Washington D.C. Gun Ban Stuck down!

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by alf
The court made a sound ruling on this one. Although I wonder what the dissenting judge was thinking...

"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."

Is she implying that the other Amendments do not apply in DC either?

Really, I have no idea what she's thinking.

[Joeaksa]

Alf and Jim,

Not a bigot at all but its a known fact that the criminals in DC have handguns, and 90% of the criminals there are black.

Care to dispute this fact?

Jim,

You are digging your hole deeper by assuming that I am a bigot, which I am not.

[Jim Richards]

KKK or Neo-Nazi? Is the shovel getting heavy, yet?

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Alf and Jim,

Not a bigot at all but its a known fact that the criminals in DC have handguns, and 90% of the criminals there are black.

Care to dispute this fact?

Jim,

You are digging your hole deeper by assuming that I am a bigot, which I am not.

[Tervuren]

Although D.C. is not a state, the constitution is related to the Federal government, so the 2nd amendment would still apply.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Really, I have no idea what she's thinking.

Sure you do. We all do. She is pushing her personal agenda, as un-Constitutional as it is, from the bench. She is grasping at straws; trying to insinuate that the good citizens on D.C. have fewer intrinsic rights than the rest of us, based soley upon where they have chosen to live. Remember, our Bill of Rights does not grant rights; it enumerates natural rights that our government shall not abridge. No matter where one chooses to live. She should (and I'm sure does) know this. She is hoping we don't.

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Remember, our Bill of Rights does not grant rights; it enumerates natural rights that our government shall not abridge. No matter where one chooses to live.

100% right. But this is old thinking. Very sad.

[tabs]

If I recall it was the Crown (governemnt) that sent a military force up to Lexington and Concord to take away the military stores of an illegal militia.

[berettafan]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
That's about one of the least intelligent sentiments I've heard. And I've heard it before.

'criminals will still be the only ones with guns, but now they'll be legal.'

Don't you know it's already illegal for convicted felons to own firearms? One doesn't need to ban firearms for EVERYBODY to make it illegal for FELONS to have them.

You're right about the liberals, tho. They wouldn't likely own a gun for any reason, whatsoever. They'd probably rather rely on their belief that people are all good, they're just misunderstood.



Bottom line: Law abiding citizens should have the choice to own and carry firearms to protect themselves, as well as for any other legal purpose they so choose.

That statement was bugging me too. Just typical anti-gun hysteria.


Joeaksa, you gotta tone down the rhetoric just a tad. Your 'all the black boys' statement doesn't correlate with your '90%' statement and MANY middle of the road folks (the folks we gun nuts NEED for our cause) will put one more check in the column of the anti's because of it. Not saying it's right, but that's how it works. JimR is, I think, a typical bystander who sees ignorance regardless of WHO spouts it. The less careless statements made by responsible gun owners the better!

[Rick V]

Just one more reason to to rejoice in the fact I don't live in DC or any other big city. I am very suprised by the ruling. It is rare to see some laws reversed. I can think of a few more that need to be re-done.
I always find it funny that the politest people you will even meet are at the range.

[red-beard]

Here is the Majority opinion:

In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held as follows:

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The sad thing is the dissenting judge based her opinion on Washington D.C., not being a state, the 2nd Amendment does not apply.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Tervuren
Although D.C. is not a state, the constitution is related to the Federal government, so the 2nd amendment would still apply.

Yeah, it's laughable that a sitting federal judge thought that the Second Amendment didn't apply in DC; I haven't read her dessent yet, but it's probably wrapped around the "a militia" portion of the Amendment. those that want gun control always try to change "a militia" into "the militia", and have been partially successful in the past. I think we're seeing that unravel little by little.

Edit: A little information about the differences in the articles, "the" and "a". Those seemingly small insignificant words make a huge difference in the meaning of the Second Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)

[Rick Lee]

Funny how some people think the Const. doesn't apply to DC because it's not a state, yet DC has universal suffrage, all the other freedoms in the Const. AND they have no death penalty because they say it would violate the cruel and unusual punishment thing. Such judges need to go back to working in the real world and stop trying to rewrite stuff they don't understand.

[Jim Richards]

Yep. Still taxed here without representation.

[FrayAdjacent911]

Originally posted by wludavid
You understood my point, yet still chose to insult me?

Whatever you or I would choose to do is beside the point. Bottom Line: The status quo ain't gonna change much because (I'll boldface this for you) NEARLY ALL DC RESIDENTS WON'T CHOOSE TO OWN GUNS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR LEGALITY.

The legality of felons owning guns is also beside the point. Because as has been said many times, the baddies will own the guns anyway.

Well man, you said it like this:

"only criminals will have guns, but now it will be legal"

Which implied that you think that sans ban, now criminals could legallly own firearms.

Choose your phrasing better, and you won't get chipped on.

[FrayAdjacent911]

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

It's SO refreshing to read something THAT beautiful coming from a judiciary entity!

If THAT came out at a SCOTUS ruling, I'd jump for joy... and drink lots of beer!

[hytem]

Having strict license rules for handguns in this country makes sense to me--especially in big city areas with a high density of punks.

But I don't know if gun laws are really the answer to reduced violence with guns. After all, Canada has just as many guns per capita as we do, and their gun violence is only a fraction of ours.

I've read the Canadians think the real problem in America is all the emphasis on violence in the media, i.e., it's the media here that creates the climate for violence. Fear and violence are certainly used in the media here to get ratings. And "when it bleeds, it leads." Some Canadians think American news is ludicrous, from that standpoint.

The problem is you'll never see these kinds of arguments discussed in the American media, because the media here doesn't criticize itself. What we need is another media to criticize the media. How about it, NRA?

[berettafan]

Waaay too much sex and violence in our culture right now. Games like GTA can do nothing positive and only serve to further desensitize us to violence and a general lack of respect for humanity.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by hytem
Having strict license rules for handguns in this country makes sense to me--especially in big city areas with a high density of punks.

You can't license a right, otherwise it would be a privilege.

But I don't know if gun laws are really the answer to reduced violence with guns. After all, Canada has just as many guns per capita as we do, and their gun violence is only a fraction of ours.

Canada has about one gun per person last time I checked, America has between 2 and 3 guns per person. American's own between 600 and 750 million firearms.

I've read the Canadians think the real problem in America is all the emphasis on violence in the media, i.e., it's the media here that creates the climate for violence. Fear and violence are certainly used in the media here to get ratings. And "when it bleeds, it leads." Some Canadians think American news is ludicrous, from that standpoint.

Yeah, freedom of the press is so risky. Canada doesn't have a protection for either press or speech. You can be arrested, tried, and put in jail in Canada for uttering an ethnic slur.

The problem is you'll never see these kinds of arguments discussed in the American media, because the media here doesn't criticize itself. What we need is another media to criticize the media. How about it, NRA?

We have that, it's called the internet.

[fastpat]

The dissenting judge's writing begins immediately after page 58 of the majority opinion. While it is in fact based on the "a militia" reference in the preamble to the Second Amendment, everyone should read it because it's a lesson in anti-freedom interpretation rather than than freedom based application of the US Constitution. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson's poor scholarship and interpretation is classic sociofascist activism and is what is wrong with the federal judiciary. Incidently, Judge Henderson was first appointed to be a federal Judge by Ronald Reagan, and elevated to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by George H. W. Bush.

Her bio:

Henderson, Karen LeCraft

Born 1944 in Oberlin, OH

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of South Carolina
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 3, 1986, to a seat vacated by William W. Wilkins, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on June 13, 1986, and received commission on June 16, 1986. Service terminated on July 11, 1990, due to appointment to another judicial position.

Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 8, 1990, to a seat vacated by Kenneth W. Starr; Confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 1990, and received commission on July 5, 1990.

Education:
Duke University, B.A., 1966

University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1969

Professional Career:
Private practice, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1969-1970
Assistant state attorney general, South Carolina, 1973-1978
Senior assistant state attorney general, Director Special Litigation Section, South Carolina, 1978-1982
Deputy state attorney general, Director Criminal Division, South Carolina, 1982-1983
Private practice, Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina, 1983-1986