ziadel

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...598007,00.html




well, a lot of people are being really non chalant about this, but its a big deal.
a gun ban has never been overturned....ever, this paves the way for getting a lot of other really silly federal laws stricken.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Willravel

I'll revisit this thread in a year with the results, just as I am planning on returning to the SF Gun Ban thread with the results (so far, under the SF Gun Ban, crime in San Francisco has dropped off 25%).

I hope very much for the sake of every person in the District of Columbia that the pro-gun people are right that allowing guns in the area again will help instead of hurt and that I am wrong. I really, really hope that I'm wrong.

Supple Cow

Help and hurt are such relative terms. Even if crime activities increases, a gun ban isn't the right medicine for the real problem. The problem isn't the crime - it's the criminals. Seems to me that a gun ban is like a ban on power tools.

*shrug*

Willravel

What I'm looking for is a realistic and successful program to stop crime and protect the innocent. I don't want to turn this into a pro or anti-gun thread.

In my humble opinion, a ban on power tools would probably decrease the use of power tools. I'm not sure how apt a comparison that is, though.

jorgelito

This is great news. I never really understood these laws, they seem to conflict with the Consititution as it were.

I'm sure DK will be happy too.

Supple Cow

Well, a ban on power tools would also reduce the number of power tool related injuries...

It appears that you believe a gun ban is good, but I'm not sure since I haven't read all the other threads around here in which you may have made this clear. What I want to know is why? Do you also believe that other types of weapons should carry restrictions? And what do you believe constitutes a weapon?

I personally don't think that lifting the gun ban was about instituting a program to stop crime. I think it was about civil liberties - and those happen to apply to people who use their guns for recreation as well as to would-be criminals. Do you believe that civil liberties are less important than a program for stopping crime? I don't.

Guns can be dangerous, but that's why you learn gun safety. I'm not actually sure if some kind of gun safety certification is required to get a license and buy a gun, but if that's not the case, then that would be something I could stand behind. An outright ban? Not so much.

I happen to think that programs for educating youth (or even just giving them something to do if they don't get the right guidance at home) would be far more effective at reducing crime in the long run than banning guns.

nofnway

I think the biggest news in the story is that the court of appeals recognizes the second ammendment as an individual right ,not just that of a militia... the basis for a large part of the anti-gun argument. I was also shocked to see the dissenting judge saying that the constitution does not apply in D.C. because it is not a state? Which part of the constitution do you not want to apply? That could be pretty ugly if carried out to the extreme.

__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci

Willravel

Again, I don't want this to turn into a pro vs. anti-gun thread. We have plenty of those. I will answer Supple Cow's questions with this, and that will be the end of my responding to pro or anti-gun stuff in this thread: I, personally, believe that the meaning of 'a well regulated militia' refers to a militia like the National Guard, and not the general populace. Most of the people I know are not responsible enough to own a gun. Most people can't even obey the rules of the road, so what reason would I have to trust them with firearms? I am a firm believer that when one fights fire with fire, one not only perpetuates the fire but gives it strength instead of putting it out. It's because of this that I will support any successful gun ban.

The real question is: will this effect crime in DC, and if so will crime grow or lessen? Only time will tell.

ziadel

oy.


thats just rubbish man and you know it.


Also, the mayor of DC has been quoted as saying that they will continue to arrest people for violating the ban that has been overturned.


hell in a handbasket peoples.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

host

....Great discussion....because, as everyone knows.....and some people say.....
and this seems to be the popular "level" of discourse...Why even bother to use the internet....let's just "text" to each other, instead. What's yer cell ????

<i>".....The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."...... -Supreme Court 1939 United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174</i>

dc_dux

As a DC resident, my only surprise is that it took so long for a court to overturn this law. As a supporter of gun control, I had said that it was far to burdensome and restrictive. If DC were in a state, it would likely have been pre-empted by a state law, as has happend with most restrictive local gun control laws.

The written commentary by the majority judges..."that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment" clearly recognizes that, in the opinion of the Court, some limitations are not unconstitutional, but DC's law went too far. A law requiring registration, a waiting period and child safety locks, rather than a total ban, would be much less likely to have been overturned.

