BS: DC Gun Ban Banned

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:39 PM

"...you think that we should take action against a person if they have something we think is dangerous, and they should not have?"

bruce, bruce, bruce! Do NOT put words in my mouth or construct straw men. That is nowhere near what I said.
HOWEVER ...I made the point that most of the guns in DC WERE illegal. Therefore, I of course think we should 'take action' against any illegal guns and their owners we might chance upon (fat chance) ...before they do something to us.


Are you EVER going to give up that technique of suggesting that folks are using bad reasoning by imagining stuff they never claimed?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:33 PM

I've just had to renew my concealed carry permit. There is a 30 day waiting period from the time I did the paperwork until I call the Sheriff's Office back, pick up the approval, take it to the county offices for photography, etc. A course of instruction -- either locally or in the military or otherwise -- is a requirement, as is a criminal background check (fingerprints, etc.).

I think this should be mandatory for the purchase or use of any handgun.

Mind you, I rarely carry a concealed weapon. The last time was when I was living in Indiana, over ten years back.

Bee-Dubya, I have a side-by-side double barrel 12 gauge. Crude, but effective.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:10 PM

Personally, I don't care whether handguns are legal or not. I don't like 'em. A handgun has to be used to be a deterrent. I'd rather just scare hell out of 'em. That's why I much prefer my pump-action shotgun over any handgun.

In the unlikely event that I'll actually have to use it for protection someday, I figure the sound of the action being worked will probably scare hell out of whoever needs shooting without my having to fire a shot. It's a sound that can't be mistaken for anything else and what it says, if translated into English, is, "Get ready to hear a VERY LOUD BANG! (Assuming your head is still on your shoulders by the time the soundwaves get to your ears, that is.)"

And in the even more unlikely event that it actually does come down to pulling the trigger, it's hard as hell to miss a human being with a shotgun. Just ask Mr. Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:05 PM

I, for one, would like to see more "People control".
The idea that any whacko can buy a gun with no background check is lunacy.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 06:30 PM

Frankly, I don't think most people would object to the kinds of controls you would like to see, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 06:27 PM

This thing ain't over... D.C. will enact a bunch of laws that restrict how and where guns my be used or kept and they will be tested in the courts and eventually the Supreme CDourt makeup will shift away from the "activist" conservative court that we now have and communities will one day be able to have greater control of their own citizebns behavior...

I mean, lets face it... We have plenty of gun control... The Constituion didn't spifically say that x-felons shouldn't be able to own guns but many states forbid them to own guns and I don't hear the NRA crying to have those laws overturned...

So we have gun control now... And it is acceptable on the whole...

I would love to see manditory handgun registration along with manditory waiting periods to purchase and manditiory training required to own handguns... I'm not tooo sure how the Supremem Court would rule on these but I have a feeling that D.C. will be sniffing around these subjects...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 05:44 PM

They'd all be running around with bolt action rifles and revolvers, the American troops wouldn't have had to deal with all of those nasty AK47's.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 05:25 PM

Can you imagine what an invader would face if they tried to take over our country? We have an Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force and a Coast Guard to protect us. We also have 200 million guns in civilian hands. Bring it on!

Now, what would have happened in Iraq if they had had a 2nd amendment?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:42 PM

Say now... there is a different take on the situation... very personal, but germain.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:39 PM

Any man who is not willing to fight to protect his wife, friends and children does not deserve them.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:36 PM

I wouldn't know as I wasn't there. But the Supremes use what is now the definitive edition of the Constitution, so you can take it up with them.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Def Shepard
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:29 PM

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

opps did we miss this bit, Rapaire? :-D how typical..owe the threats of violence now, now :-D

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:09 PM

Sounds like a good idea in some cases!

(Actually, people either vote with their feet ["...the rates were gettin' higher/And I could no longer pay..."] or revolt.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:02 PM

That is what happens, eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:59 PM

Let's see. The government taxes the hell out of your business until it fails. Does that mean we can find a tall tree and a short rope and take a few government bureaucrats out?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:54 PM

if the horse is needed to earn a living, and the theft removes your access to the horse, that theft of property is an attack on your ability to feed your family.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:52 PM

"They hang horse thieves round thses parts."

