DC: Council gun hearing: Protection vs. 'nutty experiment'

Washington Times ^ | 3/22/07 | Daniel Taylor

[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.

[patton]

I did my analysis, assuming DC's goal was, "no guns in DC."

If you change that goal to, "How much can I get for keeping this case out of the USSC?", man. The rules are different.

Fenty can make millions, here. Barry seems to be, already.

[zeugma]

Exactly what I said - the opinion is brilliant, well written, etc, but there are factual errors in it.

O.K. I agree that they weren't willing to go nearly as far as I would have. 

[goldstategop]

Like the police chief is concerned for heartbroken families whose loved ones have been murdered because the law rendered them defenseless. The police have no right to disarm me and let the bad guy get away with cold-blooded murder. I'd like to tell Cathy L. Lanier my right to defend myself in my own home is NOT dependent on her permission or that of her political bosses on the DC City Council.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Yeah. If the patricians think gun disarmament is the greatest thing since fresh baked bread, its not asking too much to have the DC police follow their own gun control sermon and lock up their guns for good. After all, it works, right?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Its hilarious. Libs don't see violence when its committed by their beloved felons. They see violence when law-abiding people defend themselves from the felons. The Democratic Party can't allow harm to come to its precious voters. That's the REAL reason they're for gun control. They should stop insulting our intelligence with mealy-mouthed BS and platitudes about "violence." For libs, some acts of violence are better than others. For example, the violence committed by DC thugs and Iraqi insurgents.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

The highest murder rate in America and DC's police chief leads the City Council in a PC comedy show. It would be funny as hell if the real-life results weren't so tragic. Libs will never change a policy hardened into unquestioned dogma even though decades of experience have proven it WRONG. Failure addiction is their middle name.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[MarkL]

In other words, "Those people can't be trusted to be able to protect themselves. Better that they be victims and die a safe death, so nobody else gets hurt!"

Mark

[MarkL]

legalizing guns in the District would lead to an increase in homicides

They always say that, and it it rarely if ever happens. They need to develop new lines; the only thing worse than a tired cliché is one that's been proven wrong.

Hey, you never know... It could happen. It might happen. Just because it hasn't happened in all those states, in all these years, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. So it's better to be safe, just to be sure that it doesn't happen, right?

Mark

[Hawthorn]

> The hole is in the interpretation of "the people". It can be construed to mean local governments <

It's not necessarily a "hole" or even a problem.

In a scholarly law review article, Prof. Glenn Reynolds has pointed out that if "the people" is construed to mean local or state governments, then Federal law presumably may not override state laws. That is, the 2nd Amendment would give states the unrestricted right to arm their "militias" as they see fit.

In other words, if the 2nd Amendment be taken to apply only to militias, and if the courts should be consistent (a big if!), then a state logically could decide that certain of its able bodied citizens MUST be armed with particular weaponry. So if a state should decree that members of its "militia" be allowed to keep machine guns or cannons at their homes, Federal law would be powerless to intervene!

Ironically therefore, the gun-controllers' favored interpretation of the 2nd Amendment well might lead to situations where us folks south of the M-D line become virtually immune from Federal firearms laws, while at the same time there could be total gun bans in such leftwing paradises as Massachusetts and Manhattan.

Let's have Sarah Brady ponder that!

[patton]

IMHO, you are partially correct - all Federal laws regarding arms are uncontitutional. All of them. US v. Miller, 1939, said that all of them that effect military weapons are, anyway.

An 8-inch howitzer is a military weapon.

[TLI]

The hole is in the interpretation of "the people". It can be construed to mean local governments (not that I advocate this), and I expect DC to use it in their appeal.

I read the decision all the way through including the desient which was by the way idiodic. Can't sse how a second year law student would let that obvious level of personal agenda into a document that will have that high a level of visibility. But I digress.

I read the decision all the way through. I did find what I consider to be an assumption (a very common one) that should be addressed. Actually it is in two parts and if the first part is correctly addressed, the second part no longer exists. It did not have anything to do with the issue of the definition or interpretation of "the people" which I though was covered throughly.

Tell you what, I will trade you the assumption I found for the loophole you found? We can do this through private reply so as to not give opponents anything to work with they did not think of themselves...

[El Gato]

No it can't, not that the gun grabbers don't try, but "the people" and "the government" where poles apart in the minds of the founders. Words mean things, and the folks who wrote the second amendment were quite the word smiths. They said exactly what they meant, that is "right of the people", not power of the government (people have rights and powers, governments only have powers, in the Constitution).

I know you don't agree with it, but don't even postuate that it might be what was meant, it wasn't, period.

Don't drink the kool-aide my FRiend.

[patton]

I am not drinking the cool aid, I am doing enemy course of action analysis.