As to its impact on crime in DC, there is no compelling evidence that I have seen on the impact of the law. Crime in DC has fluctuated in the last 30 years as a result of many factors....surges in drugs (particularly crack in the 80s-90s), immigration and the influx of Salvadoran gangs, police funding (crime dropped dramatically with the COPS program).

One impact of the gun law thath I believe is supportable (although I am sure some will challenge), has been a reduction in teen suicides and accidental gun deaths involving children ( I will have to find the study, but it applies, not only to DC, but to the states with more restrictive gun laws -- when there are fewer guns in the homes, there are fewer child suicides and accidental child shootings).

Most violent crime in DC is gang or drug related and, for the most part, is limited to certain wards in the city....although because it is the capital, when it affects tourists, government officials, etc., it becomes national news and the "homicide capital" misconception rears its head.

And, as to the mayor's comment about continuing to enforce the law, I am assuming the city will appeal to the Supreme Court and ask for a stay of the Appeals Court ruling until it is resolved at the highest level.....a common practice for many laws that are "overturned" at one level, but with appeals to a higher court still open.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Bill O'Rights

What are you talking about? It headed that direction with the second post...yours. But, never mind that. If it wasn't you, it would've been someone else. It was destined to go that way when the thread was opened.
Dude...maybe you need to start hanging out with different people.
Actually, I was kinda surprised that he wasn't the OP.
An interesting question, my dear Ms Cow. May I field this one?
I, for one, feel that martial arts weapons should be banned. Of what value are they? I mean, I can't go turkey hunting with a ninja star. Nor can I take a katana sword on a deer hunt. So, they just sit around collecting dust and aggrevating my allergies.
And...they instill a false sense of worth. Remember the movie Raider's Of The Lost Ark? The guy that came out swing his sword in every possible direction. Years upon years of discipline and practice. And what happened? Indiana Jones pulled out his handgun and shot the guy dead before he could even get close.

I am, of course, just kidding. I could not really care less, one way or the other, about martial arts weapons. I'm just trying to illustrate a point.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Supple Cow

I mostly meant knives, stun guns, mace and pepper spray. I think the whole idea of legislating for stupidity is... well, stupid. Maybe power tools were not the best illustrative tool. Also, I'm not sure what the point of this thread is if not to (a) discuss our personal reactions to the news of the ban being overturned or (b) discuss whether or not we believe gun bans should ever be in place. Am I crazy?

P.S. It's funny that you should bring up martial arts weapons... except for the swords, I think almost all of the weapons used in martial arts were just ordinary farming implements wielded for self defense because of weapon bans.

The_Jazz

I think that DK must still be licking his wounds after the socialism = communism = censorship thread. I haven't seen him post since that one. I hope he comes back.

Personalities aside, this decision means ... nothing. For right now, anyway. The exception to that is people like dc_dux who actually live in DC, but for everyone else, there's no change. For now. What it does is allow the Supreme Court the option to review the case and potentially overturn gun bans. Until they do that, it's business as usual.

In other words, there's nothing happening here. Move along but come back soon for the Big One.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dc_dux

DC is really no worse than most large urban areas if you rely on the best deterrents against being a victim of violent crime....an awareness of your surroundings and avoiding high crime areas. The repeal of the gun law wont change how I go about my daily life...I wont be buying a handgun.

My only concern is living down the street from Dick Cheney and the possibility that he might go hunting on the Naval Observatory grounds where he lives.

And I dont think the Appeals Court ruling will be very precident setting. The DC law was far more restrictive than most....but a Supreme Court second amendment case would certainly be interesting!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

SFs gun ban was ruled invalid and violated state law. There has been no 'gun ban' in SF, therefore, the crime reduction cannot possibly be attributed to banning guns.

Not licking my 'wounds', just still saddened that people can't see the inevitable results and would rather rely on the premised theory abstract as a finite result. neither here nor there though.

As to the aftermath of the DC CofA ruling....

DC will appeal for a rehearing en banc and ask for a stay of judgement pending that hearing...which they will most likely get. So the 'gun ban' will most likely stay in effect for some time.

98% of en bancs are usually decided the same way as the panel decision, but there is always the possibility of a reversal.

If the en banc denies a rehearing or stays with the panel majority then DC will apply for cert to the USSC.
If the en banc reverses, then the plaintiffs will apply for cert.

either way, no state laws will be affected by this decision.

At best, this opens the door for true 2nd amendment cases that should have been decided via cruikshank, that it specifically forbids the feds from infringing on the 2nd which could do away with 68 GCA, NFA, and the post 86 automatic weapons ban.

at worst, nothing changes at all.

adding this as an afterthought.....

this decision should not be read as to mean that any DC resident can just go out and buy a handgun. All this decision means is that the District court has had this case remanded back to it to order DC to allow officer hellen (who was the only one that actually had standing) to register to own a functional handgun in his home, which in turn will mean that DC must now register ALL able DC residents to own a functional handgun in their home or face more suits for violating a constitutional right. OR, DC can abolish the registration process to comply with the courts.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Yakk

The Right to Bear Arms quiz!

On a scale of
A> The government should destroy all instances, including their own possessions, and make possession an international crime.
B> Individuals should not be allowed to own it.
C> Individuals expressly permitted by the government should be allowed to own it.
D> A uniform permission system should exist, with ridiculously high standards.
E> A uniform permission system should exist, such that an individual after less than a year of full-time training you are allowed to own it.
F> They should be registered with the state, and a short waiting period and background check should be required.
G> Nothing more than a registration should be required.
H> Ownership should be unrestricted.

what should the regulation be on the following:
Level 5+ biohazards? (ie, weaponized ebola)
Nuclear Bombs?
Fuel-air bombs?
Weaponized Nerve Agents?
Armed naval cruisers?
Tonnes of TNT?
Fighter jets?
Tanks?
Artillery?
APCs?
Machine guns?
Assault rifles?
Submachine guns?
Rifles?
Pistols?
Crossbows?
Swords?
Knives?
Rocks?
Fists?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Willravel

Call the San Francisco police department and ask them if it's still in effect.

According to Yakk's quiz, I'm somewhere between B and D.

dksuddeth

I don't need to because of this....Judge rules voter-approved S.F. handgun ban is illegal and if SF police are enforcing this then they are leaving themselves open to lawsuits.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Elphaba

From another article:

WaPo

This very well may be the "Big One" that Jazz mentioned.

It should be interesting to follow the progress of this decision.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Astrocloud

The quiz above does not relate to the regulation below it -unless this is some sort of two dimensional quiz. The quiz could be made one dimensional by simply specifying to what extent and which weapons should be outlawed. I guess I am happy with the present levels of gun control and do not want the laws changed in either direction.

For the record everyone, it is a realistic interpretation that the 2nd amendment isn't meant for citizens to defend themselves against other citizens -but rather as an extreme check against abusive government power. There is more than incedental evidence to support that. For example this statement by Jefferson:

So when I read that people are Re-Interpreting the Constitution so that this key idea is ignored -that the second amendment was intended to allow an armed citizenry to stand against the government. I get alarmed that people again are twisting facts to suit theories.

And it's not that I agree with the John Birch Society or the Unibomber or anyone. I just think that this issue -of the intent of the second amendment is getting ignored by both sides on this issue.

I see two ways around this idea:

1) State that the present checks and balances against abusive government authority are so overwhelmingly sufficient that the second amendment is not required.

2) State that the second amendment as it now stands is so weak that it does not sufficiently provide a check against abusive government authority. ie: We need to legalize anti-aircraft weapons to protect ourselves against government bombers. (Notice that anti-aircraft weapons are generally not covered by Yaks quiz).

connyosis

Oh...lord...

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Yakk

Yes, the idea is that you answer on a scale of A to H for each class of weaponry.

For the most part, I think people will end up wanting the earlier weapons to be regulated more than the later weapons. (I did inverted pistols and rifles, because I sorted by the deadlyness of the tool). I suspect almost everyone thinks that fists and rocks shouldn't be regulated, and I'm betting most people want some kind of regulation or banning of the personal ownership of nuclear bombs and weaponized ebola.

Gun control is, after all, just one kind of weapon control.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Bill O'Rights

Sooooo..."C"?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Deltona Couple

The Right to Bear Arms quiz!

OK, I will actually take a bite of this one, flame as you will, this is after all persona opinion!

On a scale of
A> The government should destroy all instances, including their own possessions, and make possession an international crime.
B> Individuals should not be allowed to own it.
C> Individuals expressly permitted by the government should be allowed to own it.
D> A uniform permission system should exist, with ridiculously high standards.
E> A uniform permission system should exist, such that an individual after less than a year of full-time training you are allowed to own it.
F> They should be registered with the state, and a short waiting period and background check should be required.
G> Nothing more than a registration should be required.
H> Ownership should be unrestricted.

what should the regulation be on the following:
Level 5+ biohazards? (ie, weaponized ebola) A
Nuclear Bombs? B
Fuel-air bombs? B
Weaponized Nerve Agents? A
Armed naval cruisers? B
Tonnes of TNT? B
Fighter jets? B
Tanks? B
Artillery? B
APCs? G (But only in the sense that APCs are non-weaponized transports)
Machine guns? B
Assault rifles? B
Submachine guns? B
Rifles? G
Pistols? F
Crossbows? H
Swords? H
Knives? H
Rocks? H
Fists? H


Ok guys and gals, Flame away!...lol

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

pig

what deltona said. realistically, if the citizens of the states were going to revolt against the us govt., we'd have to have the national guard with us, and thereby get access to real weapons. a couple of machines guns ain't gonna cut it when they're in tanks.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Charlatan

The American fascination with personal liberty vs. the collective good has always dumbfounded me.

I can see the point of wanting to have an armed populace to stand against a corrupt government. I get it. So make it mandatory that all citizenry have rifles in the home.

I see no need for handguns. They are only antipersonnel.


This is my position on this. I will not argue it. A handgun ban makes sense. Ban them all (and by all I mean ALL).

Punishment for using a handgun in a crime... you lose your hand.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Deltona Couple

While I agree with your right to have your own opinion, I take offense to your statement of "facination with personal liberty". This is NOT a facination. It was a right given to us by our forefathers, and there are many of us who firmly believe that the right to own firearms is just that, a right. One that if we CHOSE to use that right, that the government cannot just arbitrarily take it away. I am not "facinated" with owning a firearm. I enjoy going out on weekends and practicing, or hunting if I so choose. I enjoy honeing the skill of target practice to the point where I can hit a target at 75 metres with an accuracy of less than a decimetre with my pistol. I also am comfortable knowing that if someone were to enter my home unwanted, and were to wish me harm, BECAUSE of our 2nd amendment right, I know I can protect my family. There is an age old quote, that I forget who coined it first "If it becomes criminal to own a gun, then only criminals will have guns" In some contries it has worked well for them to ban handguns. But personally, in my OPINION, it is a right that I believe should NOT be taken from the common citizen. Now before you go saying that I am a fascist or a lunatic who thinks every person should be able to go buy a pistol off the shelf, know that I am a firm believer that all handguns should at a minimum be registered, and that there SHOULD be a "cooling down" or "waiting" period for individual handgun purchases. Also, where I live, you cannot own a handgun unless you are atleast 21 years of age, and are NOT allowed to purchase/own one if convicted of a felony, or domestic violence crime. So there ARE some regulations.

*bows gracefully and steps off soap-box*

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

ziadel

if the deer I shot this fall had only known that handguns are only 'interpersonal', it would'nt have died after I shot it?

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Superbelt

Even if the appeals opinion is upheld, it shouldn't affect anyone else in the country. At least, not those who actually live in states.

DC is a very special case where it's authority rests ultimately with Congress.
Thus, any gun ban really would have to come from them, not the mayor or municipal government of the district.
To add to that, the "Congress shall make no law..." section really, IMO makes DC a gun amusement park.

Comparing what happens there to any gun bans around the country is comparing apples to prime-rib.

j8ear

The DC handgun ban was enacted by the DC city council..not congress, and was deemed unconstitutional by the a federal appeals court, because it violated the 2nd amendment. There is zero indication that the source of the ban had any bearing on it's unconstitutionality.

Also, you might want to review the Bill of Rights, as "Congress shall make no laws..." is exclusive to the 1st amendment. The second has even more restrictive wording in that the right it enumerates "shall not be infringed."

