Posted on 09/01/2009 6:17:39 PM PDT by markomalley
The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, declared that Washington’s 32-year ban on all functional firearms violated the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, however, applied only to possession of guns in the home. The court did not address, and was not asked to address, firearms carried outside the home. That’s the issue posed in a new lawsuit against the District by Tom Palmer (disclosure: my colleague at the Cato Institute) and four other plaintiffs — represented by Alan Gura, the lawyer who successfully argued Heller before the court.
After Heller, the District relaxed its ban on residents seeking “to register a pistol for use in self-defense within that person’s home.” But D.C. law still states that “[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license.” Currently, the city affords no process by which to issue such a license. A first violation of the carry ban is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to five years.
Does the Constitution mandate that the nation’s capital allow firearms to be carried outside the home? The right to bear arms, the court said in Heller, is an “individual right unconnected to militia service.” To “bear” means to “carry.” More specifically, when used with “arms,” the opinion said, “bear” means “carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation.” Nothing in that formulation implies a right that can be exercised only within one’s home.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
“[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license.”
I’ll be marching on 9-12 and I have a “license”....from Ohio. Do I or don’t I?
The criminals in D.C. aren’t worried about carrying their guns outside their homes! And our Congress thinks that by passing more and more anti-gun laws, they will be safer and safer. /sarc
I hope there is a way to collect damages from government employees (our civil cervants, not rulers) who swore to uphold the Consetitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. All politicians and LEO who enforced this unconstitutional law should be fined their total government salaries and then have treason charges swiftly tried and penalties considered in light of what their unconstitutional penalties were against the law abiding times one hundred. Smacking these communists really hard is the only way we will get their attention.
How are they suppose to get home with their gun?
Depends. Do you have $5K and 5 years to blow as well as your present license? Get another 1,000,000 people to join you and then your set.
The article mentions that the law covers “functional firearms”... so I’m guessing you could disassemble it and take it home from the gun store in two trips.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t seriously clarify to the Government what the 2nd Amendment means and force them to comply in this next round of lawsuits, then that is exactly what must be done in order to fix this situation. The day that all law-abiding gun owners, regardless of their jurisdiction, agree to openly carry their firearms out on the streets at the same appointed time, is the day that the government will remember they are public servants and not our rulers!
There is a less objectionable way for Washington, D.C. to have limitations on gun rights: declare the entire district a federal reservation.
As such, all private land and buildings would, over the course of years, be purchased by the federal government, then in most cases, bulldozed. This would make Washington, D.C. a place solely for government, and for the public who wished to observe, meet with, and interact with government.
There would be lots of wide open spaces for park, monuments, gathering places, etc. Most private vehicular traffic would be excluded as well, with the exception of much more public transportation and the occasional VIP transport. Heavily trafficked pedestrian ways could even have moving sidewalks, that are popular in airport concourses.
Restaurants, the Watergate hotel complex, and other amenities would be leased by private contractors.
But, again, as a federal reservation, though open to the public, there could be all sorts of security regulations, just like on military installations.
bttt
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.