Posted on 03/12/2007 11:27:12 AM PDT by neverdem
That's two...
It's nice to see that for once a judge realizes, and states, The Bill Of Rights merely states existing rights that all people are born with, and that the Federal Givernment doesn't grant these rights, they're job is to protect them.
Maybe there's hope for this country yet...
DC residents need not bother running down to their neighborhood gun store. There is no neighborhood gun store, in any hood, neighbor. Unless of course one has no qualms about shopping at one of the many uptown unlicensed tailgate firearms boutiques, or making a straw purchse from a "friend" in Virginia.
Does this mean we can pack heat at the rally this weekend?
How long will it take DC to honor my VA conceal/carry permit?
Only if we all do it and that won't happen.
What's Rudy's take on this decision?
No.
People are blowing this out of proportion.
The ruling only addresses licensing for possession, unlocked, in one's home, in DC.
You can't bring yours to DC.
You can't carry in DC, resident or not.
This sets powerful precident for overturning a great many prohibitions, but those will have to be addressed in court individually. If you were indeed to carry in DC and got caught, you'd have a chance at a successful defense - but you'd be incarcerated first.
BTW:
SCOTUS can avoid the issue (regardless of all the "take it to SCOTUS flagwaving"), as there is no split yet - it only tossed one law applicable only in DC.
The next step is to use this as a logical basis for tossing 922(o) nationwide, and create a SCOTUS-unavoidable split.
The District's three decades of gun control have worked so well as they have one of the highest murder and gun crime rates in the country.
Honestly, I think there's a possibility that Rudy is educable on this issue, and that he may take this opportunity to reflect on wisdom of these judges, and begin a public shift in he position. When push comes to shove, Rudy hates crime and criminals, and is opposed to anything that helps them.
He grew up with the NYC mentality that anyone walking around the city with a gun must be a criminal (because 99% of the time that was true in NYC), and actually had a quite a bit of success at cutting the crime rate by his "nail 'em for the little stuff" policy, which tended to result in murderers and rapists getting arrested for jumping subway turnstiles, and then identified as people who were wanted for serious crimes, and also resulted in the younger set starting to get the notion that if even 'little" crimes could get you arrested and locked up for a while, big crimes were probably a really big deal. Amazingly, that notion simply didn't exist in the decades preceding Rudy's terms as mayor. There was so much major crime, the police felt they couldn't be bothered with "little" crime when there was so much big stuff to deal with, and the criminal class knew from experience that a little mugging here and there wasn't going to get them in any serious trouble.
Rudy knows the gun issue is a problem for his Presidential aspirations, and like any human being, is no doubt looking for ways to rationalize a shift -- both to himself and to voters. The combination of this exceptionally well-phrased ruling, and the fact that DC's draconian gun ban had clearly not made the slightest dent in its crime rate, could well provide him with an opening.
Interesting analysis. Guess we'll see. His current 2nd Amendment position certainly taints him in my eyes.
Yes, we'll see. His 2A problem is my chief objection to him (that, and that he's too comfortable with socialist government programs, but we won't be seeing any viable candidates who meet my standards on THAT issue). He is a law and order guy, and his policies in NYC did more crime reduction than I expect to see in DC even if it goes to "Vermont carry" tomorrow. Arming citizens is great, but if you don't also lock up the criminals BEFORE they shoot and kill/maim innocent citizens, you still end up with a whole lot of dead/maimed citizens.
Frankly, Rudy made NYC a safer place to reintroduce full 2A gun rights, but there's still a long way to go. There's a certain reality check that needs to be done by 2A absolutists, re the real state of affairs on the ground in cities like NYC (where I live Mon-Fri). Yes, if 2A rights had been fully protected from the get-go, the situation never would have deteriorated to the point where violent criminals control large swathes of the city and even the insides of many public high schools and middle schools. But even after Rudy's law-and-order crackdown in NYC, many parts of it are still not under civilized control -- a big improvement from when almost no parts of it were under civilized control, to be sure, but still problematic enough that people who envision total elimination of gun control laws being promptly followed by a bloodbath in the streets aren't being completely unreasonable. Most law-abiding New Yorkers don't have a clue how to operate a gun (and aren't really interested in learning), very few own guns, and many can't afford to run out and buy one. Meanwhile, all the violent gangs, Mafia, etc. know full well how to use guns, can afford as many as they want, and will greatly increase the rate at which they carry and use them, once the threat of being arrested and "doing time" just for being caught carrying is taken away. Many of them are experienced criminals, but still have no criminal record (or at least no adult record), and so there would be no way to even legally interfere with their purchasing and carrying guns. And they would quickly learn how to stage "self-defense" killings, with pre-fab witnesses, and similar scams.
This is the reality that Rudy faced during his entire career as prosecutor, and then as mayor in NYC. He's not responsible for the fact that the courts (supported by federal courts and their dubious Constitutional interpretations) have been letting violent criminals back out on the streets routinely, for decades. He did his best, both as prosecutor and mayor, to curtail that. But he was still stuck with nonsense like "Miranda rights" -- sure, everybody knows Thug A shot and killed the bodega clerk, but the police forgot to read him his "rights" in time, so he gets off scot-free, and heads back to the streets for a repeat performance. He knew he was in no position to overrule the federal and state supreme courts, so he went about trying to cut violent crime within the system he was stuck with, and that system was supportive of any and all infringements on the 2A. It sucks, but I know the guy was between a rock and hard place, and unfortunately, that biased-in-favor-of-criminals philosophy still pervades most courts across the nation, though to a somewhat lesser extent than in the 70s and 80s.
You listed the key issue in your post:
"Most law-abiding New Yorkers don't have a clue how to operate a gun (and aren't really interested in learning), very few own guns, and many can't afford to run out and buy one."
KEWL! Let 'em bleed, then. If a whimp, or a whimpess, refuses to arm themselves - that refusal in absolutely no way creates a right for the whimp, or whimpess, to demand that other citizens be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights.
Still less, does the whimp/whimpess have the right to strip visitors of their 2nd Amendment rights when they have to go to the Big Sh*tty on business.
Cowardice is no excuse to violate your fellow American's rights - unless you are some Democratic scum living in the Big Sh*tty.
LOL.. I love the Big Sh%#ty remark.
Thank you!
It's not really matter of "refusal". It's a socio-political reality. While I'd certainly support aggressive measures to change it, it does need to be factored into any serious proposals re when and how to eliminate the laundry list of unconstitutional gun laws in NYC (and to a great extent in NY State as a whole). If all the gun laws are suddenly eliminated one day, a huge bloodbath in which lots of innocent people get killed quickly ensued, all that will be achieved is to create a dangerous political groundswell of anti-gun sentiment. There IS a mechanism for amending the Constitution, and we need to be careful not to let the critical mass of citizens needed to accomplish that become inclined to wipe out the 2nd Amendment.
The scenario you described was the basis for a novel called DON'T TREAD ON ME. In it, a BATF official wanted to boost his agency funding, so he set up a shooting at a stadium, and an unanticipated stampede occurred.
The ensuing loss of life caused a Democratic President to act out his gun grabber fantasies. He learned the hard way that Americans won't give up their guns, adn that given the number of long range rifles (millions of 'em) tht any government that the citizenry opposes CAN kill enough government officials to cause that government to change its behavior.
That is just what the Founders wanted.
Fear not. America is armed, and the Constitution WILL be defended. I am sure that even Nancy Pelosi is aware of this most basic of facts about America.
She knows what that Japanese officer said during interrogation after WW II, regarding why Japan never invaded after Pearl Harbor - "Behind every blade of grass is a rifle".
True then, true now.
That's why the UN crowd wants to ban small arms.
Nutcase Nancy? I am afraid it does not matter what NN knows. IMO NN will spew the commie line and hop in the sack with the "Bring Back the Ban" clan.
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.