D.C. Gun Ban Overturned.
 

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.

:D

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.

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*

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

....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>

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.

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. :D
Actually, I was kinda surprised that he wasn't the OP. :rolleyes:
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.

:expressionless:

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.

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.

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. :eek:

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!

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.

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?

:)

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.

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.

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.

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).

Oh...lord...

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.

Sooooo..."C"? :lol:

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

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.

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.

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*

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

bear,
The Constitution isn't a document about the states, it's a *federal* document.
Before the 14th amendement, citizens generally thought of themselves as citizens of say, New York, or Mass., or Georgia, etc. People weren't at that time accustomed to thinking of themselves part of a collective whole of states.

The relevant history for this is that when the Constution was ratified, our beginning nation was experiencing a number of problems. You probably already know that everyone was concerned over having too strong of a central government and court system, but without a unified system the states were having problems paying back their debts. Two main factions formed around how to resolve some of these issues: the federalist and the anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong central judiciary, a powerful court system, and they were concerned about our nation being governed by a majority. The anti-federalists wanted a weak central government, a less powerful court system, and they were concerned that states rights would be lost in the shuffle.

To resolve most of this, the two factions agreed that they would form a system of government with each branch controlling different aspects. So they oulined the executive branch and the legislative branch (as an example of how these compromises played out, we have a Congress comprised of a House of Reps where the population determines the members in conjunction with a Senate where each state has equal representation. I can't remember the respective plans each faction introduced, but if you google "connectcut plan" I think that's the one they reached, or it's one of the three and you'll be able to read about the other two.). Initially, the judicial branch was given the least amount of detail and this leads some scholars to believe that it was supposed to be least powerful branch and others to suspect that by not nailing down the details, it gave the federalists a springboard to add on to the judicial branch's power later on.

The Bill of Rights was a concession to the anti-federalists' fear of a central federal government over-running states' abilities to govern their citizens. It's written as a check against the federal government and the 10th amendment would actually support my points, not detract from them.

I'm not sure what kind of split you thought I was making about whether the Constitution is written for the feds or the states, but all the Constitution was about was how the federal government was going to operate. The Bill of Rights was introduced to ensure that the feds couldn't strip certain rights from the states.

In this context, that means that Congress is restricted from passing laws outlawing guns from New York residents. But it never meant that New York could was limited in it's ability to pass laws barring it's own residents owning guns. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that the Bill of Rights were applied to individual members in each state protecting them from their own state governments and laws.

And I wrote that we *think* it means that all of the Bill of Rights apply, when in fact the USSC has only ruled on some of them.

In any case, as written, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to cities such as DC. It's not a state. The minority opinion is almost certainly legally correct. I'm not on the Supreme Court, so I can't tell you definatively how they would rule, but her logic is sound.

Have you read your state consitution recently?
Why do you think California and Oregon constitutions guarantee their citizens the right to free speech and protections against unlawful searches and seizures (both ratified about a hundred years after the BoR were already in place)? I don't know other states off-hand, but I would be surprised to find that it does not mention rights very similar (or same) to those mentioned in the BoR.

I guess that it might be hard for someone who didn't grow up in the US to understand our way of thinking. At times I find myself looking at news from other countries and think WTF? myself. However that is the way THEY grew up. I just see our rights as just that: rights given to us by our Constitution. Do you honestly think that because we want to own a handgun, that we are fascinated by owning it? Can't you just believe that we CHOOSE to own one, not think we MUST own one. There are many other rights given to us by our Constitution, do you think we shoud just give them up as well? I think it is GREAT that women can vote now, and support them that right...Does that make me "fascinated" with women voting? We have freedom of religion, this causes MANY disagreements amoung the populace...should we just ban religion all-together unless it is Christianity because we are "fascinated" by religion? Police must secure a search warrant to enter our homes, but we have people who commit illegal activities in their home all the time...Should we just ban the 4th Amendment so the police can enter our home any time they want? Hell Charlatan, I can get alot more work done, and done cheaper, by slaves than if I had to pay an employee; lets abolish the 13th Amendment so I can own slaves!
.......Can you see where this is going? Once you start taking away civil liberties, where does it end? We MUST as an individual person, FORM a collective society to police OURSELVES as much as our government. If you look at history where states have actually enacted the Concealed Weapons permit, allowing LICENSED individuals to carry a handgun on their person in certain LEGAL locations, you will find that OVERALL crimes against persons have gone DOWN not up. Most criminals KNOW that in many states, people are allowed to carry, therefore their RISK of attacking someone is greater. This has caused a DECREASE in personal crime. The statistics you find where people are murdered or killed violently are done so by persons who are NOT legally allowed to own a handgun. They are done by criminals. Unless you want to live in a police state, the individual MUST be allowed to protect themself.

Now you might be saying "well lets not take this to extremes here Deltona, that is NOT what I am saying." But JUST as YOU are saying that handguns should be banned, other people are saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote; that the African-American populace should be deported; that we should allow the police to enter our homes any time they wish. It is true, there ARE people out there like that. It is the job of our Constitution to protect THEM, as well as let us protect ourselves. So where should it end? Why do you think we have Amendments? They are the PEOPLES way of telling the GOVERNMENT how it should be run. Not the Government telling the PEOPLE how they are going to do things.

*puts on flame-retardent suit*....lol
:thumbsup:

any specific part?

while paying back debts was a large part of the issue, the larger issue was about the stability of a unified standing army to safeguard ALL of the states. Without it, Massachussetts could be invaded and New York might not jump in to help defend it. A standing army would remove that issue, yet the fears of a central government and military were fresh in the minds of everyone, thus the constitution/Bill of Rights to ensure that the new central government had limited powers and KNEW that there were areas they were not allowed to touch.

The constitution was ratified in 1789, the BoR ratified in 1791. In 1790, D.C. became a federal district. Now, if you are trying to follow the 'logic' of the dissenting opinion, saying that the 14th doesn't apply to the citizens of D.C. because it is a federal district and not a state, you're saying that any state could deny a D.C. citizen of any rights, if outside of D.C.. Does the state of Virginia have the authority or power to arrest a D.C. citizen without charge and then detain them indefinitely without counsel?

Of course not, Virginia can not deny any person due process of law, according to its State Constitution, Article 1:

Sec. 11. That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or
property without due process of law;


I pointed this out earlier. States have their own constitutions. You could have looked this up yourself.

If the federal BoR were intended to apply to relations between states and people, why do you think every state constitution has the same (or enhanced) protections in their own constitutions?

Now that the 14th Amendment has been in operation, some of the BoR have been extended across all states. That doesn't mean all of them have. Additionally, it may very well be that the 14th amendment's due process clause has been ruled to apply to the DC residents, or it may not. I haven't researched that particular situation. But it's irrelevant because Virginia already has it covered under article 1, section 11.

Before the infamous dred scott and cruikshank decisions, there was zero reason to think or believe that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. An individual doesn't have inalienable rights that the federal government can't intrude upon, but the states can freely do so as long as it's not in their state constitutions. That ideology is patently absurd. The reason that a constitution is made is to enumerate powers to the government, not tell the people what rights they've been given.(since 'the people' have all their rights)

The ONLY reason that the incorporation doctrine was invented by the supreme court was so the individual states could still have their 'black codes' that the feds could not jack with. This was the cruikshank case in 1876. It was AFTER a black man named Ed Johnson was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death but lynched when his execution had been stayed pending appeal. The only time the Supreme Court presided over a trial, one Sheriff Joseph Shipp, for complicity in the lynching which denied a constitution right, the right of due process, to a black man. The first time the USSC applied the bill of rights against the states, starting the incorporation doctrine.

