Posted on 11/27/2007 2:58:46 PM PST by neverdem
For some 30 years, the District of Columbia has banned handgun ownership for private citizens. It was approved by that city's council in the wake of terrible gun violence and a rising murder rate in the nation's capital.
The ban has stood through this time with other council votes, but without any official review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sometime next year, the high court will make a ruling on whether that law is constitutional.
It is surprising to us that it has taken this long for the court to get this case. It would seem that it would have gone to the highest appeal long before now. We do not understand all the legal entanglements that must have kept it off the court's docket, but it is certainly there now.
And now, if the court is acting properly, the D.C. gun ban should be struck down.
This is a clear case of constitutionality, not politics, not conservative or liberal. If Constitution's Bill of Rights clearly allows gun private gun ownership anywhere — and we believe it does — then it allows it in the District of Columbia.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is what the Second Amendment says, and there seems to be little "wiggle" room in that statement.
In some instances — Washington, D.C. being one of them — we admit we despair of so many guns in the hands of so many people who would use them the wrong way, but the answer is not to abrogate the Constitution.
If one portion of the Bill of Rights can be limited by a local government, why can't another? There is no logic in saying on the Second Amendment is up for local review. To continue to allow this is to invite a city council or state legislature somewhere to decide that the First Amendment is too broad, or that the Fourth Amendment is too restrictive on law enforcement.
We know there are passionate arguments for gun control and that is part of the problem: The passion has blotted out clear thinking. This time the NRA is right. The law should go.
nah, not me.
rp is simply four-skin trodding.
...if ya know what I mean.
I know. I was sloppy. I didn't care.
YOU were the one who was a stickler for grammatical correctness, but you missed it.
Hence, the deserved "dumb smartass".
Sure do. :>) I have always been amazed by the "dancing on the head of a pin" act.
Fregards.
That is just a really bad argument.
I have the right to vote regardless if anyone else exercises that right.
I have the right to protest (that is what the word assemble is in reference too) regardless if anyone else exercises that right.
I have the right to bear arms regardless if anyone else exercises that right.
Consistency.
I’ve observed over a long time that short of outright insults being involved, if RP makes an “I’m done with you” comment, the person to whom the comment is directed has won. It’s RP’s form of conceding.
Yep. They would correctly conclude that all free adults have the right to keep and bear arms, but that it could be denied to adults who were not fully free (e.g. those convicted of crimes or found to be mentally deranged).
Especially given that the ratification debates on the Fourteenth Amendment clearly indicated that its intent was to prohibit state laws (the "Black Codes") which purported to deny various rights (specifically including the RKBA) to the freedmen.
You could be looking at Hugo Chavez as the Second Coming of Christ, for all I care, and get an equally enthusiastic acceptance among sensible people.
Nobody has ever shown me a picture of robertpaulsen and Michael Bellesiles in the same place at the same time.
Not implying anything, just saying....
The simplest interpretation is that it provides guidance in what sort of weapons constitute the "arms" protected by the Amendment. That was the issue on which Miller was decided, for example.
The left wants to take guns from normal people while leaving them in the hands of the underclass, so that the underclass can use them safely to take money from the normal people.
A form of income redistribution.
The Constitution nowhere guarantees a right to vote. A few of the amendments specify reasons which may not be used to deny that right if it otherwise exists, but nowhere is it positively guaranteed.
Nothing in NY surprises me, but do you have a reference? In NYC, rifles, shotguns and handguns require registration with the NYPD, IIRC.
NY Penal Law S 265.00 Definitions.
As used in this article and in article four hundred, the following terms shall mean and include:
...
3. “Firearm” means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance
between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique firearm.
...
11. “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
12. “Shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
yeah
right
try to turn it on me
lol
another lame attempt by you.
You’re projecting!
go away
“But the second amendment only protects the members of “a well regulated Militia” “ RP
Well, I think that right here you have assumed the answer, to prove the result you were seeking. This is a prime example of circular logic.
The second amendment recognizes a right, given by the creator to men. Our government is instituted from men and was delegated certain powers. Collectives have no rights, their powers are delegated by the consent of the governed.
So in our society, our governing entity can have no power that did not first exist in an individual, and was then delegated to it by individuals.
The second amendment was adopted largely for individuals to retain the means to resist, and if necessary overthrown an oppressive governemnt. Therefore, this right cannot possibly be a government or any other form of collective right.
Thank you Patrick Henry.
Thanks for the citation.
Thank you - I thought that the logical conclusion to his moronic stance on who is one of "the people" was kind of conclusive, but it is always good to see that someone agrees.
His "Until then, good bye." are some of the sweetest words I've ever heard from him. Hopefully "then" will be somewhere on the other side of 2045.
Ah, by that I see you've lost touch with reality.
No, you are the one who has, by asserting that someone in 1792 needed to be a white male to have BOR protections. It is an argument that is, on its face, absurd. More to the point, how would such a limitation apply now? Can you imagine DC's attorney saying, "Yes, your honor, it is our position that no black women can have guns, only white men."
Actually, I'd be thrilled if DC's position was anything like yours - because I'd be buying a new full auto M16 sometime next year for $1,000.00 or less. PLEASE, won't you do all of us a favor and write an Amicus brief for DC?
I'll be glad to talk to you again when you recognize that the sky is blue - until then, stay on your planet with its pink polka-dotted sky.
Thanks. Now I can break his code at will. Simply take his "logic" to its absurd natural conclusion, and he runs away.
Thank you SOOOOO much!
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.