Washington D.C. Gun Ban - Update

[JohnRich 4]

News:

District of Columbia officials said Monday they plan to petition the Supreme Court as they seek to defend the city's 30-year-old ban on most handguns.

A federal appeals court panel struck down the law in March, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. The full appeals court refused to reconsider the decision in May. The law has remained in effect during the appeals process.

"We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended," Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said in a statement Monday.

If the high court takes up the case, it would mark the first time in 70 years that justices will consider the breadth of the Second Amendment...

Source: Fox News

Hope springs eternal for gun-banners.

Will the Supreme Court have the guts this time to address the 2nd Amendment head-on? Or will they once again cowardly refuse to deal with it?

Either way, Mayor Fenty is going to lose. But in the meantime, at least he'll be allowed to continue to deny gun ownership rights to his citizens, who are apparently less trustworthy than the citizens of almost every other place in America.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

But in the meantime, at least he'll be allowed to continue to deny gun ownership rights to his citizens, who are apparently less trustworthy than the citizens of almost every other place in America.

With a city full of politicans, lawyers, lobbyists and other Beltway hangers-on, who is to say he's wrong?

...

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

[JohnnyD 0]

The article hinted that the court has a history of not taking such cases, which would kill the law.
The court also leans right, which would make the laws chances not very good if the court did take it.
Seems like the pro-gunners are in a good position to win here.

Do you have anything that would gauge what the public's support (I mean people in DC - not the NRA) is regarding the defeat of the law?

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Either way, Mayor Fenty is going to lose. But in the meantime, at least he'll be allowed to continue to deny gun ownership rights to his citizens,

How does the local gov't work in DC?
Does the Mayor have a legislative function as well as an executive? Is there a city council?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Washington's gun law was enacted in 1976 and bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes and prohibits the carrying of a gun without a license. Registered firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled.

"The handgun ban in the District of Columbia has saved many lives since then and will continue to do so if it remains enforced," Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said.

The city's sweeping gun ban is matched only by Chicago among large U.S. cities.

The law was challenged by six D.C. residents who said they wanted to keep guns in their homes to protect themselves against crime. Opponents of the law also include the National Rifle Association.

D.C. officials say the gun ban is needed in a city that has been plagued by high homicide rates. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said 75 of the city's 97 homicides this year were committed with firearms.

Jon, if anything, hope springs eternal that the same old tired (and constitutionally questionable) methods will work, even though they haven't worked for thirty years.

So how can they claim that the ban saved lives when they are one of the most dangerous cities in the country, and most of the (criminal) deaths there are by firearms? Still waiting fot the answer to that one.

The article also leave out the fact that since no new licenses are issued, it is a de facto ban on all onwership.

ps - criminals are still exempt from requirements to register their guns, so registration, once again, practically and legally, only applies to law abiding citizens.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Just another source for information:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/07/second_amendmen.html

And for those of you allergic to FOXNews, the AP has articles on this subject as well.
http://wtopnews.com/?nid=596&sid=1190227

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

With a city full of politicans, lawyers, lobbyists and other Beltway hangers-on, who is to say he's wrong?

My guess is that they themselves carry or have security details that carry. Again, it's an issue where the peasants should not be allowed to have guns.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

With a city full of politicans, lawyers, lobbyists and other Beltway hangers-on, who is to say he's wrong?

My guess is that they themselves carry or have security details that carry. Again, it's an issue where the peasants should not be allowed to have guns.

I think you deliberately missed my point, Counselor

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you have anything that would gauge what the public's support (I mean people in DC - not the NRA) is regarding the defeat of the law?

Should their opinion matter? It's a question of their rights, not something that is approved by the majority.

At least this court will be useful for something.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you have anything that would gauge what the public's support (I mean people in DC) is regarding the defeat of the law?

I haven't heard anything on that. But since D.C. has one of the highest murder rates in the nation every year, and the decades-long gun ban has done nothing to change that, I would bet that the citizens there are ready to try something different - like armed self defense.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you have anything that would gauge what the public's support (I mean people in DC) is regarding the defeat of the law?

I haven't heard anything on that. But since D.C. has one of the highest murder rates in the nation every year, and the decades-long gun ban has done nothing to change that, I would bet that the citizens there are ready to try something different - like armed self defense.

kelpdiver made a very good point that public opinion is irrelevant. I was just wondering if the local gov't structure of DC had any role in this law being on the books for so long. As you know, I'm not in the crazy gun guy mold, but this seems to be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment and has stood for some time.

