Posted on 02/29/2008 9:59:37 AM PST by Squidpup
When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.
And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.
The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.
That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the Second Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled "reasonable" is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The sign over the door reads :
*** THIS HOME INSURED BY SMITH AND WESSON ***
>>Hmmm. Is this ‘group’ legit, or just a coupla guys that go on news bites?<<
They’re legit. Most of the time, I read about them in Soldier of Fortune and Guns and Ammo mag.
And in that case, Sam Colt. Excellent sign for the front porch.
Guns and dogs. Building blocks of a polite society.
And I’d rather have a polite society than a police society.
Could not agree more! A double shot of great tagline material.
Legit. Sis is a cop and a member.
Smith & Wesson - The Ultimate in Feminine Protection.
My question is whether this group is comprised primarily of regular cops? Usually, the Police Chiefs and other “brass” are political animals who tote the “party line” of their politician bosses.
*Ping*
Sis has never said, but knowing her, I doubt that the org has much brass involved....
"Reasonable" infringement???
Doesn’t take a huge, expensive study to come to the conclusion they did.
BTTT
DAVID B. KOPEL, Counsel of Record, INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE for LEAA, etc.
Best quote: "To the contrary, the handgun and self-defense bans are criminogenic." (The medicalesing of legalese) I laughed more than a few times as they shreaded the case from D.C.
Heartland Institute, Prof. Volokh
"THIS BRIEF FOCUSES ON THE LAST ELEMENT IN THE QUESTION PRESENTED TO THIS COURT, WHETHER THE D.C. CODE PROVISIONS AT ISSUE 'VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS . . . WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES.' THESE PROVISIONS DO VIOLATE THOSE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS BECAUSE THEY UNREASONABLY INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING INDIVIDUALS TO POSSESS, IN THEIR HOMES, ARMS COMMONLY USED FOR SELF-DEFENSE. THIS IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT TEST WE PROPOUND BASED ON THE STRONG HISTORICAL AND INTERPRETIVE EVIDENCE THAT A BASIC RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE UNDERLIES THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S GUARANTEE THAT THE 'RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.'”
--snip--
"BY COMPLETELY BANNING HOME POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS, RATHER THAN MERELY REGULATING THEM, THE DISTRICT HAS VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT PER SE. THUS REMAND WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE IN THIS CASE, OTHER THAN TO NEEDLESSLY DELAY RESTORING THE RESPONDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS."
Copying from the pdf reversed the case of the letters, so I made those quotes all upper case.
Ah, the good old days.
One argument that i have never heard is that the populace, that is, the party that owns the Bill of Rights, understands that the 2A recognizes the right of individuals to own and possess guns. The Bill of Right was not written as a document for lawyers but was written to be understood and acted upon by the average person.
More specifically, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.
See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page of one of Bingham's discussions of the 14th A. in the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nNote that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the 14th A. was ratified. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.
DC is not subject to the US constitution and a state constitution ( IIRC) therefore the 14th amendment isn't an issue like it would be in a state.
which is why, IMO, this case made it to SCOTUS in the first place...they couldn't hide behind a 14th amendment issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.