Trigger for a test of D.C. gun laws?

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, June 12, 2002 | Gene Healy

[JohnHuang2]

No jurisdiction in the United States works as doggedly to disarm citizens as does the District of Columbia, our nation's capital and on-again, off-again murder capital. Sure, the city council grudgingly legalized pepper spray in 1993 (provided, of course, that it's properly registered). But that brief concession to self-defense hasn't led to any revision of the District's gun laws, which are still among the most restrictive in America.

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, June 12, 2002

Quote of the Day by Dog Gone

[Joe Brower]

CLICK HERE for a large assortment of powerful, pro-RKBA docs in PDF format.>

[sneakypete]

Oddly though, Mr. Ashcroft has allowed the District U.S. attorney's office to rely on Sandidge to defend D.C.'s gun ban.

Nothing odd about it at all. The ONLY reason Bubba-2 and Ashcroft stepped in on he Emerson case was to try to limit the damage it would do to gun control. They clearly wanted to establish limits,and to make it cleary understood that the feral gooberment DOES have the legal right to enforce un-Constitutional gun laws.

It's hard to know what to make of this.

No,it's not. Janet Ashcroft and Bubba-2 were backed into a corner by Emerson,and were only practicing damage control. They were terrified of a wide-ranging opinion that would knock the wheels out from under the un-Constitutional GCA-68 and MGA-34. Bubba-2 is a statist just like that worthless SOB he calls "Poppy".

It's tempting to read it as indicating Mr. Ashcroft isn't serious about the individual rights view of the Second Amendment.

He's only interested in establishing that those are LIMITED individual rights,and that the feral gooberment has the ultimate rights

. Sure, he'll reward political allies like the National Rifle Association with public statements supporting the view, but when it comes to getting people who work for him to act on it, he demurs.

This had nothing to do with the NRA,and everything to do with damage control. Yeah,they will try to spin it to put a "we're on your side!" face on it,but don't believe this for a minute.

[Maelstrom]

...and...we told you so.

[packrat01]

But that case stated baldly that "the right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution" a statement that's rather hard to square with the Second Amendment,

Entirely correct. The Constitution does NOT confer rights. DC isn't a state, and the Feds can do what they want, in their own District... No different than barring weapons from an Army post.

[joesnuffy]

The Right to Self Defense is conferred upon man by His Creator imo
The State may affirm this right but it cannot confer...it may also take away this right if it can.

[babyface00]

Is it at least possible, that Ashcroft is taking this to the courts in order to set up legal precedent affirming the second amendment? After all, just making policy statements doesn't do anything for future court cases. However, if the government loses, then a precedent could be set that would have long term, positive ramifications.

If Ashcroft refuses to prosecute existing laws, how will they ever get overturned by the courts? If he just backs down and refuses to prosecute, then the next administration can just reverse itself and the laws will still be on the books.

[CJ Wolf]

Entirely correct. The Constitution does NOT confer rights. DC isn't a state, and the Feds can do what they want, in their own District... "No different than barring weapons from an Army post."

....Except that I can not go buy a townhouse on an Army Post. Except that Criminals don't wander around selling crack and shooting kids raping and killing women in the army post parks. Except that most army posts aren't considered the murder capital of the world at times. Except that an Army post is not a City. Except that a Army post generally has nobody living on it except Army personel and possible family.

The feds need to be restricted not the citizens.

[norton]

I don't believe it is "the feds" who decided to do away with firearms in DC; it's the historically leftist & race based elected city administration that acts under separate rules and limits imposed by the feds...

[thepitts]

backed into a corner by Emerson,and were only practicing damage control.

EXACTLY RIGHT.

[coloradan]

Entirely correct. The Constitution does NOT confer rights.

Correct, it recognizes them.

DC isn't a state, and the Feds can do what they want, in their own District.

Wrong ... as it stands, unless an article has been officially incorporated by the 14th amendment, it ONLY applies to the federal government. "The Second Amendment only stays the hand of the federal government..." If anything, states could enact gun control but Washington DC can't, though I happen to believe that states can't legally either, because the Bill of Rights was meant to be incorporated in full. (What is the purpose of recognizing a right in writing that you think and intend the States to violate?)