[BillyMongilly 0]

Quote

News:

District of Columbia officials said Monday they plan to petition the Supreme Court as they seek to defend the city's 30-year-old ban on most handguns.

A federal appeals court panel struck down the law in March, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

Two points here, the Constitution doesn't state that this "militia" must be a Government sponsored militia, and the purpose of the right to keep and bear was so the people could take up arms against a corrupt Government. That's how America became America.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Richard Henry Lee,

How high are we going? Oh about 9000. Oh Mr. Pilot! How high are we going? Oh about 12000! That's the ticket!

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

News:

District of Columbia officials said Monday they plan to petition the Supreme Court as they seek to defend the city's 30-year-old ban on most handguns.

A federal appeals court panel struck down the law in March, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

Two points here, the Constitution doesn't state that this "militia" must be a Government sponsored militia, and the purpose of the right to keep and bear was so the people could take up arms against a corrupt Government. That's how America became America.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Richard Henry Lee,

I'd be interested to see you, with your handgun, take on an Abrams tank or Apache gunship . Richard Henry Lee never saw a tank or a helicopter gunship. In his day the militia's and the government's weapons were pretty much the same.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Your usual strawman argument - you don't use infantry weapons against armor.

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

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Your usual strawman argument - you don't use infantry weapons against armor.

I didn't make an argument. Re-read what I wrote.

No doubt the army of a rogue government would never bring in armor, that wouldn't be playing fair, would it?

But I do remember pictures of tanks rolling through Budapest during the uprising of 1956, through Prague in 1968 and tanks in Tiananmen Square...

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Your usual strawman argument - you don't use infantry weapons against armor.

I didn't make an argument. Re-read what I wrote.

Your point is still nonsensical and, in fact, a hijack of the OP.

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

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your usual strawman argument - you don't use infantry weapons against armor.

I didn't make an argument. Re-read what I wrote.

Your point is still nonsensical and, in fact, a hijack of the OP.

My point was addressed to this post in this thread.

Why do you think rogue governments would refrain from using armor against civilians? History shows that they do it with some regularity.

BTW, if it's off topic, then your response is also off topic.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your usual strawman argument - you don't use infantry weapons against armor.

I didn't make an argument. Re-read what I wrote.

Your point is still nonsensical and, in fact, a hijack of the OP.

My point was addressed to this post in this thread.

Why do you think rogue governments would refrain from using armor against civilians? History shows that they do it with some regularity.

BTW, if it's off topic, then your response is also off topic.

Yes, I know my rebuttal to you is equally off topic....

"Human wave attacks" against armor went out of fashion quite a number of years ago, however... just an FYI for you.

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

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your usual strawman argument - you don't use infantry weapons against armor.

I didn't make an argument. Re-read what I wrote.

Your point is still nonsensical and, in fact, a hijack of the OP.

My point was addressed to this post in this thread.

Why do you think rogue governments would refrain from using armor against civilians? History shows that they do it with some regularity.

BTW, if it's off topic, then your response is also off topic.

Yes, I know my rebuttal to you is equally off topic....

"Human wave attacks" against armor went out of fashion quite a number of years ago, however... just an FYI for you.

But armored and air attacks against armed civilians with infantry weapons continue to this day.

...

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

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I'd be interested to see you, with your handgun, take on an Abrams tank or Apache gunship . Richard Henry Lee never saw a tank or a helicopter gunship. In his day the militia's and the government's weapons were pretty much the same.

Are you implying that (overall) armed US citizens would be completely ineffective against a rouge military?

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

I'd be interested to see you, with your handgun, take on an Abrams tank or Apache gunship . Richard Henry Lee never saw a tank or a helicopter gunship. In his day the militia's and the government's weapons were pretty much the same.

Are you implying that (overall) armed US citizens would be completely ineffective against a rouge military?

No. I meant exactly what I wrote.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'd be interested to see you, with your handgun, take on an Abrams tank or Apache gunship . Richard Henry Lee never saw a tank or a helicopter gunship. In his day the militia's and the government's weapons were pretty much the same.

Use the handgun to capture the pilot going to the gunship or tank. Or attack the fuel supply. With the exception of drones like the Predator, the human element is vunerable, and can't stay inside the vehicle indefinitely.

The other obvious answer to this stupid hijack is that you don't take on a tank in a large open square. There are plenty of battles you can win. The Vietnamese did pretty well despite limitations on available weapons. And you of course know that.

Now isn't is past due for you to proclaim once again that you really support gun rights? Let's get in all your weekly cliches in one short burst.

[DJL 235]

Quote

Again, it's an issue where the peasants should not be allowed to have guns.

Fine by me.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher