottom line.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The facts as reported by PRnewswire are correct.

No. While there are some facts in the story, the conclusions drawn are OPINIONS.

Quoting here the part you, yourself, JohnRich, quoted and bolded;

Quote

That means the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional . . .

The court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, not just state militias, and Washington D.C. is denying gun ownership to individuals. Therefore, the D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional.

How do you figure, according to this court and their finding as of right now, that the above statement is not true?

Yes, the Supreme Court can uphold or reverse this decision. But as of now, this ruling counts. It's not like all court rulings are null and void unless confirmed by the Supreme Court. Because very darned few cases ever get that far. You can't just ignore the other court rulings just because you don't like them. They are law unless they are overtuned.

Re: the 9th Circuit. The same applies there. They issue a lot of goofy rulings, but nevertheless, they are law in that jurisdiction, until overturned by higher authority.

And I like the fact that Quade lists a court that has the highest rate of being overturned. Way more than any other court in the nation. Anyone care to post the percentage of cased that court has overturned.??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

And I like the fact that Quade lists a court that has the highest rate of being overturned. Way more than any other court in the nation. Anyone care to post the percentage of cased that court has overturned.??

Then you -do- understand why I specifically picked it. They are frequently "wrong" in their assessment of the situation. Just as the court in this D.C. gun ban issue may be.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And I like the fact that Quade lists a court that has the highest rate of being overturned. Way more than any other court in the nation. Anyone care to post the percentage of cased that court has overturned.??

Then you -do- understand why I specifically picked it. They are frequently "wrong" in their assessment of the situation. Just as the court in this D.C. gun ban issue may be.

I do understand your point - but the fact is that, until and unless the decision is overturned by the Supremes, the DC ban has been found unconstitutional by that appelate court.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And I like the fact that Quade lists a court that has the highest rate of being overturned. Way more than any other court in the nation. Anyone care to post the percentage of cased that court has overturned.??

Then you -do- understand why I specifically picked it. They are frequently "wrong" in their assessment of the situation. Just as the court in this D.C. gun ban issue may be.

Not the same for the 2nd so no, I do not agree with you or see your point. At this point the law is unconstitutional. Period. My bet is the SC will refuse to hear this case. The opinions were sound, supported by president and the framers intent as well as being well written.

But, I was wrong once last month so you never know

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And I like the fact that Quade lists a court that has the highest rate of being overturned. Way more than any other court in the nation. Anyone care to post the percentage of cased that court has overturned.??

Then you -do- understand why I specifically picked it. They are frequently "wrong" in their assessment of the situation. Just as the court in this D.C. gun ban issue may be.

I do understand your point - but the fact is that, until and unless the decision is overturned by the Supremes, the DC ban has been found unconstitutional by that appelate court.

But it doesn't set a NATIONAL precedent.

In 1981, Morton Grove, IL, became the first town in America to prohibit the possession of handguns. Victor Quilici, a local lawyer, sued the city (Quilici v. Morton Grove). The federal district court as well as the Apellate Court ruled the Morton Grove ordinance to be constitutional, thus upholding the gun ban. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower court decision stand. The ban stands to this day as village code.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.