. here is the largest bar...... Jackson Wyoming
Posted on 10/12/2015 1:05:02 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
For centuries there has been debate over the Second Amendment and the scope of the right that it secures. There was sparse definitive guidance on what exactly is safeguarded under the Second Amendment until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court defined the core meaning of the amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller.
At the time, the District had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Nearly all District residents were barred from owning handguns, and they were also prohibited from keeping firearms of any sort within their homes unless they were disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Under District laws, virtually all residents were prohibited from using firearms both inside and outside of their homes for any reason.
In its 5–4 decision, the Court struck down the District's handgun ban and its storage requirements for firearms. Through Heller, the Court determined that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, unconnected with militia service, to keep and bear arms in the home for lawful purposes such as self-defense.
While the Court's decision settled one contentious issue—whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right—the ruling was narrow, leaving several questions unanswered. The Court left many issues up to the interpretation of the lower courts, including whether the right to keep and bear arms applied to the states, and whether the right extends beyond the home.
The fact that many issues remain unresolved in the wake of Heller was not unintentional, however. Heller was the first of a series of cases designed by gun rights advocates seeking to define and secure the scope of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
---snip----
While Congress has been unsuccessful in changing the District's gun laws, the threat is ever present. If the District's laws are upheld in court, it is expected that the laws will face a threat in Congress.
"There's always a concern that conservatives in Congress who like to rail against the District and like to argue for unfettered gun access will try to overturn what the District has done," says Mendelson.
Smith would not be surprised to see Congress attempt to alter the District's gun laws, saying it is a perfectly rational method for gun rights advocates to get what they want. "People try to win whatever way they can, and you have two forums to do it in. One is the legislature, and one is the courts," he says.
The vulnerability of the District's gun laws is unsettling to some, who worry that representatives from very different jurisdictions would have a strong influence over the District.
"Gun laws aren't one-size-fits-all," says Smith. "Each jurisdiction is going to strike its balance differently—public safety against the right to self-defense. It's hard to maintain that system in the District of Columbia given our unique setup, but we deal with it as best we can."
This is how the beltway sees civil rights outside DC. Protections are for them, not for citizens.
but in DC it is not in fact a state. It was always to be a federal city.
This is an article by lawyers, for lawyers, against civil rights.
DC has the largest bar IN THE USA.
No. I don't accept any such "balance".
And by the way, I am ready to die to defend my view, should they decide they want to take my birthright away at the Federal level.
. here is the largest bar...... Jackson Wyoming
Obama and the left: The right to keep and bear arms of Americans shall be infringed. But we reserve the right to provide taxpayer funded weapons of mass destruction to citizens of other nations.
On this civil rights issue. the “not one size fits all” is just a BS argument for divide and conquer.
Imagine the concept of freedom of speech or right to face one’s accuser being given the “not one size fits all” B
scratchin my head
McDonald v. Chicago - SCOTUS rule the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
Do you think that the 2nd Amendment is a civil right?
Not really, just since the rise of fascism in America and then those uppity blacks with rifles fighting back.
It actually started in the 1830’s, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to State Governments.
Before that, there were state court decisions striking down state laws that infringed on the right to keep and bear arms.
The USSC already said it was a civil right and thus subject to a STRICT SCRUTINY test as all other civil rights.
(Note: number two in the bill of rights...)
The right to keep and bear arms? If so, which case?
I would like to read that with my own eyes.
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.