That kinda thang?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:43 PM

Rapaire,

In medeval Europe, farming tools were kept in sheds at the fields, while the farmers lived in the towns ( Poland/Baltic states c. 1200-1600)) If the tools were stolen or destroyed, the farmer was unable to work his crop, and his family starved. (same idea with fishing boats, of course)

The penalty for theft of tools, or destruction of them was execution: If one destroys the means by which someone supports their family, one has attacked that family.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:36 PM

Mess with me and I'll do my best to ignore you. If I can't ignore you I'll leave. If I can't leave and can't ignore you and you're doing your best to hurt me or mine, I'll hurt you, perhaps fatally.

You can take my money and possessions; things can be replaced. But touch my person or that of someone entitled to my protection and you're going down.

No, I don't need a gun to do that either. Everything is a weapon if you want it to be and have the will to use it.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:31 PM

What a bunch of absolute horseshit! Read and define this. Denying the right of self-defense is criminal in itself.

Refute and dispute and argue and debate... if you deny the right to self-defense, you are a criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:31 PM

It is very easy to determine the original intent of the Second Anendment. Simply read the other stetements by the people who wrote the Constitution. They make it quite clear that private ownwership of guns is protected.

About the internet. Fee speech is protected. Like guns, the standard is "with reasonable restrictions". The telephone, computer, internet, satellite communications, newspapers, books, radio and television are just vehicles. It is the speech itself that is protected.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:30 PM

Rapaire,

It is a long tradition, ensconced firmly by precedent on Mudcat, that one should NEVER look at the actual source for information, but rely on interpretation and partisen paraphrasing to support one's opinions. And we are nothing here if not traditional.


8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:29 PM

Excuse me, but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified by the Senate and House, but by the various States back around 1789. The original work still exists (it's in the National Archives) and if you will READ THE DAMNED OPINION you'd find what they based their decision upon.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:26 PM

needs to establish the original intent of the writers, and apply it to the present.

Slight difference in what they should be doing, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Def Shepard
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:25 PM

its all based on how you read and define the following, isn`t it

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:25 PM

Jeez, you people can read the whole decision if you want to do so instead of simply shooting from the hip:

...Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
                                 --DC v Heller, Opinion, p. 8

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:23 PM

Correct - and that's why a current Supreme Court needs to establish guidelines for a modern era.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:19 PM

and internet did not exist, so the first amendment can't be used there, I guess...

You need to think about the "unintended consequences" of your logic.


Freedom of speech and freedom of the press certainly do not include electronically transmitted or amplified speech, since that was not in existance in 1770. And blogs or discussion threads? Not a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:13 PM

Yes Kat - The original intent is so easy to determine since we're talking about devices that didn't exist back in the 1770's........

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:06 PM


There are four traditionalists who never get far from the original intent of the Constitution.

More a matter of opinion and should be stated as so. If not, where've you been hiding yourself? The Supremes just might want to talk with you since you seem to "know" the "original intent" and they've been struggling with it for...well, years and years.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 02:53 PM

I love your choice of words - "Liberal" and "Traditionalists". It leaves no doubt which of them are "The Evil Ones".

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 02:48 PM

It's interesting to see how the US Supreme Court really works.

All decisions are political.

There are four committed Liberals: Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens. They will always support the standard Liberal agenda such as affirmative action and gun control.

There are four traditionalists who never get far from the original intent of the Constitution. They are Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia. Fans of The Court once said that Scalia was the most brilliant thinker but he now has equals in Roberts and Alito.   

That leaves Kennedy. He is the least impressive member of The Court, but he is sorely responsible for the 5 to 4 decisions. He sided with Ginsburg, and we got the dreadful Kelo Decision. He sided here with Scalia this time, and we got some support for gun ownership and the right to defend ourselves.

Amazing that wishy-washy Kennedy can change his mind and the entire country is affected.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:36 PM

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." -- 3 English Statutes at Large, 441 (1689): 1 William & Mary, c.2, section 7.

Only Protestants, and no one else, could have arms in England under the laws of William and Mary. But then, under the 1671 Game Act of James II, regions that were home to Protestants were disarmed.

I sometimes wonder if the British have actually read their own Bill of Rights....

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:36 PM

What Kendall said is exactly the point I tried to make regarding home invasions in Canada on a recent thread.

Essentially, denying the right of self-defense is criminal in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:24 PM

So, BillD, you think that we should take action against a person if they have something we think is dangerous, and they should not have? Even when they have not used it against us?

Seems like when Bush tried that in Iraq, you were not exactly in favor of it...

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:57 PM

"...they deserve to have them confiscated if they flout the regulations, and they deserve prosecution if they use them in an illegal manner."

