Washington, D.C. Circuit Court Strikes Down 30-Year Old D.C. Gun Ban

[napi21]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070309/pl_usnw/washington__d_c__circuit_court_strikes_down30_year_old_d_c__gun_ban

WASHINGTON, March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a ground-breaking opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today overturned the D.C. gun ban, a three-decade old prohibition on possession of firearms within the Nation's Capital. Senior Judge Lawrence H. Silberman, joined by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a recent Bush appointee, concluded that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson filed a dissenting opinion.


The case, Parker v. District of Columbia, was brought by six D.C. residents -- including Cato senior fellow Tom Palmer -- who sought to keep functional firearms in their homes for self-defense. The appellate court reversed a lower D.C. court on all counts, and held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

[villager]

1. these judges probably live in Maryland or Virginia, right?

n/t

[atreides1]

4. Does that really make a difference?

I'm not sure about the gun laws in Maryland, but in Virginia you can carry a handgun on your hip, as long as it can be seen. Unless you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

I know there are restrictions as to where you can carry a handgun, just not up on that part yet.

[villager]

9. obviously -- they won't be suffering during the coming spike in gun violence...

n/t

[virginia mountainman]

10. Can you prove that statement?

What makes you THINK that guns CAUSE violance?

Please provide proof, me and my neighbors are ALL extremely well armed, and I need to know if I need to start, locking my doors at night.

[Mike Daniels]

12. The people most responsible for the existing gun violence....

weren't too restrained by the ban to begin with.

[villager]

15. Mark me, it will still spike. And why can't rural gun apologists

acknowledge that gun laws in cities might need to be different? I'm in a city, and I acknowledge the reverse -- but I'm sick of making cheap handguns readily available and claiming such weapons are a "right..."

[virginia mountainman]

17. Are you saying that the Poor folks

Who cannot afford a nice $600 Smith & Wesson does not deserve the ability to protect their self?

That sounds like plain old ELITISM to me.

Much like a poll-tax of the 1800's to keep certain people from voting.

[villager]

19. nice try, didn't work

And as I suspected, you are incapable of understanding the differences in gun issues in major metropolitan areas, whereas I realize rural gun regulation -- rifles, etc. (note: not all of them are "new," or even $600, or hasn't anyone told you, and how goes that deer hunting with a handgun?) is different.

[Hangingon]

27. Handgun hunting is going fine.

My brother got a nice buck with a S&W .44 magnum. I understand the difference between rural and urban gun control. When we lived in Alexandria, I occasionally heard gunfire from SW. Gun control in the city has meant lawful citizens could not have guns. The unlawful obtained them - burglary, straw purchases and other illegal means. I think it is a good decision and hope it survives the appeal process.

[villager]

34. gun violence in cities going quite well too, thanks...

But really, since that happens to "other people," why should we have any concern?

[Laughing Mirror]

38. Really? You could hear gunfire from across the river?

Being a native, I'm fascinated by this. How could you tell it was coming from SW?

[villager]

41. ah, anecdotal evidence! How NRA-like. How about this:

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20070309/ZNYT02/703090353/1004

[Laughing Mirror]

55. I'm asking Hanginon how somebody could hear gunshots from a mile or two across the river

I'm very surprised the sound of guns would travel so far in such an urban area. Do bullets go that far too?

But thanks for the link anyway. Yeah, crime going up again. How about that.

[villager]

75. ah, sorry -- I seem to be one of the few on this thread who thinks there's a problem with

gun violence in our urban areas....

[virginia mountainman]

49. LOL, I forgot, I took my last Deer, with a .357 revolver.

[villager]

74. well, and rifles are used to kill people in cities, too, so there are always exceptions

...to overall rules. I'm sure the end result was the same for the deer.

[michreject]

121. I'm in Detroit

I'm glad I have a gun. Several in fact. Also have a CCW. I don't hunt either.

[Taoschick]

18. But they are a "right"

Every citizen has a right to defend themselves. I owned firearms when I lived in a city and I own them now.

[villager]

20. according to Bush's judges, yes.

The only "right," really, they'll ever acknowledge...

[virginia mountainman]

21. I am not the one

Making excuses for infringing "rights" that I don't like.

The "Bill of Rights" is NOT, like a cheap Chinese Buffet...IT IS ALL OR NOTHING.

We are the "pro choice" party, Let the Repukes be known for "infringing liberty" NOT US.

