Posted on 03/24/2007 9:33:23 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
The acting chief of the Metropolitan Police Department told the D.C. Council yesterday that legalizing guns in the District would lead to an increase in homicides since most killings in the city occur after confrontations or petty disputes.
"My greatest concern is that even a legally registered firearm can get into the wrong hands, and lead to a heartbreaking outcome," Chief Cathy L. Lanier said during a hearing exploring ways to reduce gun violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
And we all know D.C. was a paradise before the ruling, right?
They are trying to LEGISLATE argument behavior NOT safety.
IOW there this incompetent police officer is saying they can't protect us because people don't know how to behave.
Like savages they have to resort to the lowest form of communication because they don't understand any other way.
WOW! What an elected official! What a complement about the electorate!
Citizens are too stupid to cope with life. All this from our nation's capitol.
You mean like JBT's?
Or worse, the Clintons?
Cheers!
Is there any other place in the Constitution where "the people" is interpreted as meaning local government? In reading the case, I thought they cited to supreme court decisions finding that 1) language appearing in different parts of the constitution should be interpreted uniformly, and that 2) "the people" referred to citizens.
Seems they have a barbarian problem in the District of Columbia.
Yes an No. Does that clear it up?
You see the problem...
The 2A wasn't contingent upon either future crime statistics or emotions. If somebody doesn't want guns, they should be honest and try to amend the constitution, not violate it as they have.
Good reason to get rid of the ATF.
Jeez!
This is probably one of the most stupid arguments I've heard. Let's try a small change and see what happens.......
Most pokes in the nose in the city occur after confrontations or petty disputes.
Why not require Chinese finger puzzles before any conversations that might lead to a disagreement?
Nam Vet
The History Channel has a show on the roaring twenties and guns.
People were polite in the speak easys since there was no use getting upset over an accidental transgression when you didn't know if and/or what the other guy was carrying.
Whose hands are the wrong hands? YOURS according to cops who understand that gun control really isn't about guns. It's about control.
I think I read of a case recently where a local government attempted to claim protection from "ex post facto" laws, but their claim was rejected. Laws may be passed which affect prior privileges or powers of government.
It might have been related to the federal law which prohibits lawsuits against gun manufacturers for criminal use of guns. The new law covers existing lawsuits based upon actions which took place before passage of the laws.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the word "right" applied to a government power. The claims of DC would have to include a new meaning for "right" as well as a collective meaning for "people".
&*^)(%& Barry moved to repeal the law, to kill the case before it can get to the USSC.
In my enemy course of action analysis, I missed that option - all they have to do is repeal it, and put in place a kinder, gentler law - "only people we like are allowed guns", or some such, and we have to start over.
&($$&(&^%)_+&(+)&(
Let's see. The word "cannon" appears twice.
...The term "Arms" was quite indefinite, but it would have been peculiar, to say the least, if it were designed to ensure that people had an individual right to keep weapons capable of mass destruction--e.g., cannons. ...
and
... The Act required militiamen to acquire weapons that were in common circulation and that individual men would be able to employ, such as muskets, rifles, pistols, sabres, hangers,etc., but not cumbersome, expensive, or rare equipment such as cannons. ...
Well, you're right. Cannons are not weapons of mass destruction, and they were often owned by private citizens at the time of the nations founding, else the provisions in the Constitution regarding Letters of Marquee and Reprisal would make no sense.
The second mention merely says that militiamen were not required to turn out with cannon in tow. That's true. Having read through the militia acts covering this, it would not preclude such a thing, but didn't require it of anyone.
How would either of these mentions be cause for reversal?
Neither is - I said it was an error in fact. Of course people owned cannons, where the heck did they presume we got an armed navy for the revolution?
I'm not sure what your point is then.
Exactly what I said - the opinion is brilliant, well written, etc, but there are factual errors in it.
Removing the ban for a 90 day period would in no way invalidate the suit, as far as I can see.
Even if an appeal was heard within the 90 day period, it would still be the case that any of the plaintiffs would be denied their rights just as soon as the period ended.
If DC simply followed the appeals court decision and removed the ban completely, then they might be able to prevent an appeal. But if they do that, then they would be admitting to the correctness of the court's decision. They can't afford to do that.
Also, I expect that any replacement system that appears to satisfy the appeals court will, in fact, contain further infringements that can be appealed.
One example would be if any kind of fee is required to exercise the protected right. We don't allow poll taxes and we shouldn't allow arms taxes.
The People's Republik of Kalifornia owes me about a thousand dollars just in fees required of me to pay for proving that I am not a criminal. At such time as the Supreme Court should rule, I will look at suing the state to recover that money.
Of course the experience in over 40 states that have some form of concealed carry licensing is not worth mentioning, let alone considering seriously. Just a few years ago, as Missouri was debating CCW, the very same type of officials were making the very same hyperbolic claims, yet none have come to pass. Even then, it took a great deal of heavy lifting to get the barest of majority to pass the law, a law which over 10,000 licensees now carry under, and a law under which not a single licensee has been convicted of any crime involving his firearm.
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.