Finally, assuming this reaches the SCOTUS, ~if~ it is heard and the 2nd is clarified you can bet my life that it will indeed effect every state in the union, regardless of whether it is overturned or upheld.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Charlatan

I have heard all of these arguments and none of them mean anything to me other than, "I want a handgun because I want a handgun, I don't care about the rest of you"

The vast majority of the rest of the world is not as fascinated with individual liberty. In many other parts of the world they value things like family and community *before* they value the individual.

The US, in legislating the personal over the collective is an anomaly.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Supple Cow

I don't just want a handgun because I want a handgun and to hell with everybody else. I happen to think individual liberty is the first (and in many ways only) thing that a government should be concerned with protecting. That's why I'm proud to be a U.S. citizen and that's what I think makes the U.S. a special place. Respect for a greater community (incidentally made up of individuals) can only come from an individual who respects himself. You can build a great big wall, but it won't hold unless the bricks you use are sound. I would say this in any thread about individual liberty - this isn't just about guns.



On a meta-note about this thread:

My views may seem simplistic or naive to some of you, but I think it's impossible to have a real constructive discussion about anything with people who don't agree 100% with you unless you are prepared to discuss your fundamental values - why you believe what you believe. If I wanted to practice political debate, I would start one of those political debate threads that I remember existed here once upon a time, or I would go join a political organization or take a poli sci class. What happened to discussion? What happened to the personal element? Since I have decided to participate in Politics again (merely days ago), I have wanted to run screaming at least three times so far. I didn't realize I was walking into a courtroom or news room. I see buzz words all over the place and I honestly have no idea what many of you (notably the most riled up) mean by the things you say. Perhaps you are all purposely being vague in order to posture yourselves for a "win" or using buzz words thinking maybe this time I'll one-up that guy who doesn't agree with me. Perhaps you think you are being admirably pugnacious spirits. Or, maybe it just feels good to zing that guy you really disagree with. Well, good luck with that. I, for one, am more than slightly repulsed by this atmosphere. If this is what the cool kids do, then I don't want to be cool anymore.

smooth

why are you shocked?
Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the feds.
Then the 14th amendment passed.
So we think the Bill of Rights applies to the States (I don't think *all* of the rights have been found to apply, btw).
DC isn't a state.

The minority opinion is most likely the correct legal interpretation.
It's definately factually correct.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

j8ear

I'm not following your BoRights logic here.

First, the Bill of rights applied to the people. Not the feds. It restricted what any legislature could do to the people.

The "constitution" determined what the feds ~could~ do....and left everything else to the states, except as restricted by the Bill of Rights.

Of course since both the "compelling government interest" and "interstate commerce" doctrines have been expanded to essentially eliminate any rights the government (federal, or otherwise) determines, at it's sole discretion, are too cumbersome.

But what does the 14th have to do with anything? (Yes I just read it...all 5 sections worth...whew that's a long amendment)

And why would DC, not being a state, yet still being subject to the jurisdiction of the United Sates, be able to violate the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights...I mean aside from the fact that those pesky rights are just too burdensome?

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

smooth

Why do you think that the BoR restricted what "any legislature" could do to the people instead of what I claimed...that it restricted the *federal* government?

This leads you to say that, with the exception of the Consitution, everything was left to the states, "except" the BoR.

Why do you think this to be true?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

j8ear

I'm gonna have to go with the 10th amendment here, which says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Noting, of course, that the "Bill of Rights" and the other 17 amendments are in fact amendments to The Constitution.

And for what it's worth....I think the "Bill of Rights" enumerated rights which could not be legislated away...by anyone!

Am I wrong?

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

dksuddeth

the BoR were inalienable rights held by the people that could not be denied or infringed upon, fed or state. The ONLY reason that the constitution was found to be applicable to the feds was the result of the 14th amendment and the subsequent harrasment of newly freedmen(former slaves) by KKK groups in the south and their inevitable prosecution by the federal government. A bigoted majority on the USSC decided Cruikshank and thus began the highly controversial 'incorporation' of the BoR via a power grabbing judiciary.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

j8ear

Smooth,

I think I see where I was unclear a few posts back which led you you to question what I believe is true.

This is probably more along the lines of what I should have written to avoid the confusion I seemed to have caused:

Apologies for my less then clear composition.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

jorgelito

DK can you elaborate a little bit, I can't follow. Thanks.