EDIT, fixed typo

[villager]

23. and of course, you wouldn't want guns -- like cars -- to even be registered?

they should be, you know, as freely dispensed as possible?

[virginia mountainman]

26. Cars are NOT mentioned in the Bill of rights...

Car do NOT need to be registered, you can drive them all day long on PRIVATE PROPERTY, without ever registering them.. For example, do you see License plates on RACE CARS?

Cars MUST ONLY be registered when used on PUBLIC roads.

[villager]

32. great, keep your guns on your own property, and I won't beef!

But as I suspected, there's little understanding/empathy of gun issues in urban areas, so you have blindered yourself to a meaningful dialogue on the issue...

[virginia mountainman]

36. They lost MY Sympathy..

When city leaders organised and TRIED to pass laws that DIRECTLY INFRINGE ON the "Bill of Rights"

ANYONE REGARDLESS of political affiliation, that takes a stance AGAINST the "bill of rights" or the US Constitution, IS, the enemy.


I tirelessly work against them.

[villager]

39. thanks for your unflagging support of gun violence in urban areas!

oh, and the complete contradiction about regulations and private property, too...

[krispos42]

90. Who supports gun violence?

I don't, except for the defensive kind.

[villager]

96. you do, by virtue of your support for unchecked proliferation

n/t

[krispos42]

100. Who supports unchecked proliferation?

There are plenty of 'checks' with the current system.

[villager]

103. there are? Ones that you unambiguously support?

I'm all ears...

[krispos42]

104. Of course there are

You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you can't slander, so yeah, there are restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, just like there are for the others. The "oh, so we can go buy an Uzi?" argument is simple hyperbole.

Prohibiting felons and violent, habitual offenders from buying, owning, or using firearms? No problem.

Stiff penalties for the above? Sounds good for me. I want them to have guns as little as you do.

Instant (or nearly so) background check? No problem.

Extra background checks and registration for full-auto weapons? No problem.

Mandatory concealed-carry training and education classes? No problem.

Police retrieval and secure storage of guns after a person has a domestic-abuse or stalking restraining order sworn our against them? No problem that I can think of.

This off the top of my head. I'm sure the other Gungeon regulars might be able to add a few.

[villager]

109. okay, not bad, so far. The way this thread has been going, I'm surprised

to find any basis for common ground or the beginning of dialogue, but I welcome that surprise nonetheless....

[krispos42]

124. You have to ask first :-)

Pro-gunners spend most of their time fighting against new regulations, not fighting against the old ones!

[Solo_in_MD]

66. We are not allowed to do that in DC and other areas

which is the problem.

Of course I could always suggest that you keep your urban thugs and other problems in your urban areas. In which case it would be a race to see what would ruin the urban areas faster, lack of food, lack of water, lack of power.

Urban vs rual is a losing proposition for all concerned

[cgrindley]

28. Do you have any idea

how hard it is to get a carry permit? Even in a must-issue state such as CT, it is not an easy or quick process. We do NOT need to worry about people with legitimate carry permits. They're not the ones responsible for gun violence.

[villager]

31. having gun stores follow the regulations would help

since we know now that gun stores in high crime areas were/are making guns readily available... to the criminals!

[virginia mountainman]

35. Point out some stores that BREAK the law..

and shut them down. The BATF will do just that....

[cgrindley]

54. I don't think people know the gun laws all that well here

I live in CT, and here, you are not legally allowed to even touch a handgun in a gun store if you do not show your state carry permit. You can't even touch one.

Everyone should take a basic handgun safety course, just to clear up their misconceptions and get more of an informed opinion.

[Solo_in_MD]

67. Any substantive proof

Hizzoner the mayor and his minions may yet see prosecution for his illegal stunts during his so called stings.

[meldroc]

64. I'd call it the only thing the Bush Administration got right.

Granted, they screwed absolutely everything else up, BADLY, but they did uphold the Second Amendment. That is their only saving grace.

It might come in handy if the bastards declare martial law - we'll make them wish they violated our 2nd Amendment rights along with all the other rights...

[Solo_in_MD]

63. Yes they are

[winter999]

48. Isn't about 99.9% of urban gun violence involve illegal weapons?

I believe that RESPONSIBLE gun owner don't cause the crimes that involve guns.

Oh, and just as the Court determined, gun ownership IS a Right. 2nd Amendment, baby. :patriot:
If you don't agree, I'll shoot you dead (KIDDING!)