Indeed...and we discover this 'flouting' and 'illegal use' right after they shoot someone. And we prosecute them and confiscate the guns IF we ever find them.

I am SO encouraged.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:53 PM

The word "Concealed" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment. Therefore, under the 9th amendment, concealed is permitted.

You people who think gun owners are all crackpots are not seeing the whole picture. The fact is, there are plenty of guns in DC and they are mostly in the hands of the bad guys. Lifting that ban only levels the field so honest people have the same option. It does not mean that if all hands have guns that we will all shoot each other, That's stupid.

The State of Maine has over 10,000 concealed permits out there, and I have never heard of anyone using his gun to shoot anyone.
If you can pass a background check, which you must to get a permit, you are not apt to use your gun in committing a crime.

15 years ago, Florida had a crime wave of armed thugs using guns against unarmed victims. It got to where foreigners stopped coming to Florida; I even knew a retired state trooper who would not venture south of Gainsborough!
Then, Florida passed a right to carry law and the crime rate tanked. Why? because the bad guys could no longer know who was a mark and who might shoot back.

We live in a violent society. No question about it, but disarming the honest while the crooks are allowed to run rampant is just plain stupid.

A sword, in its scabbard, keeps another so.

Besides, it's all England's fault. The excesses of the King's government that tried to disarm the colonists to make them easier to control only made them worse. Great Britain is indirectly responsible for the second amendment.

As the Jews say about the holocaust, "Never again".

By the way, I really resent the implication that gun owners are of inferior intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:03 PM

"concealed carry" is not now, and never has been, protected by the US Constitution..."ownership" is

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:01 PM

Here's the Syllabus (summary) of the decision:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation
of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

You can read all 153 pages at the US Supreme Court's website ("Recent Decisions; District of Columbia v. Heller").

As this is written, in DC you now can carry a handgun in your house if you have a license to do so. Upstairs, in the kitchen -- but not outside your property. ("...the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.")

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:00 PM

You are correct BillD, illegal gun owners probably will not register their guns, and they deserve to have them confiscated if they flout the regulations, and they deserve prosecution if they use them in an illegal manner. We need proper enforcement of reasonable gun ownership laws at all levels. I think this is basically what the SC decision calls for.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:56 AM

There is a lot of discussion in the Court's opinion (read the whole thing here), but the decision itself is pretty narrow. What it actually says is that the portion of the DC gun ban that applies to handguns kept in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. In various parts of the discussion, they say that gun licensing (including of guns kept in the home) and bans on concealed carry are perfectly ok.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:53 AM

There are enough handguns available in DC now to equip a small army...sadly, they are mostly in the hands of criminal or those studying to BE criminals.

I sure do wonder what legally increasing the totals will accomplish.

You don't really think all those illegal gun owners are gonna run right down and register, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:45 AM

And now there will be years of litigation while states defend their gun laws or see them overturned, etc. Oh, well, I suppose all those congresspeople need to have "protection" whilst in the Capitol!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:17 AM

Beardedbruce, you must be wrong. I have just read here that they did it so we are free to shoot each other; turn gangs into militia; blow our (what passes for) brains out; lower life expectancy; and to sleep better. But if you're wrong, so am I.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:12 AM

D.C. Attorney General: All Guns Must Be Registered

The Supreme Court has struck down D.C.'s longtime ban on handguns, with a 5-4 ruling. Ruling can be read here. The question for city officials is: What now? In a recent interview (before the court ruled), Interim D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles was asked what would happen if the city lost the case.

He said that residents will not be able to buy a handgun and bring it to the city immediately following the high court's ruling. There will be a period of continued legal arguments before a lower court judge to hash out specifics around the high court's opinion, Nickles said.
In the meantime, Nickles said, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration will instruct the police department to issue new regulations within 30 days detailing the process for registering handguns. (The city has gun regulations already on the books, which have been largely moot because of the gun ban, but those rules likely would be updated and revised, he said.)

"All handguns have to be registered," Nickles said.

Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.

Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on semi-automatic weapons.

One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision, Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home expect in the case of self-defense.

Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings.

For those folks who already own guns--against current law--Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:11 AM

What's new about that?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:10 AM

Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban
Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:18:30 AM
By MARK SHERMAN

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bernard
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:06 AM

I'll sleep better tonight...!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:05 AM

It's no wonder that life expectancy is going down.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Silas
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:02 AM

Mate, I havent even read the first amendment - I am quite happy for you gun obsessed people to blow each others (what passes for) brains out.