This model differs from my old favorite, but has similar 5-button lock features.
Posted on 03/18/2008 2:36:58 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.
The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.
Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia.
Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said.
Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.
Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.
Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
On other threads I read late June.
I believe he either was one of the Chicago 7 or defended the Chicago 7.
Justice Breyer is a complete dolt. Uh, sir? Currently, D.C. is a handgun-free zone. Care to explain the hand gun deaths this year in D.C.? The crimes committed using a hand gun in D.C.? But, but....it’s a handgun free zone!
Because, you blazing twit, CRIMINALS DON’T CARE WHAT THE LAW SAYS!!!
This is ridiculous.
Until they release their ruling, nothing that any of the justices said today has meaning.
I hope ... but we’ll have to wait a couple months for their actual thoughts and decision.
Yes. The kind that upholds the Constitution except "when rights are dangerous."
It is way, way too early to celebrate. Wait for their decision, lest we be very disappointed about it.
I will excitedly join people busting open a bottle of champagne should this go the way most of us hope, but lines of questioning adopted by USSC justices can often deceive about the way they decide a case.
D.C.'s crime rate has risen every year but one since the current ban was passed (in '76). So yes Breyer, it's quite unreasonable.
But most importantly, shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear.
Sure, but that's just another hole in the dyke, allowing for arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the law. An inappropriate decision must be dealt with by massive public protest, so they don't pick off dissenters one-by-one.
“right to keep and bear arms” that goes beyond the amendment’s reference to service in a militia.”
To the author of the article: Please show me where the Second Amendment references a “militia,” you libdolt.
I know, it is from SFGate, just saying.
Breyer is apparently a Constitutional ignoramus.
I suppose that I should go ahead now and read all of the article again but more carefully, and the comments of folks who know more about the issue than I do.
Remarkably, there are a lot of gun rights advocates in the DUmp.
“Is it ‘unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?’ Breyer asked.”
Yes, it is unreasonable when it’s unconstitutional!
Not likely since the DC statute also requires that the longarms be unloaded & locked.
Including the resident Troll!
“Turns out that all the ‘passengers’ are undercover cops on a mission”
LOL, remember the scene. Just a nit, though: They weren’t cops, they were civilians who were just packing heat.
This model differs from my old favorite, but has similar 5-button lock features.
That's outstanding. But the DC lawyers will argue that the gun is only staying in one place and not shooting anyone because it knows the camera is on.
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.