Skip to comments.
Taking Aim at D.C.’s Gun Law
Newsweek ^
| July 30, 2007 -
| Daren Briscoe
Posted on 07/31/2007 11:09:50 AM PDT by neverdem
A wealthy libertarian is bankrolling a challenge to D.C.s gun regulationsthe most restrictive in the country. What drives himand his take on whether the case will go to the Supreme Court.
The District of Columbia has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. But thats a distinction the nations capital will soon loseif Robert Levy prevails. Levy was born in Washington, but left years ago; a resident of Naples, Fla., who made a fortune as an investment analyst, he is now a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. A critic of what he sees as unnecessary government regulation, he rounded up six D.C. plaintiffs who either owned firearms or wanted to, for self-protection, and helped bankroll their challenge to the citys gun lawwhich makes it illegal to own or possess an unregistered handgun (D.C. stopped registering handguns back in 1978). The city permits registered long guns like shotguns and rifles, but they must be disassembled or disabled with trigger locks, and its illegal to use a firearm of any kind in self-defenseeven in the owners home. The suit, which is being bankrolled by Levy, has been successful so far; in March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found the gun law unconstitutional. Earlier this month, D.C. officials announced plans to take the case (Parker v. District of Columbia) to the Supreme Court, in hopes of having the appeals courts ruling overturned. If the high court agrees to hear Parker, it could finally settle one of the biggest arguments in constitutional law: whether the Second Amendments right to keep and bear arms is an individual right or was meant to apply only to members of a well-regulated militia. NEWSWEEKs Daren Briscoe spoke with Levy about the suits prospects, and what drove him to...
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; billofrights; catolinstitute; classicalliberalism; darenbriscoe; dc; libertarianism; newsweek; parker; robertlevy; secondamendment; selfdefense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
1
posted on
07/31/2007 11:09:54 AM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
As the old saying goes: “Criminals like gun control laws. It makes their jobs safer.”
Good for this guy standing up to the gun-grabbers in DC.
2
posted on
07/31/2007 11:18:10 AM PDT
by
RexBeach
To: neverdem
It’s such a shame that conservatives must bank roll a fight for OBVIOUS constitutional rights. Take the idiots out of office and bring this country back to its roots.
We need a revolution.
To: neverdem
The man who is financing this doesn’t own a gun himself but believes in the constitution.
4
posted on
07/31/2007 11:19:18 AM PDT
by
Graybeard58
(Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
To: neverdem
whether the Second Amendments right to keep and bear arms is an individual right or was meant to apply only to members of a well-regulated militia. Short argument: Everyone was eligible to be part of the militia.
I don't get how they can find secret parts of the constitution that state that abortion is an issue of privacy, or that 'limited time' means an author's lifetime plus seventy years, yet choose to restrict the one amendment that ensures that all of the rest will be protected.
Oh... Wait, that must be why.
5
posted on
07/31/2007 11:24:12 AM PDT
by
kingu
(No, I don't use sarcasm tags - it confuses people.)
To: neverdem
More evil libertarians for the FR crowd to despise.
6
posted on
07/31/2007 11:24:18 AM PDT
by
AdamSelene235
(Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
To: RexBeach
Earlier this month, D.C. officials announced plans to take the case (Parker v. District of Columbia) to the Supreme Court, in hopes of having the appeals courts ruling overturnedGuess that means no armed bodyguards for them, huh? Liberal hypocrisy knows no limits.
7
posted on
07/31/2007 11:24:24 AM PDT
by
Tabi Katz
To: neverdem
Everyone knows that the 2nd only applies to the federal govt and not the individual states.
or
The 2nd only applies to state militias approved by the governor.
or
A collective right.
or
Ad nauseam ......
8
posted on
07/31/2007 11:29:23 AM PDT
by
beltfed308
(Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
To: George from New England
Its such a shame that conservatives must bank roll a fight for OBVIOUS constitutional rights. The guys a libertarian.
9
posted on
07/31/2007 11:30:32 AM PDT
by
beltfed308
(Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
To: Joe Brower; traviskicks
10
posted on
07/31/2007 11:58:11 AM PDT
by
beltfed308
(Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
To: George from New England
DC is a very special place. The States protected their Citizens' right to arms prior to the Constitution. This is as it should be. Whe DC was created, it was by definition new. It had no history, no tradition, no legal inheritance. It was given what the founders gave it, a small piece of land and Congress got exclusive jurisdiction, and I've found conflicting stories about what that means: mainly that Virginia and Maryland shouldn't think they retain jurisdiction over the area they ceded to DC. DC was created like a blank canvas, starting from zero, gun rights never existed for DC residents because there was no tradition of gun rights for the new government. The States inherited theirs, the English Common Law, the Magna Carta, and were powerless to get rid of those even if they wanted. But DC being new, there was no obligation to make it look and feel like a state. Congress was free to experiment. The Constitution BOR simply prevents Congress from interfering with the rights of States and their Citizens. It doesn't grant rights to anyone, nor does it guarantee rights to anyone. It is a negative on what Congress can do to States. For the last of you who will invoke inalienable rights, good luck in DC. DC was created for the express purpose (or may as well have been) of not being encumbered by inalienable rights or anything else that encumbered the States. Congress and its DC don't have to honor any claims to gun rights to those under its jurisdiction. What is alarming is that everyone is under its jurisdiction now.
Before you call me a nut, read 40 Cal 311, People v. De La Guerra. More is on my about page.
11
posted on
07/31/2007 11:58:13 AM PDT
by
Jason_b
To: neverdem
The only problem I have, and let me say, I hate gun control, but.......have you ever been to DC? Would you want those people to be carrying around guns? Tough questions but look at Los Angeles and Detroit. Look at the gangs that are out of control. I don’t know the answer and gun control is not the answer but no one has addressed what we do about the problems in these cities. It’s out of control.
12
posted on
07/31/2007 12:29:47 PM PDT
by
RC2
To: RC2
...have you ever been to DC? Would you want those people to be carrying around guns? Doesn't matter if I want them to or not ... they already are.
What I want is for the law-abiding people there to be able to carry.
13
posted on
07/31/2007 12:38:00 PM PDT
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: neverdem
I would NEVER obey a law that made it illegal for me to defend myself. It violates a right that pre-existed the law itself and which is essential to repelling aggression against one's person. Whatever the merit of banning guns might be, NO government has the right to forbid ANY ONE from defending their life.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
14
posted on
07/31/2007 12:40:23 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: beltfed308
That's "libertarian" with a small "l." I've met and spoken with Mr. Levy and found him to be a brilliant man.
As for the Cato Institute, any outfit that seeks to privatize Social "Security" is OK in my book. It's a fascinating organization full to the brim with brilliant and personable folk.
And a close friend of mine used to work there and got to know them well. Great and classy social events attended by a veritable Who's Who of the few genuinely brilliant thinkers in DeeeSeee....
15
posted on
07/31/2007 12:47:36 PM PDT
by
tracer
To: beltfed308
That's "libertarian" with a small "l." I've met and spoken with Mr. Levy and found him to be a brilliant man.
As for the Cato Institute, any outfit that seeks to privatize Social "Security" is OK in my book. It's a fascinating organization full to the brim with brilliant and personable folk.
And a close friend of mine used to work there and got to know them well. Great and classy social events attended by a veritable Who's Who of the few genuinely brilliant thinkers in DeeeSeee....
16
posted on
07/31/2007 12:47:40 PM PDT
by
tracer
To: RC2
How about banning membership in gangs?
Lengthy prison terms for anyone who is a gang member.
17
posted on
07/31/2007 12:47:52 PM PDT
by
july4thfreedomfoundation
(My number one goal in life is to leave a bigger carbon footprint than Al Gore.)
To: tracer
Swine cordless mouse!! Sorry to keep repeating myself....
18
posted on
07/31/2007 12:49:01 PM PDT
by
tracer
To: RC2
Would you want those people to be carrying around guns? The very ones you wouldn't want already are.
19
posted on
07/31/2007 12:50:47 PM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
To: goldstategop
The dirty little secret of gun control laws is that even most Democrats and liberals don't really believe in them in spite of their rhetoric, which is why it's a political loser for them. Carl Rowan owned a gun in spite of railing against guns during his entire career.
Our new Democrat Senator Jim Webb more or less openly defies the ban and brings his guns into the city with him from Virginia.
20
posted on
07/31/2007 12:51:11 PM PDT
by
jpl
(Dear Al Gore: it's 3:00 A.M., do you know where your drug addicted son is?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson