Why DC's Gun Law Is Unconstitutional

History News Network ^ | 2-18-08 | David E. Young

[zeugma]

Well done FOG.

Say it with bullets!

[budwiesest]

big read for later

What bugs this frog's boiling ass is the fact that criminals, and criminals alone, may determine the statistics on murders, rapes, aggravated assualts, etc.

Imagine anywhere else in society where 'crooks' were protected by law from an immediate correction of those who'd design to defraud others- such that the victim instead, might be liable. (Stock brokerages do not count).

From buglar to bureaucrat, the 'rights' of the people must be supreme. That's all the secondment ammendment really does. It keeps the common criminal guessing, as well as, the not-so-common criminal (elitist senator). If this decision goes the wrong way, we'll finally be a nation of outlaws. Borrowing from Michele Obama: I'd have never been prouder of my country.

Tyranny in days past made outlaws of patriots and guns were central.

Tyranny today would make outlaws of patriots and guns will be central. It's not just history repeating itself.

[from occupied ga]

Don't forget, the Sinkmeister was ultimately impeached and disbarred regardless of the gyrations he went through along the way.

And yet none of his EO's regarding firearms were rescinded by King George II.

[Publius Valerius]

I recognize that you’re being tongue-in-cheek with the latter part of your opinion, but I think the Supreme Court was right. Federalist 43 discusses that particular clause and contemplates the creation of a municipal government. I certainly think it’s within the proper powers of Congress to delegate law making power to the DC council, but I believe this law to be unconstitutional.

[muawiyah]

The Founders also discussed purchasing tracts of land for ports and military facilities ~ that stuff is in the same part as the business about buying a 10X10 section of land.

From the beginning the "base commander" or "commanding officer" has had the privilege of regulating or restricting all firearms. If he issued instructions for weapons to be isolated in the base armory, that's where they went. Congress also has the authority to write the rules for the military.

The Supreme Court might well say that what DC did was both a violation of the Second, Tenth and Ninth amendments to the Constitution, and also in conformance with the powers of Congress.

They could then kick the issue back to Congress to address this summer during a Presidential election campaign.

[mvpel]

From the beginning the "base commander" or "commanding officer" has had the privilege of regulating or restricting all firearms. If he issued instructions for weapons to be isolated in the base armory, that's where they went.

Soldiers subject to the authority of their commanding officer, soldiers who also have no First Amendment rights to speak of while in uniform, aren't analogous to ostensibly free residents of DC, who may have no association whatsoever with the Federal or municipal government.

Restricting firearms on the actual property of the government is one thing, but in the homes of residents is quite another.

[ctdonath2]

IBrp.

[Dead Corpse]

LOL...