For a better read of this history, go Here

First of all, there is nothing in anything you've posted, other than your opinion, that substantiates your claim that "An individual doesn't have inalienable rights that the federal government can't intrude upon, but the states can freely do so as long as it's not in their state constitutions. That ideology is patently absurd."

That is the very essense of federalism--dual sovereignty. The federal constitution places restrictions on what the *federal* government can do to individuals. The BoR was never intended to interfere with how the states dealt with their own citizens in their own court systems. The states have always been able to do what they want with their citizens. *Now*, the states are only able to do what they want with their citizens so long as it is accordance with the federal government's bare minimum of protections. I don't feel the need to fight this issue with you, our nation already resolved its recalcitrant states' beef with federal sovereignty by 1865.

What I find strange is that you post links you think support your argument, yet whenever I take the time to read them I find them in opposition to your claims. For example, this is from the link you provided on the Shipp case:
This indicates to me that up until this case the BoR protections were only thought to be applicable in federal courts--even after the passage of the 14th amendment, according to sentences I bolded.

emphasis mine


So it appears that not only is my point that the federal constitution was not historically applied to state proceedings correct, it seems these protections were not all applied to state proceedings even *after* the 14th amendment had been in effect (which I also stated)...this by your own evidence.

Now, out of curiosity, you claim that Shipp was the first time the court applied the BoR against the states. You also claim his trial was due to denying a black man's "due process." The BoR are the first 10 amendments of the constitution, and does not include the 14th amendment. Yet, if what I am saying is untrue about the BoR not intended to be applied to the states, what possible reason would there be a right to due process in the 5th amendment, and the *same* right in the 14th? And why would this article discuss the 14th amendment and not the 5th when it details the jurisdictional issues?


I found an alternate analysis. This analysis argues for the 2nd Amend. to apply to DC because it falls under federal jurisdiction. Notice, however, that he doesn't dispute what I've been claiming--that the BoR applied to the feds and that the 14th doesn't require the states to recognize all of the amendments.
--http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024079035166

So here the author arrives at an alternate conclusion than I, based on a different legal theory of how one interprets the status of DC as a non-state entity in the US. That's fine, and it's these variances of legal arguments that led me to not definatively state whether the USSC would agree or disagree with the minority opinion...even if her logic was sound.

Q. Why weren't the BoR applied to the states before 1865?
A. It didn't need to be. The states treated their WHITE citizens according to the constitution while BLACKS had no rights.

Q. WHY was the 14th amendment created?
A. Because a racist majority supreme court refused to accept that BLACKS had rights according to the US constitution via the 13th Amendment, THEREFORE, their decision in Cruikshank eliminated federal intervention in the way states treated their newly freedmen by saying that the constitution only applied to the federal government.

Answer this....WHY did it take 80 years to figure out that the US BoR didn't apply to the states?

dksuddeth, you need to check your history...it didn't take our nation 80 years to figure out that the BoR didn't extend to the states, Congress rejected the notion outright before they ratified the Constitution:
And the U.S. Supreme Court smacked "WHITE citizens" down routinely:
-- http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

then maybe my question should have been more along the lines of 'do you always take the remarks and decisions of a person wearing a black robe at face value and apply it as uncontestable fact?'

I honestly don't know how to respond to your last question.
I mean, I'm not taking any one judge's remarks/decisions at face value so your premise is flawed. But aside from that, I'm synthesizing what I learned about the reasons for drafting a federal constitution, how that meshes with the need for state's rights, what that meant to the residents of those states, how the delegates appeared to have viewed the federal constitution from their writings/comments, how this relates to issues of federalism, how this has played out historically in our nation, and what a broad consensus of legal scholars have taught me and written (unanimous, to my knowledge; you have yet to provide me with a single legal scholar supportive of what you're typing here)...and finally yes, generally speaking, when the US Supreme Court Justices make a decision, it is uncontestable fact.

I think given all that, I refuse to be ashamed that my analysis rests on these principles and facts. It doesn't make me a sheep, if that's what you're implying. It's the way our legal system operates, to my knowledge. I'm not an anarchist when I wear this hat. How I professionally orient to this information is a seperate matter from how I might personally orient to the notion of marching on the government and burning shit to the ground, however...

then I'm extremely confused by your position. What I'm reading is that you believe the dissenting opinion is most logically correct because the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated in to the 14th, yet DC is not a state so it could never be applied to it anyway, but how does that work with the other amendments being applied to DC, since it is not a state?

I finally sourced a copy of the ruling.
http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf

Henderson's dissent begins on page 59.

Supreme Court to decide on Handgun Ban in D.C.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Although I anticipate an individual rights ruling, I wonder how 'narrow' this decision is going to be, considering the supremes tend to avoid radical change.

My personal prediction is a 6-3 ruling for an individual right with souter, breyer, and stevens in the dissent.

You're probably right about the split. It's a good thing that they aren't judges in the UK or crime there would skyrocket.

Yay! I feel more threatened in D.C. than I did in Iraq or A-stan.

I don't actually support the DC gun ban, btw. Any idiot can see that having a gun ban in a major city that's right next to a state with virtually no gun laws is a bad idea and is just asking for a high crime rate. The ruling of constitutionality is a bad way to go about doing this, though. One should simply weigh the situation and make a reasonable decision.

The problem with ruling gun bans as unconstitutional means that if, say, Hawaii were to instigate a gun ban (which would be VERY effective, see UK), it would be struck down as unconstitutional. That would ultimately be to the detriment of citizens of the US, and I can't really support it.

So when the gun ban is overturned it will be a victory for DC, but ultimately a loss.

I'm sorry, I fail to see how people finally being able to effectively defend themselves and family, in their own home, is a loss. I know you feel that all people have to do is buy prison bars, 4 inch steel bolts to turn all their doors in to bank vault doors, a good alarm system, dog, panic room, and 911 on speed dial, but....how is having functional firearms in your home for defense a loss? especially given the fact that the DC ban has cost more lives in the last 30 years than nearly every other major city, excepting chicago and philly a couple of times?

As I said, it's a victory for DC. Crime rates will likely drop off slightly, which is a good thing. Did you read my post? If you had, I doubt you'd be making a starwman argument.

Banning guns in DC was a stupid idea. If you want to give a gun ban a shot (no pun intended), you should do it in an area where there are already very strong gun restrictions and measures. There is a reason that it is working so well in the UK. The UK isn't walking distance from West Virginia.
I've never herd of a war being fought with locks on doors. People aren't held hostage at alarm system-point. I've never herd of someone bringing their panic room to work and blowing away their coworkers.

Why has there been an increase in the number of stories on the news about gun crime in the UK increasing then?

regardless, an individual rights ruling would be just a start. It would certainly put the other circuits that have ruled 'collective' rights on their heads. Although this will most certainly be a narrow ruling, I look forward to the hearings.

You mean going from .049% of all crime to .05% of all crime in the UK is a gun crime? I don't think that even the word 'negligible' is adequate to describe just how insignificant that figure is, especially when one considers how low their overall crime rate is compared to the US. Also, as I understand it, there's a margin of error at .1% in most national studies, so it could have even gone down.
They will be interesting, that's for sure.

Just out of curiousity, how do you think that gun crime or crime in general is in the UK? Mebbe I'm wrong, but from what I understand it's gotten so out of control they're contemplating banning kitchen knives over a certain length. Every time I call my buddy over there he tells me about someone else getting shot, in a country with NO legal civillian firearm ownership.


I wish you peeps would come to Montana, last Saturday night I walked into the bar here in town and there were dozens of guns leaning up against the bar (hunting season) with their owners getting plastered and nary a worry or problem. It's truly eye opening.

Hanging out east of the Anacostia River?

I have never felt threatened in 20+ years of living in Washington DC and I said earlier in this thread that I thought the DC ban was far too restrictive.

It will be interesting to see how narrow the Court rules. The majority opinion of the Appeals Court, written by a very conservative judge appointed by Reagan, said explicitly that DC has a right to regulate and require the registration of firearms just not to ban them in homes.

In any case, its good to see that a Supreme Court finally took up a second amendment case.

I seem to remember hearing something about violent crime tripling in UK after the gun ban.

And I agree its about time that the SC took up this case. I am however a little worried at the same time.

The 2nd amendment was meant as a means for the citizenry to protect itself/act as a check against an overbearing government. Obviously as such I think it should stand that the citizenry shouldn't be disallowed guns as long as the amendment stands (not that I'm advocating anti-tank uranium depleted sub machine guns..). BUt what happens if the SC rules in favor of the ban? What purpose does the 2nd amendment serve if people can't carry handguns? Not that it matters much anyway, any weapons the citizenry has are far outgunned by anything the government has.

You heard wrong.

:thumbsup:

You sure Will?

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/f.../ukutopia.html

Ginsburg with the six then?

-bear

I dont know that its that clear cut, considering that only two of the 12 circuit courts of appeal have ever ruled that the second amendment conferred an individual right to bear arms. Historically, most of the circurt courts (some very conservative) have ruled that it conferred a collective right as part of a state militia.

Oh nice, liberty-page. Do you want to find more pseudo-news sites with guns on the homepage?

This won't do shit for anywhere else in the US. DC is a federal area, and since the Second Amendment hasn't been incorporated yet, I see no reason to expect them to do it now. Maybe Alito will write an opinion that sets a precedent for incorporation, but with 2008 elections coming up, I see no motivation for them to rock the boat and give the left another thing against the GOP by attacking Bush appointees.

Or whats more asinine, is that gun crime increased under the ban. It would be obviously stated, and the best argument against gun laws is that the vast majority of people are law abiding and don't use guns for crimes, hence they get them legally. Criminals do not care about gun laws.


A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

Going by history what does post #69 account for, attacking the source rather then the information... Will the bottom line is, criminals will break the law, with guns, or without them.

THe majority of folks do not break the law, with guns, outside of maybe traffic laws. You out law guns so I cannot have them, fine have it your way. Some gabroni who preaches thug life doesn't care and he will still be strapped, without concern for the law.

If she has any intellectual integrity, she would have to vote on the side of individual rights, otherwise she would be plainly going in the opposite direction of her opinion in the muscarello case.

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, and not a very good one at that. Please post the reference which prompted you to say that "you heard wrong."

I assume you must have had one to make such a statement.

There are very few reliable gun stats online. It's something I discovered a few years ago in a similar conversation. BTW, it's not poisoning the well, if anything it's ad hominem fallacy as I discussed the credibility of the source, but really it's not a fallacy at all to question the validity of unsubstantiated stats from a gun enthusiast site about gun control. It's perfectly reasonable.

According to a UK Gov website, less than .05% of all crime in the UK is linked to guns.

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice...atistics35.gif
The gun ban started in 1997. What do you see between 1997 and 2000?

Crime did go up 35% in 2003, but that was attributed to drugs, not guns. Gun crime is still VERY low.

and yet, over numerous websites (not gun oriented) still talk about a rising crime rate. For over a year now it's been known that the UK gov has been hiding crime stats to avoid this specific issue.

Oh, how I wish I lived in a civilized country where otherwise good people didn't believe they need a firearm to fend off other citizens who would do them harm for minor pecuniary gain.

And I wish I hadn't witnessed events to reinforce this behavior in myself.

There's drugs in the hood.. there's guns in the hood...

I truly speak from experience here, I wish I were not.

It is hand in hand combat..eye to eye you die... 15 yrs. old and hardened.

Life is relative to some, and all you see on the news is relatives sobbing.

I do not profess to have any answers....

I am so tired.

It is on the rise, but how high is it? It's easy to ignore that question when you don't want to know the answer. The question is: what effect has the gun ban had, if any?

Burglary is a crime against property, not people. Home invasions and robberies are not classified under burglary and therefore the graph simply shows that in 1997, the rate at which burglaries per capita was falling decreased.

Yeah, as a far as defining crimes:

Burglary = larceny where owner of building is not required to be present
Robbery = use of force against another to commit larceny

It's easy to ignore the question when the question is irrelevant. who cares how high the crime rate is or even how fast it's rising when the only effect the gun ban has had is disarm otherwise peacable people who need to defend themselves from the criminals who had no intention of following the 'ban' and are using it to full advantage against the people that did.

When the question is "how effective are gun bans", you think it's irrelevant to study crime rates in a country that recently banned guns? That means you're biased and you don't care about evidence to support your beliefs.

Like Bush.

Like I said, there's very little unbiased information online. It's difficult to find decent statistics on any crime in the UK. That's the best I could do.

since the supreme court arguments are less than a month away and 'gun control' is becoming an ever volatile subject because of it, I wanted to put up this 1 hour video to show why gun control isn't about preventing or limiting crime, but about control of people.

LOL.....now that is one piece of twisted propaganda!

The Turkish genocide of Armenians --> Nazi Germany --> Communist China --> Khmer Rouge in Cambodia --> reasonable gun control in the US since the 1990s, supported by an overwhelming majority of the public!

dk....perhaps you can explain the connection?

...or why you believe it is such a volatile subject for most Americans. According to most polls, gun control doesnt even register on lists of issues of concern to most americans. (Polls - Problems and Priorities)

Laugh all you like and call it propaganda. If you can't make the connection between disarming the civilian populace and 'reasonable' gun control as making sure that the government will always be stronger than the people, then there is no help for you at all, whatsoever.

I just did. Statists, like yourself, would rather entrust your protection and lives to a political body instead of retaining that which is rightfully yours and all because you distrust your fellow man. Is the fear of the responsibility of protecting your freedom and liberty so great that you would rather take the risk, however small, that what you see in the linked video could be your fate as well?

gun control is the 800 pund gorilla, nobody wants to talk or discuss it. I'm not surprised that it doesn't even register, yet i'm sure it would be as bright as a thousand suns if there were even talk about opening up the machine gun registry to the 'people',....after all, americans are not to be trusted with weapons of mass destruction and shit.

I stopped at "gun control = enslavement".... but that could be because I'm a slave.

:lol: ROFL

DK, no one in the world is totally responsible with any weapon. It's unreasonable to believe that anarchy via armament is a viable solution. MAD is not viable equilibrium and if you don't believe me look at how militarism and politics has evolved since everyone got the bomb. Imagine MAD not just involving every nuclear-capable nation, but every member of the population.

Anarchy only works when there is one person; one man with a gun. 2 men with guns is adversarial. 300 million with guns? Think about it.

head in the sand. typical.

and yet, 200 million are dead, by their govenrments hand, because they had no guns. what do you want? government sponsored population control?

I won't threadjack beyond this, but If you wanted to start another thread I think a compelling case could be made that MAD was/is an extremely effective deterent to large scale conflict.

And there's quite simply no way to be sure that it couldn't have been 300 million had the population been armed. You can guess, with bias, but you'd be kidding yourself if you really thought that you knew beyond a reasonable doubt. That's really where this topic always gets unhinged.

You lay out scenarios, and I lay out scenarios. You lay out stats and I lay out stats. You get pissed and I get pissed. You link articles and I link articles. Blah blah blah blah. :shakehead:

Just wait until the damn verdict.

Debaser, if you'd like yo make a thread I'd gladly chime in with my two cents.

but what pisses me off will is that i see your arguments stating that you'd rather have 200 million dead by nobody resisting than to have 300 million dead by people defending themselves. is there any limit to pacifism? or is life really not that important to you?

Is there any limit to pacifism or my pacifism? My pacifism probably does have an eventual limit, but that's not really relevant. What does seem relevant is that you seem to be okay with an additional 100,000,000 deaths so long as they're following your philosophy. Can you think about that for just a minute? You've essentially said, "More can die, but it's okay so long as everyone agrees with me."

Besides, I've already explained how an "armed" populace doesn't mean shit. You having a glock isn't going to stop 'them'. You following my hypothetical advice and carrying out covert bombing missions would really be the only way to protect yourself from an invading or domestic force that seeks to hurt or kill you. All you need are things such as silly putty, candle wax, corn starch, and yarn (I won't post the full list online, if I can even remember it).

Have you ever fired on SWAT members? Military officers?

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? What sand? Typical of what?


Spoiler: "Gun control = enslavement" is a rather serious logical fallacy.

Spoiler: Outside of ideology, perhaps, I don't think I'm a slave.

Spoiler: Are you a slave to anything?

Spoiler: You shouldn't use a metaphor unless you can both understand and explain its tenor and vehicle.

Spoiler: Canadians aren't slaves.

you're right will. we peon civilians are probably too weak. can't stand up to anything. Thats why we NEED the government to protect us. to hell with freedom if we are too scared of terrorists or anything like that. it's not like if people ever pulled their collective heads out of their asses, they could figure out that 15 million will beat 4 million any day of the week. but god no, we can't have that because that would be way too many more dead. it's better just to live as servants to the government instead of all the death and destruction that having everyone armed would do. :thumbsup:

I'm with you buddy. I'd rather have the government tell me what i'm allowed to do instead of think for myself. where do i turn my guns in? :thumbsup:

You've obviously never seen a Jet Li movie.

What gorilla?

http://images.forbiddenplanet.com/im...l/1465396d.jpg

When we arm gorillas. lets talk.

There is a reason no one wants to talk about gun control anymore.

Its simple....over the last 20 years, the government has generally acted to reflect the will of people for sensible gun control. Why is that so hard to understand?

You're certainly not to going to win any converts with a video that suggests links between the actions of the Young Turks of 1910s, Nazi Germany, Mao's China... and the US.

It is highly probable that the USSC will uphold the unconstitutionality of the DC gun law and that the right to bear arms is an individual right. The only issue of interest is if the Court will issue a narrow ruling or address the broader issue of whether the right is absolute or subject to reasonable restrictions as the Appeals Court ruled.

That's just it. I'm living proof that you're 100% wrong. I'm anti-gun AND I'm anti-establishment and a free thinker. Or have you not seen the 9/11 threads? Have you not seen me go on and on regarding the Bush Administration? Have you somehow missed the fact that I am a free thinker and have come to my decision regarding guns completely on my own?

When the government tells me what to think, I usually tell them to go fuck themselves and figure it out on my own. I'm living proof that you're 100% wrong.

Finally some judges saw some damn sense.

dk (and others)......the Post has an audio of the arguments at the USSC today:

<embed src='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/wpniplayer_viral.swf?thisObj=fo981705&vid=031808-5s_title' bgcolor='#FFFFFF' flashVars='allowFullScreen=true&initVideoId=&servicesURL=http://www.brightcove.com&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://www.brightcove.com&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&autoStart=false' base='http://admin.brightcove.com' id='fo981705' name='fo981705' width='454' height='305' allowFullScreen='false' allowScriptAccess='always' seamlesstabbing='false' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' swLiveConnect='true' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash'></embed>

Is pretty clear from the questioning that the Court will rule that the 2nd amendment is an "individual" right rather than a "collective" right for the purpose of a militia.

It will be interesting when the ruling is released in June to see if they take on the broader issue of the right of the "state" to impose limitations on that individual right.

The way I understand it is that they are saying yes it's an individual right that can be regulated at the federal state and local level. Doesn't seem like a victory for the right to bear arms imo.

Sounds like a ticket for regulating the guns out of everyone's hand slowly over time. The supreme court looks like it's taking the easy middle, vague, road again. :shakehead: