Posted on 08/05/2008 12:09:32 PM PDT by Gunner9mm
District of Columbia continues to violate civil rights
By Charles Bloomer web posted August 4, 2008
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision shooting down the District of Columbia's total handgun ban, the D.C. government passed emergency legislation to regulate handguns owned by its subjects – I mean, citizens.
The new gun registration law was developed to be as difficult and inconvenient as possible with no regard for its effectiveness. In fact, the new law retains much of the previous gun ban, including provisions that the Supreme Court called unconstitutional.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the new law outlaws an entire class of weapons in common use -- semi-automatic pistols -- by redefining them as machine guns, a purely arbitrary designation (a semi-automatic weapons fires one shot with each pull of the trigger; a machine gun or automatic weapon fires until the trigger is released). The law still requires that guns be locked or dismantled unless there is a "threat of immediate harm". Those two provisions have sparked another lawsuit by Dick Heller, whose case led to the historic decision by the Supreme Court. The court determined, once and for all, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not related to any militia service.
To make gun registration by D.C.'s law-abiding citizens more difficult, D.C. now requires an FBI background check which can take up to two weeks. For what purpose? In most states, the National Instant Check System (NICS) provides dealers with eligibility of gun purchasers in as little at 5 minutes. I have never waited more than 15 minutes for a NICS check.
Apart from the District's arrogance, what I find most surprising is the absolute silence of the ACLU and NAACP.
(Excerpt) Read more at enterstageright.com ...
Heller will get the lower court to bitch-slap DC, who may or may not take it back to SCOTUS. It amazes me that at least the Attorney General can’t do something here. If this was a SCOTUS decision on most any other social issue, the feds would be all over it.
So no... don't expect the NAACP to say anything about it.
ping for later
Of course the NAACP and the ACLU have never identified with liberty--far from it--although the latter has put on a show for 88 years of being the great champion of liberty, by taking select cases, that generally challenge the rights of communities to apply their own standards. The ACLU, if you look more closely, has never championed the rights to bear arms, nor property rights, nor the rights of local communities to celebrate their religious traditions. They are not a libertarian organization, despite their efforts to convince the world that they are.
The NAACP, ADL & ACLU, have somewhat different functions, but they have acted in tandem for three generations, in a fairly well coordinated attack on the American heritage. Conservatives need to understand that and to take messures to respond appropriately. Failure to understand that, will leave anyone scratching their head, as to why certain actions have taken place.
William Flax
Nice try. But hey, “civil rights” include what you’ve said, yet you missed what drives them. Money. “Civil Rights” has caused more government spending and granting directly and indirectly than national defense. “Civil Rights” created a more fierce lobby fighting for it’s right to the tax dollar than anything before in history. The “rights” are secondary as practical politics go.
The District Court judge should fine DC and have it grow exponentially for each week, until DC complies with ''Heller''. That's what a District Court judge did to Yonkers, NY back in the '80s and that was to get it to impose busing. Now that strategy can be used for a noble reason.
ACLU must defend what? Can’t be rights, because this one is explicit in the Constitution, so doesn’t exist, means the opposite of what it says, and has no place in a living document (Repeat until brainwashed).
bump
I disagree.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary (p. 246), Civil Rights = Civil Liberties: Personal, natural rights guaranteed by Constitution; e.g. freedom of speech, press, freedom from discrimination.... Constitutionally, they are restraints on government.
Gunner
I do not have Black's Law Dictionary--and my Law Dictionary uses an even more confused definition than the one you quoted, although it does not attempt to equate Civil Rights with liberty. But consider your quote, above. "Freedom from discrimination" is hardly a natural right; nor is it, in any rational sense, equatable with freedom of speech. In the one case, you are claiming a right, as a result of legislation, that purports to free you from other people's exercise of their free choice; in the other, the right is simply to express yourself. The first is a guarantee against the effects of an adverse opinion of others; and, as such is more privilege than "right" in the classic sense associated with liberty. The second is an acceptance of the right to voice one's opinion.
Moreover, the anti-discrimination laws are not restraints on Government, but extensions of its authority into the realm of private decision making.
William Flax
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.