[William Terrell]

The Right to Self Defense is conferred upon man by His Creator imo

More specifically, I think, the right to life is the bedrock of our entire legal and social system, and if you can't protect yourself from those that want to relieve you of it, you have no right to life.

[Hail Caesar]

TRT bump!

[Redbob]

"No different than barring weapons from an Army post."

Wrongo!
The inhabitants of an Army base are by-and-large, members of the military, and they've pretty much surrendered their Constitutional rights for the duration of their enlistment, but this isn't the case for the residents of and visitors to the District of Columbia.

But unless the DOJ "prosecutes" the accused violators, there will be no trial, and no opinion for the Supreme Court to consider.

[FreeTheHostages]

It is not odd enough that AG Ashcroft is permitting the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia to defend the current DC gun ban. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the D.C. Court of Appeals case is precedent. So fighting that in DC Superior Court now, when their own appellate bosses say the U.S. Attorney's Office loses, will just lead to a loss on this issue.

Very good lawyers -- and Ashcroft is one -- don't filing losing motions and end up looking like losers. The DC gun ban can be challenged if/when the Supreme Court rules on the Second Amendment issue before it. Until the law changes on that level, there is no gain and only pain from messing with it at the D.C. Superior Court level.

So I firmly disagree with those who challenge this excellent Attorney General in this post as being weak-kneed in the D.C. case. It's called tactics. In chess, to get where you're going, you have to move the pieces around in the right order. It's not a question of the AG being less-than-ideologically-pure on the issue: there's nothing about losing in D.C. that would further the cause. It really is kind of amazing that with this great AG, in this wartime situation, an AG who's even taking this Second Amendment issue to the Supreme Court, people would question his motives on the D.C. Superior Court tactic.

[FreeTheHostages]

Wow, interesting post CJ. I can tell that you, like me, have lived in this city.

Re crime & D.C., it boils my blood that the Washington Post thinks the crime issue in this city is policy brutality, where anyone who's lived here knows that although we do have a lot of good cops, altogether too many are lazy or illiterate and the real crime issue is cops that do nothing and crime statistics that are doctored by the police bureaucrats.

[William Tell]

coloradan said: "Wrong ... as it stands, unless an article has been officially incorporated by the 14th amendment, it ONLY applies to the federal government."

I strongly disagree. There is no language in the 14th amendment or anywhere in the Constitution which suggests that laws do not have meaning until the Supreme Court specifically says they do. The 14th amendment says that my immunities must be respected by the states. The Second Amendment clearly states that I am immune from any infringement of my right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court invented the incorporation concept by refusing to take cases early on which would clarify the broad meaning of the 14th. Instead they have issued narrow rulings which give them power that the Constitution doesn't.

[taxcontrol]

Further, the Army does not restrict the owning of a firearm. Unit commanders may restrict where firearms are kept (in the weapons locker or armory). Post commanders may prohibit the storage of firearms by military personnel in the base housing (houses OWNED by the Army), though I can not recall a single post commander who did.

The Army CAN NOT prohibit the ownership of firearms. They can restrict the storage IF the arms are to be kept in OR on Army property. This would be similar to you restricting where your 18 year old relative could (or could not) store a firearm in your house.

Remember ownership is different from carry is different from storage.

[CJ Wolf]

I've never actually lived in DC, Virginia native. I have worked the docks and boats on main st for a number of years in the 80s. Being so close to S.E. I made some interesting friends and saw some interesting things. But it was just enough time in the city to know that DC isn't any army post. :-)

[coloradan]

I agree with you, as I indicated in my closing statement. However, there have been federal cases concerning state-level gun control, which were let stand because the federal court ruled that the Second Amendment only served as a restraint to the federal, not state, government, and thus left states free to prohibit guns as they wished. (Which is not to say I agree with this sentiment.) But in this case, Washington DC is not a state, and this excuse to allow gun control to remain on the books falls. It's too bad we can't have the same judges who ruled that the Second Amendment only stays the hand of the federal government, rule on gun control in D.C. as well. They'd have to either throw out all gun control (foir D.C.), or write a hopelessly contorted or clearly contradictory ruling upholding it.