[michreject]

122. Stop confusing the argument with facts. :-)

No one wants to hear that.:P

[northzax]

82. and a gun ban in DC would work

except that people simply buy them in Virginia, which doesn't care.

think about how much fun motorcades will be, now that people can legally have guns on the street! I can't wait to walk by the white house on my way to work tomorrow carrying one of these babies! they can't stop me!

[virginia mountainman]

85. Name ONE, SINGLE

Gun ban that WORKED?

[northzax]

105. define 'worked' please

you mean one single ban that eliminated guns? or one that reduced firearm violence?

can you explain why, say, the UK, with a population of roughly 60 million, three times the size of Texas, had 83 firearm related homicides last year, when Texas, (population roughly 20 million) had 173 firearm homicides in 2005.

so is Texes that much more violent? please explain.

[krispos42]

89. Why would they need to be different?

While obviously you won't be hunting deer in the local park or hunting pidgeons on high-rise rooftops, why does it need to be different?

[zanne]

114. The DU Gun Lobby never sleeps...

If you post anything about guns that doesn't advocate the use of them by anybody who wants one, the "Second Amendment" fanatics here will chop you into pieces. (They must email each other). They have all the same statistics and will go to one of the many Right Wing gun websites to prove you wrong. They think that if they do this, we will go away. They are wrong. Let the flaming begin.

[Mike Daniels]

5. Oh please, like the gun ban was worth the paper it was written on

I guess all those people who died of gun shot wounds were just really some grand psy-op propaganda?

[krispos42]

91. The propoganda was that 'assault weapons' were the cause

You know, those evil pistol grips and bayonets.

Rifles account for not quite 3% of annual homicides. ALL rifles, from civvie-legal AK-47 clones to bolt-action hunting rifles. And that includes hunting accidents.

You are also arguing that if Mickey had waved a magic wand and all the guns on the planet turned to dust, all the criminals would just have stayed home and played their game consoles.

[Solo_in_MD]

61. I live in MD since I can not legally own a gun in DC

which unacceptable to free people.

[Donnachaidh]

2. nervous republicans need their metal penises

Who are they afraid of? The American PUBLIC?

[virginia mountainman]

3. GREAT DAY!!

Nice to see that ALL areas of the country must respect ALL the Bill of Rights.

[Taoschick]

6. We're not quite there yet

But this is a positive step.

[virginia mountainman]

11. Very positive!! N/T

[krispos42]

92. Wow, a penis joke on the second post

Much faster than usual.

[benEzra]

117. Half of gun owners are Dems and indies. (n/t)

[GreenZoneLT]

7. I wasn't aware the DC law was that sweeping

I'm surprised it wasn't overturned sooner. I think they can get away with banning or heavily controlling pistols (as not being related to militia weapons), but not long guns.

This is such a fucked-up, confusing area of law. The Second Amendment's commas alone are a nightmare.

[Taoschick]

8. The court's point was

The 2nd amendment is not just about militias. They did in fact affirm the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for a variety of reasons.

[kirby]

13. Your opinion...

You state that as a fact. If it were so clear-cut it would be the subject of so much litigation and interpretation.

I hear every household in Baghdad is permitted one weapon. For me that kinda blows the argument how if everyone were armed we'd be safe, could defend our families, and there would be little crime.

[Taoschick]

14. Uh...

it is a fact that the court stated the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

I am well aware that many citizens don't like that. Perhaps instead of trying to chip away at legitimate constitutional rights, they should try and get the 2nd amendment repealed.

[virginia mountainman]

16. I am terrified that we Democrats run the risk

of opening the rest of the "Bill of Rights" to the same style of attack.

All the arguments about it being "outdated" and "the founders did not know about modern guns", and "it just makes sense" attack against the 2nd Amendment..

I wonder how these same people would react to the same arguments being used against the REST of the "Bill of Rights" like say the 1st Amendment..

After all, our founders never envisioned computers and email...so the 1st Amendment must not apply to them.

How would we like a "collective" right to free speech????

[kirby]

22. Not the same...

I dont think the arguments are the same as 'reinterpreting' other rights or applying them to modern derivations.
It a matter of what was the intent of the framers in the first place. You cant just ignore the orignal
meanings of 'bear arms' as well as the 'militia' part. They were put in there for a reason. The problem is that there
is not an agreement/consensus on what they meant. I'm not talking about 'modern guns', I'm talking what did the words mean
in the 17th and 18th century? 'Bear arms' may not mean the same things as 'owning arms' or 'keeping arms'.

