Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 regulations—the most restrictive in the country. What drives him—and 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 that’s a distinction the nation’s capital will soon lose—if 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 city’s gun law—which 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 it’s illegal to use a firearm of any kind in self-defense—even in the owner’s 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 court’s 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 Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right or was meant to apply only to members of a “well-regulated militia.” NEWSWEEK’s Daren Briscoe spoke with Levy about the suit’s 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 previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: RC2
Look at the gangs that are out of control.

I would guess that many members of such "gangs" are felons, whose possession of such guns is already a crime.

As has been stated ad nauseam, gun laws only affect law abiding gun owners. Criminals ignore them.

21 posted on 07/31/2007 12:52:07 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kingu
Short argument: Everyone was eligible to be part of the militia.

You probably already know this, but I wanted to insert the section of the US Code that backs you up:

TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, Section 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.

Pretty much means just about everyone in the USA is either part of the militia or “retired” from it. If the person has prior military service, the age is extended to 64. With retirement ages increasing, and in time of need, I am sure the upper age range would be waiverable.

22 posted on 07/31/2007 12:54:23 PM PDT by M1Tanker (Proven Daily: Modern "progressive" liberalism is just National Socialism without the "twisted cross")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kingu
"Short argument: Everyone was eligible to be part of the militia."

I've often wondered why gun grabbers haven't tried using the language of the Militia Act against us. According to § 311 of Title 10, the people eligible for the Militia of the United States are "able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and ... under 45 years of age." There are exemptions listed in § 313 of Title 32, of course but they address enlistments and appointments into the National Guard.

If you apply the letter of the law to it, strictly speaking the unorganized militia can be comprised of only males age 17 to 45. Gun grabbers could be able to argue that those of us males 45 years or older (including yours truly) as well as women do not belong to the unorganized militia, so therefore are not eligible to keep and bear arms. (I know, it's ridiculous but I wouldn't put it past them to try this angle)

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 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.


Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it's always worried me about the "under 45 years of age" clause. I am interested in getting everyone else's opinion on this.
23 posted on 07/31/2007 12:55:02 PM PDT by FortWorthPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
24 posted on 07/31/2007 12:55:07 PM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jason_b
Actually, once the BoR was ratified, Art 6 para 2 became effective. Read Mason's "Objections to the Constitution".

"There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law."

His reasons for wanting a declaration of common Rights for all US citizens is as valid now as it was then. In fact, more so seeing as how the States and the FedGov both seem bent on destroying our Republic and our liberties.

25 posted on 07/31/2007 12:55:49 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RC2
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?

(Pssssst.)

(I have a little secret.)

(I'm gonna tell you.)

 

 

 

(They already are.)

26 posted on 07/31/2007 12:57:15 PM PDT by Lazamataz (JOIN THE NRA: https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“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.”

BUMP


27 posted on 07/31/2007 12:57:47 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker ( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! "Read my lips....No new RINO's" !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tracer
Interesting background information. Thanks for sharing.

FRegards

28 posted on 07/31/2007 12:59:29 PM PDT by beltfed308 (Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: M1Tanker

Title 10 should be required reading (study) in every high school in the U.S.A.


29 posted on 07/31/2007 1:00:19 PM PDT by 3RDDAN (NOW HEAR THIS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jason_b

Are you saying that the Constitution and the BOR doesn’t apply to DC?


30 posted on 07/31/2007 1:00:38 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org • Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FortWorthPatriot
Retired police are still allowed to carry/keep arms so the legal precedence exists on that level to resist forfeiture. Also, the Constitution did not specify age or gender when referring to “People” and the use of “People” in the Constitution is already legally determined to include all people of every age.

In addition, the equal rights laws prohibit discrimination based on gender and color so pretty much everyone is included in the responsibilities of the unorganized militia. Also, the Militia Act only defines a period of potential service to the Nation, not the keeping and bearing of arms. It takes a tool (the 2nd Amendment), provided by the Constitution, and uses it in the defense of the country by the People.

But that is my dime-store legal opinion. If you add $1, you can buy a lottery ticket with it.

31 posted on 07/31/2007 1:13:00 PM PDT by M1Tanker (Proven Daily: Modern "progressive" liberalism is just National Socialism without the "twisted cross")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FortWorthPatriot
I believe that definition significantly post-dates the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

The 'National Guard' was a long way off, temporally.

32 posted on 07/31/2007 1:13:21 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 3RDDAN
Title 10 should be required reading (study) in every high school in the U.S.A

Unfortunatly, it does not seem to be required reading anywhere....

33 posted on 07/31/2007 1:14:57 PM PDT by M1Tanker (Proven Daily: Modern "progressive" liberalism is just National Socialism without the "twisted cross")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RC2
“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. “

I’ve visited DC a couple of times, and I grew up near LA. Widespread carry of firearms would be the best thing that could happen to either place. IMHO.

Gangbangers want respect. They want it, they have to give it, if everyone carries. Otherwise, they become an endangered species, as was shown repeatedly in the Old West.

34 posted on 07/31/2007 1:25:39 PM PDT by Old Student (We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They're called "The Bad Guys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: M1Tanker
If the person has prior military service, the age is extended to 64.

Where did you find that exception?

35 posted on 07/31/2007 1:30:43 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Old Student

It’ll work best against gang-bangers if folks realize that “scope” isn’t just the name of a mouthwash....


36 posted on 07/31/2007 1:38:47 PM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
Are you saying that the Constitution and the BOR doesn’t apply to DC?

That's the essence of the "Dissent" in Parker.

Thus, in DC, women aren't allowed to vote and it's legal for one man to own another as property.

37 posted on 07/31/2007 1:40:47 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

As a freeper wrote two weeks ago, and I paraphrase,”The modern question of whether the right is collective or individual is without meaning, because the 2nd was not written for citizens, but written for government- that is written directly to government, like most of the Constitution is.


38 posted on 07/31/2007 1:49:00 PM PDT by Big Mack (I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain TO EAT VEGETABLES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
What is the BOR? Does it bestow rights? No. It should be called a bill of restrictions because it restricts what congress can legislate for the states and state citizens. If congress got the notion to implement gun control against Virginia citizens, the BOR stops that. In that sense the BOR does apply to DC and the government that lives there, by restricting it.

The Constitution certainly applies to DC,...helped create it! And defined the government that would run it!

Congress is far more free to do with DC and those under its jurisdiction (which is everyone now) than people realize. It used to be just those born in DC and territories. But since it got into the citizenship business we all bought in and now it is all of us. I'm saying you just can't find anyone closely enough connected to a real State by Citizenship to that State to be able to claim its protections from what DC wills. Read the Constitution of your State sometime. That's where your rights are guaranteed. The federal zone has spread everywhere and everyone is under it.

When you have some time, lots of it, like a rainy day, read my about page. It's too long. Sorry for that.

39 posted on 07/31/2007 2:25:29 PM PDT by Jason_b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tracer

I like what Cato does, too...but they ARE Libertarian-inclined (or openly so,) which means that they are not writing Holy Writ all the time.

So what? Better that Cato joins with Heritage, AEI, etc., than against ‘em!


40 posted on 07/31/2007 2:28:12 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson