Posted on 03/18/2007 7:07:40 AM PDT by rdb3
By striking down the District of Columbia's extraordinarily strict gun control law, which essentially bans guns, a federal appeals court may have revived gun control as a political issue. It has been mostly dormant since autumn 2000, when Al Gore decided he was less interested in it than in carrying states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania: "Gore Tables Gun Issue as He Courts Midwest" [New York Times, Sept. 20, 2000]. The appeals court ruling appalls advocates of gun control laws and should alarm the Democratic Party.
The court ruled 2 to 1 that the D.C. law, which allows only current and retired police officers to have handguns in their homes, violates the Constitution's Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Heck it'd have an impact on the GOP primaries as well.
In other words, the press and party bosses are forced to reckon with it yet again.
What I'm wondering is if all of those who were wrongly prosecuted by D.C. for violating their unconstitutional gun law are going to get fair restitution for the damages they suffered!
The appeals court ruling appalls advocates of gun control laws and should alarm the Democratic Party ... That is not in the interest of the Democratic Party, which is supported by most ardent supporters of gun control.
Hey Georgie, don't forget gun grabbing 'republican' Rudy Julie-Annie.
This ruling 'prolly' gave him nightmares. Heck he's likely still on heavy doses of Prozac. This naturally goes double Rudy's gun grabbing butt buddy, 'republican', Bloomberg.
I wonder if there has been any comment on this ruling from Guiliani? He not only thinks that individual citizens shouldn't be allowed firearms, but also thinks that manufacturers should be sued to force them to only produce in quantities required for "sporting purposes and legitimate law enforcement needs". And, of course, he would be the one to decide what those quantities would be.
I think that was his and the Times point. Gore dropped the issue because he feared losing Michigan and Pennsylvania because of it.
Mitt Romney joined the NRA last August just to try to get ahead of this issue.
Nah even the Times isn't that out of touch. I remember it got so bad for Gore that unions had to assure their members that he wasn't going to take their guns away.
If the Supremes take this on, it will be a huge issue in `08.
He wasn't less interested in gun control, he just wasn't interested in harping on it while campaigning there. He's still all for it, as far as I can tell.
Exactly , if Giuliani was elected , one can only imagine who he would pick for AG . Bloomberg perhaps ?
I doubt this decision will hurt the GOP any. It should only embolden 2nd Amendment advocates.
With the current make up of the SCOTUS , i'm not comfortable with the idea of the issue going before them . We really need one or two more Constructionists on that court before it gets heard , if at all .
The way the court has been trying to ride fences in the past few years , I could see a ruling affirming the right , but then also stating that Semi-autos don't fall under said right .
Heck even the lib pols in Maine know not to touch the gun issue.
Agreed.
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.