Take a look at:
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

24. I would suggest that the you read the D.C. Circuit's opinion . . .

. . . insofar as it addresses the very issues you mention. You may not agree with the result the Court of Appeals reached, but it did consider, at some length, those particular matters in what I think was a very thoughtful decision.

[kirby]

29. I'll take a look

I'll take a look at it, but something about a reversal of a 30 year old ban overturned by a recent Bush appointee who swung the court give me pause.

[virginia mountainman]

30. Like the word "regulate"

In used in the context of the 2nd, and at the time it was written, it common usage then was "to practice"

[Taoschick]

56. It is believed by many

That the framers didn't "intend" to use the Bill of Rights to grant power to government. The entire purpose was to affirm basic rights held by individuals and to make it clear the government is tasked with protecting those rights.

[Devil Dog Dem]

88. The text says "keep and bear arms"

Take some time and read the opinion (I don't mean that in a snotty way), it goes over the distinction between the two.

[krispos42]

93. Um, Iraq's in the middle of a civil war

And, in case you haven't noticed, they are putting up a hell of a fight against their foreign occupiers.

Us.

While fighting the aforementioned civil war.

I think I can safely say that, due to the way Iraq has turned out, the United States will think twice or thrice before occupying another foreign country again.

[krispos42]

101. Don't forget that many of us are militia members

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
{wais.access.gpo.gov}
{Laws in effect as of January 20, 2000}
{Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004}
{CITE: 10USC311}


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

(note: I replaced the square brackets with curly ones so that there wasn't any html problems)

I'm a male between the ages of 17 and 45. I am by definition a militiaman. Ergo...

On a related matter, the United States government sells military-surplus rifles at a discount price to anybody that qualifies and competetively target shoots. They sell M1903 Springfields and M1 Garands, and will soon be selling M1 carbines as well. The idea behind this? To keep the unorganized militia in sharpshooting shape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Marksmanship_Program
http://www.odcmp.com/

[meldroc]

60. What is a "militia weapon"?

Not that the "well regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment does anything but explain why we have the right to keep and bear arms.

[Virginia Dare]

84. A musket...

so clearly everybody has the right to own a musket. :think:

[virginia mountainman]

86. Apply that logic to the

1st Amendment ......

Carefull you may get what you asked for.

[Virginia Dare]

87. It wasn't logic, it was humor...

poor attempt, I'll admit. Hey Virginia Mountainman where do you hail from? :hi:

[virginia mountainman]

102. Down here!! In the forgotten part of the state.

Near in the mountains near Wythville.

[Virginia Dare]

112. Beautiful country!

we haven't forgotten about you, we just wish you stop electing fundie asshats to the legislature! ;-)

[krispos42]

95. A weapon compatable with military service

At the time, it was a smoothbore wheellock musket.

Nowadays, it would need to be a semi-automatic rifle fed with a high-capacity detachable magazine. Not necessarily full-auto, but at minimum semi-auto. A Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30, a civvie-legal AR-15, a Remington 7400, a Winchester SXR, a Browning BAR, Springfield Armory M-1A, a military-surplus M-1 Garand or M-1 carbine... the list goes on. Those would be termed 'battle rifles'.

A bolt-action rifle would also work in a sharpshooter role, as most hunting rifles have an effective range of 400 yards or more.

Any of the above rifles would be a viable gun in a militia unit fighting in defense of a nation, either seperately or as part of a regular Army unit.

A semi-automatic pistol-caliber carbine is also a viable close-range option like urban warfare, or as armament for artillery, tank crews, etc.

[Thothmes]

127. Weapons

The fire arms of the period were flint lock, not wheel lock weapons

[Junkdrawer]

25. Does this mean we get Tommy Guns back????

:shrug:

[derby378]

40. Different ruling - you're thinking of the 1934 National Firearms Act

Tommy guns and all other full-auto weapons are still illegal in DC, NY, NJ, KS, IL, IA, RI, CA, and a few other states.

In all other states, they're only legal if you have an NFA license to own the gun in question.

[Junkdrawer]

51. Is there or isn't there a 2nd Amendment?

Establishing a non-militia 2nd amendment in law will lead to torturous logic to defend ANY reasonable gun regulation.

[Zynx]

59. As written, this opinon makes almost any prohibition law very problematic

If the Second Ammendment means you have an absolute right to own guns - which is what I think it does, by the way, look at what was meant by militia back then - it's very tough/impossible to justify blanket bans on certain types of guns.

It's a question of "kind" versus "degree". If there's a pure right to own guns, there's a much right to own a Tommy Gun as there is a pump-action shotgun.

What *does* work is tax and commerce and import regulations, since Congress does have explicit powers in those areas, and the tax power in particular has been upheld even when it borders on being prohibitive, or is outright prohibitive.

[Solo_in_MD]

68. That is a good thing

[kiahzero]

123. Actually it only has bearing on federal laws

The Second Amendment has never been incorporated via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so States could ban all firearms without running afoul of the Constitution.

[SlipperySlope]

62. Not at first, but hopefully very soon.

This is how it will hopefully play out.

1: SCOTUS grants cert
2: SCOTUS affirms the DC Circuit and affirms that the second amendment protects an individual right.
3: SCOTUS clarifies Miller - protected arms have to relate to the ability to serve in militia duty, but not in actual militia service.

Ok, assuming they leave it at that, I would be the first to line up to purchase an M-4, and start the appeal war. After all, an automatic M-4 is a standard issue infantry rifle in the US, and is clearly appropriate for militia duty.

Keep you fingers crossed!

[Junkdrawer]

33. Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke

Washington, D.C. – Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”

http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=878

[virginia mountainman]

37. You do know that the Brady's and Mr Helmke

Are REPUKES....

I care NOT, what the lieing slime say.

[villager]

42. yet you like Repuke judges rulings on gun laws, right?

n/t

[virginia mountainman]

44. Even a broken clock.

Is right 2 times a day.

[villager]

47. but only when that clock supports your rural gun apologias?

n/t

[virginia mountainman]

50. Why do you have this animosity

Toward simple "rural folks" like me?

I don't hate you.

[Solo_in_MD]

70. Hate takes many forms, I could of course escalate things by point out the racist root of gun control

The majority of the poor and underprotected live in urban areas, which is exactly whom he wishes to remain unable to defend themselves

[villager]

110. you could point it out, but you'd be wrong -- gun violence mostly affects the poor

and this ruling will make it worse. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals who prey on them is the thing that would help -- as in places like D.C...

[Solo_in_MD]

115. That gun control is historically racist is a fact... the rich did not and do not want the poor to

be able to defend themselves, whether it was night riders,the Pinkertons, or their modern day incarnations.

Today we make it so hard and expensive to own a gun in some urban areas only the rich can afford weapons for self defense. The specious claim of "that is what the police are for" ignores the legal precedents and the fact that poor areas have much worse police coverage than richer ones. The thug breaking down the door of the inner city apartment knows that he not going to face a handgun or the police so he is free to rape and plunder. That is what the very regressive gun control laws in DC and elsewhere enable.

Personal ownership of firearms is a progressive value that we need to encourage more off.

[villager]

116. sorry, no -- your assertions are not "facts" simply because you believe them

n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

118. The net is full of historical citations...not to mention history textbooks

[villager]

119. interestingly, you are unable to provide any such citation...

n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

120. I did not think it needed since it is since it is a common thread throughout US history like Jim

Crowe laws. However, here are links to some heavily footnoted articles, mostly by legal types:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-reg.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-recon.html
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/104ali.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tahmassebi1.html


Modern day gun control clearly has its roots in efforts by whites to control blacks in the south after the Civil War, and it continued with the Gun Control Act of 1968 aimed squarely at the Black Panthers and other radical groups, and today as a weapon in the War on Drugs, code for killing black urban males.

There are those who claim that support of something with disproportionate racial impact or prior racist history means the supporter is at least a latent racist. I do not subscribe to that position, since I know well meaning people who strongly support gun control.

[villager]

126. ah, the David Horowitz argument. Of course. here's a better link,

about the actual history of gun ownership in America:

http://www.common-place.org/vol-01/no-01/arming/

[villager]

76. you have blinders in assuming *your* experience with/about guns

is therefore everyone's experience, and gun laws appropriate for your rural area(s) should be the same as gun laws in urban areas with gang problems (for example), which they shouldn't...

Kind of like different speed limits for different kinds of roads, you know?

[winter999]

52. You under the false assumtion that gun control will stop urban gun violence.

Wrong. Then ONLY criminals will be packing. Just because you seem to HATE guns doesn't mean I don't have a RIGHT to own one. Oh, wait, if I'm a felon (i.e. criminal), then I can't now, can I?

[villager]

77. I was waiting for someone to start recycling empty NRA bumperstickers.

To your credit, you at least added a few more words.

[derby378]

43. True, but they've swayed too many Democrats for comfort

If you live in a community where all of you want to ban handguns, I can't stop you. It's your community, and your right. But the ban must be in compliance with state and Federal law, otherwise it's fair game.

Me, I think I'm gonna celebrate... :toast:

[virginia mountainman]

46. Me thinks I will join you!

:beer:

[Junkdrawer]

45. Bwa ha ha ha....

I'm donating $25 to the Brady Campaign in your honor...

[Laughing Mirror]

53. "the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia" sadly

has never counted for much in the power centers of official Washington and to our owners on Capitol Hill, so this decision simply disregards the peoples' will once again.

[Taoschick]

57. The "will of the people"

Can be expressed in many ways but it doesn't trump the Constitution. If the majority feels firearms should be outlawed, they can lobby for an amendment of the Constitution to remove the 2nd amendment.

[Laughing Mirror]

106. I don't think the citizens of DC are interested in removing 2nd amendment

Why do you want to impose YOUR will on them?

[Taoschick]

108. What you seem to be advocating

Is the tyranny of the majority.

If only 1% of the population of DC wants to exercise their Constitutional right to own a firearm, the opinion of the other 99% is irrelevant.

[Laughing Mirror]

111. Tyranny of the majority vs. tyranny of the minority

If that's what you are advocating, I guess that makes us even.

[virginia mountainman]

69. How do you feel about the will of the people

About "Gay Marriage" or "interracial Marriage"

How would you feel about a NATIONAL referendum right NOW, on Gay Marriage??

and other "Hot button" issues...Careful what you wish for, you might just GET IT.

The "Bill of Rights" is about protecting our basic rights, from "the will of the people"

[Laughing Mirror]

107. How I feel about marriage is hardly relevant

The Bill of Rights is about protecting people from their basic rights? Wow. I did not know that.

[Blue_Tires]

58. lol at that!

because as a former (P.G.) resident, I can say that if there is one thing the District of Columbia does NOT have enough of, it is guns!!:wtf:

[SlipperySlope]

65. This is great news for Dems everywhere

Assuming that SCOTUS grants cert and affirms the ruling, it will be the end of gun control laws as we know them. Which means the end of losing elections over ill-conceived gun control laws.

I don't think the courts could hand us a better gift than to eliminate an issue that has been losing us so many elections, and causing so much division in our ranks.

[ComerPerro]

71. wouldn't this be a case of "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench"?

[Solo_in_MD]

94. only if you oppose racist laws being struck down

[Virginia Dare]

72. Bad news for Virginia gun dealers...

since that's where most of the guns in D.C. come from anyway. Hunting season in Washington D.C. is now officially open!

What the world needs now are guns, sweet guns!!

[virginia mountainman]

73. HOW?

You must be a Virgina resident to buy a firearm..

[Virginia Dare]

78. Yes, and you must be 21 to buy booze too..

but somehow lots of kids under 21 end up drunk.


http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20061116-111332-8159r_page2.htm

[virginia mountainman]

79. Strange thing

If "virginia's guns" are causing all these problems in DC, why anit Virginia's streets, and fields total war zones?

Insted the opposite seems to be the case.

[Virginia Dare]

80. I believe Richmond has a very high murder rate...

one of the highest per capita in the nation.

[FyurFly]

81. Let Freedom Ring!

I'll be buying a shiny new handgun tomorrow, 1911 I think!!!!


:kick:

[Squatch]

83. You live in Virginia.

There are no bans on handguns in this state. Or, do you celebrate each defeat of gun restrictions with the purchase of a new firearm?

[FyurFly]

97. Was planning on buying a new handgun

Anyways, but this makes me happy! Now honest law abiding citizens in DC can protect themselves. Call Dominoes for a pizza and call the cops in DC, which one do you think will arrive first?

[aikoaiko]

98. This ruling is a victory for civil rights.

:toast:

[Township75]

99. What a shame....that ban made such a difference.

!

[Wcross]

113. Oh yes it did.

What city has had one of the highest firearm murder rate per capita in the U.S. and has continuously held that title for the past 20 years? Washington! By some fluke, the criminals and gang bangers didn't respect that particular law. I guess if you disregard homicide laws a little gun law isn't going to get in your way.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

125. A crying shame. n/t