Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Second Amendment case headed to Court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:37 AM
Original message
Second Amendment case headed to Court
Source: SCOTUS Blog

Second Amendment case headed to Court

Local government officials in Washington, D.C., announced Monday they will appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home- an issue on which there is now a clear conflict among federal Circuit Courts.

The petition would have been due Aug. 7, but city officials said they would ask Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for a 30-day extension of time to file the case. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and city Attorney General Linda Singer disclosed the appeal plan at a press conference, along with local Police Chief Cathy Lanier.

The D.C. Circuit Court ruled on March 9 that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to possess a gun -- at least within one's own home. The ruling was the first by a federal appeals court to strike down a gun control law based on that view of the Amendment's reach. The case is Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (docket 04-7041). On May 8, the Circuit Court refused by a 6-4 vote to rehear the case en banc. The mandate is scheduled to be issued Aug. 7, but will be withheld after the city files its Supreme Court petition.

Read more: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/07/...



I can only hope that the court will actually decide to hear the case, and quite honestly... I don't see that not happening.

From reading previous articles and the Brady Campaigns own comments... the anti-RKBA zealots have been in a panic mode fearing that the case would make it this far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. They certainly should be able to have guns if they are a part of
"A well-regulated militia.. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) is first about self-defense and second about defending the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stressfulreality Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
70. exactly. and people should have the right to defend their family n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Well...
hopefully that misunderstood bit of misquoted tripe/nonsense will be laid to rest with a proper decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Oddly, the militias aren't well regulated these days.
Of course, being equipped and trained is what "well-regulated" almost certainly meant at the time; the former was the militiaman's responsibility and the latter was the responsibility of the state.

I'm unclear on how my having a right or not depends on a state's actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. Well, there is this US Code defining militias
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311

311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_se...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. They are
Technically speaking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Popol Vuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
82. "A well-regulated militia"
This USC is important to know to better understand the U.S. vs Miller case I will comment on below.

Militia: composition and classes

USC 10,113

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.





Supreme Court Cases Already Ruled On This Issue



U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

U.S. v. Cruikshank was a case which involved the KKK suppressing black folks from their right to freely assemble and to bare arms. The Supreme Court in this case ruled that because the 1st and 2nd amendments applied to the federal government and not to the states; citizens had to "rely on the police power of the states for their protection from private individuals.

However, the Supreme Court also ruled:

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."






Next important Supreme Court case we have is: Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

In Presser v. Illinois the Supreme Court ruled that the states had the right to regulate private military groups. Presser also reaffirmed the earlier Cruikshank decision that the Second Amendment is a restriction upon the federal government and not the states.

Nevertheless, Presser is important because the Supreme Court also ruled that the states could not write laws prohibiting the "people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security..."

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.






Next important Supreme Court case we have is: U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

I am very sorry for all those who believe that the Miller case ruled that citizens are not guaranteed the right to private ownership of firearms. The Miller case doesn't make any such ruling. What the Miller case rules is that a sawed-off shotgun doesn't constitute "ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Therefore "it cannot be said that the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument (sawed-off shotgun), or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.


The Miller case also brings up some other interesting rulings. And to better understand these rulings requires knowledge of the U.S. Code I posted above with respect to the definitions of the militia.



The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.


Its important to note that the Supreme Court only required evidence that a saw-off shotgun contributed to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. They did not however ask the question if whether or not the defendants had to belong to a well regulated militia.

Now given this fact and interpreting Miller with its references to "ordinary military equipment", "Militia comprised all males physically capable.....", and citizens "expected to appear baring arms (of the 'ordinary military equipment') supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time (today the M16 semi/full auto assault rifle).

Taken into context with the U.S. Code on "Militia composition and classes" and its definition of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.

And further taken into context with the Cruikshank and Presser cases. The Supreme Court has held that the second amendment protects the right of all able bodied men to privately posses the common military weapon of the time (today the M16 rifle), and that other firearms are not protected by the 2nd amendment --But-- that the right to keep and bare arms is a human right that existed prior to the Constitution and as a human right is not reliant upon that document.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. 2nd
Of COURSE it's an individual right! Read your history, people. Read the Federalist Papers.

I cannot engage in this debate further. If it's not an individual right, then that means the government can control your right to own a gun. Do you really want the government having that degree of power over you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. i'm more concerned about not having the right to hear honest
news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. honest news
I think we do have the right to honest news. We're just not getting it right now! LOL

But now that I think about it, I do think we have honest news. We got very honest reporting on that wrestler guy Benoit, and Anna Nicole, and Paris Hilton, and that Karr guy who confessed to killing JonBenet, and the Duke rape fiasco, and on and on. What are you complaining about?

In today's world, there's no real difference between TV news and Entertainment Tonight. You may get Katie Couric's "serious" look but that's the only difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. That would be a positive right.
The US has traditionally been big on negative rights, not so much positive rights.

Negative rights restrict government, such as not censoring, not searching illegally, not imposing a religion. Positive rights require that people do things, and with every right granted to somebody comes an obligation imposed on other people.

The 'rights' tide has shifted in the last 50 years; it's one reason I like the Constitution as it is, more or less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hansberrym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. You would have that right
if you were a member of the "press". But individuals have no such right. (sarcasm)






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. Not over ME
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 01:40 PM by ProudDad
I've already decided that guns are useless penis substitutes...don't have one, don't need one, don't want one...

But We the People, the government, having some control over the gun nuts' pathology, their delusion that they think they have a right to arm up against (what???) the boogie man de jour that the MSM wants them to fear?

Yup, we have a right to control that nonsense...


Now, folks, stand by for the right-wing rants from the gungeon... :evilgrin: :evilgrin:


For an example you can go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

But I hope you have a strong stomach, some of these gun nuts are rather hard to take...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Curious
What is your plan if someone ever breaks into your house at night? Ask nicely that they leave? Call the police and wait 15 minutes? Or do you just assume it will never happen?

No one is saying you have to have a gun. But don't stand in the way of those of us who actually take affirmative steps to protect our family in the case of an emergency.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Ah, we've discovered your boogie man de jour
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 01:59 PM by ProudDad
"someone ever breaks into your house at night?"

Let's see, I've got a better chance of winning the lottery or getting hit by lightning than for this far-fetched scenario to come true.

I get a kick out of gun nuts, sitting on their arsenals in some remote location or in the midst of a neighborhood of "people of their own kind" worrying about some boogie man who never comes... :rofl:

Hell, maybe I should withdraw my objections and let the wackos spend themselves into the poor house buying this bogus, phantom, ephemeral "security"...

They can all go the way of the Soviet Union...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Hmm
Do you have a smoke alarm in your house? I do, even though I've never had a house fire. Do you have flood insurance? I do, even though I've never had a flood. There are a number of "rare" events that we still try to prepare for. I've never been in a car accident but I still wear a seatbelt. Of course it is a remote possibility that anyone will break into my home at night. But if so, I prefer to be armed to defend myself. Why is it seen as responsible to have a smoke alarm, but irrational to own a gun?

How does this make me a gun nut? And why do you use the term arsenal? You seem to equate the average gun owner with some whack-job survivalist out in the woods sitting on a case of ammo and some rocket launchers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. ProudDad has decided that it doesn't make sense for HIM to own a gun
But either he doesn't see a problem with imposing his choice on everyone, or has no respect for other peoples' judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Choice
Interesting take. I always like that abortion slogan: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." I think we need a similar one for guns. I don't care if you don't want to own a gun. But personally, I like to have one. Leave my choice alone.

And also, my choice is specifically covered in the Constitution. No one had to talk about penumbra to find that right! LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchleary Donating Member (271 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
66. Hey there
from a person who was carjacked at gun point, do not say it will never happen, I never thought it would either. Sure my guns are mostly for poking holes paper, but what if they would have came inside my house and wanted to assault my wife? I am glad you would have no problem with sitting back and letting that happen. Hopefully you never have to be in that situation, but do not say it can never happen, and making fun of people for the "boogieman" as you call it. I am hear to tell you that it sure as hell can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
73. LOL I have a .22 rifle, anyone breaks in day or night and
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 04:28 PM by pokercat999
I'll have to go to the basement, get the gun out of it's locked case and then oh yeah ask them to wait while I drive to town (35 miles) and buy some bullets.

I'm ready! I just hope they have the time.

In comparison, my RW friend in FL lives in a very exclusive neighborhood in Sarasota. He lives alone but keeps a loaded shotgun in his bedroom. I never asked why, just figured maybe........rough sex?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
32. Whereas ProudDad uses his fists as a penis substitute
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
45. I don't have one
I am a woman and a gun collector who loves to shoot at the range. If you don't want to own one fine by me but leave my right to own one alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #17
53. Your prior [post of how you could not handle a gun does not give you standing to demand that the
rest of us who can should give up our rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I would much prefer that the government had
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 01:52 PM by Seabiscuit
the power to control any supposed right to own a gun.

I would much prefer that only police, National Guardsmen, and militia were sanctioned to possess firearms of any kind.

OTOH, there are far and away more serious and important public issues swirling around us these days - in view of that maelstrom, I could give a shit about all the gun hoopla one way or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
41. What other "supposed" rights are you willing to give Bush
control over?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. None, because I don't view the 2nd Amendment as a "right". I think it's been
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 09:39 PM by Seabiscuit
totally misconstrued by the self-serving gun nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Fortunately yours is a minority view.
What part do you think has been misconstrued? The militia part?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Now you've identified yourself
I must warn you I don't waste my time arguing with gun nuts, thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #51
62. Fortunately, with your choice of anguage
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 06:42 AM by hack89
and close mindedness all you do is further marginalize your views so just keep on posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #62
67. Flamebait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youngdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
42. The government ALREADY controls your right to own a gun
You can't own certain types of assault weapons.

You can't own a handgun if you are under 18 in most places.

You can't buy a handgun in some places if you are under 21.

You can't possess a concealed weapon in a public place without a permit.

You cannot possess certain types of exploding ammo.

You cannot have a sawed off shotgun.

You cannot discharge a firearm in public in all but a very limited set of circumstances.

You cannot own or possess a firearm if you are a convicted felon or have a conviction for domestic violence.

You cannot buy or own a firearm if you are mentally incapacitated and are deemed so.

You can't have a clip or magazine with a capacity over a certain size.

You cannot hunt without a plug in your shotgun in certain circumstances.

You can't use lead shot in hunting near water.

You have to go through a back ground check to buy a gun.

You cannot legally possess or use a silencer.


So, it's not an unlimited, untouchable right. So, given that, we should have sane gun control.

New Orleans is absolutely in a CRISIS with gun violence. Something needs to be done, and it isn't putting crack heads into gun safety classes.



"In England, no one has handguns, including the cops. Now in England last year, they had 14 deaths from handguns. In the United States... 23,000 deaths from handguns... but.....there's no connection....and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one. There is no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it.....and not having a gun and not shooting someone."

- The Great Bill Hicks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. Really, what's the problem?
Keeping a gun in your home shouldn't even be a question, unless you're a convicted felon or mentally unstable.

The court should rule that yes, you have a right to have a gun in your home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. The case is about whether
Washington, D.C. has the right to ban handguns since handguns are the medium for most of the killings that occur in that city.

A ban on handguns would be a GOOD first step against gun violence in major cities. This case tests whether the citizens of a city have that right or do the gun nuts have all the rights.

There are a number of urban areas that would ban handguns in a minute if they weren't preempted by the tortured reading of the 2nd Amendment cobbled together by a paranoid group of gun nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. wow
Hard to even know where to start. DC has some of the strictest gun laws around, but one of the highest rates of gun violence. How do you explain that?

If you ban all guns, what happens to all the guns the criminals have? Are they going to voluntarily turn them in? Why would they?

How do you explain the low crime rates in those rural areas where gun ownership is more common?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Easy
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 02:53 PM by ProudDad
"DC has some of the strictest gun laws around, but one of the highest rates of gun violence. How do you explain that?" Virginia...

"How do you explain the low crime rates in those rural areas where gun ownership is more common?"

Fewer people, farther apart with fewer resources to steal... and no phony "war on drugs", the major cause of gun violence in the U.S.

And what makes you think gun ownership is more common in rural areas than urban?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. War on Drugs
I agree the War on Drugs fuels a lot of the gun violence. So we have common ground. But to tell people who live in these dangerous areas NOT to protect themselves seems to me to be the height of selfishness. Who are you to tell these people that they cannot exercise the fundamental right of self-defense.

I want guns to be in the hands of law-abiding people. I wish there was a way to get the guns out of criminals' hands. I really do. But until someone can make that happen, I think the best course of action is to allow people to defend theselevs as they see fit.

Statistics show that rural areas have more per capita gun ownership than urban areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Let's agree to end the phony "war on drugs"
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 05:58 PM by ProudDad
and agree to disagree about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment... :hi:

I'd rather have an ally on the more important issue, ending the major cause of handgun violence, the phony "war on drugs" than to continue a less important argument about something we probably agree 90% about but has too many emotional ramifications.

----------------

But just for information about where I'm coming from, I've lived in the urban war zone and a large number of those who are armed with handguns in the war zone would make mince-meat out of the average "law abiding gun owner". So to me, guns aren't much of a deterrent. That's why I got rid of mine some 40 years ago. They were useless unless I was willing to become as cold-blooded a killer as someone who hypothetically would "attack me". No one has "attacked me" since.

Staying out of the "business" of the dealers was the best course for the "law abiding" to take in the war zone...along with learning to duck and cover when the rare drive-by occurred on my block.

Sometimes there's more heat than light. I don't have any problem with long guns for hunting (if you EAT what you SHOOT) and target shooting. I don't even have a problem with handguns for target shooting if they're securely locked up when not in use as they do in Britain. I just wish there were some way we could get handguns out of urban areas. I don't want to see any more bodies in the street. I also don't want to alienate anyone who can be a potential ally on the most important issue. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
43. By the same token Iraq has the fewest gun restrictions.
We know it is completely safe...How do you explain the fact that the other countries in the world that have stricter gun laws have far fewer gun related incidents....Your logic just doesn't wash. I am not in favor of eliminating guns but something needs to be done because the USA is a nightmare when it comes to gun violence..Your way of intimidation did not work in the wild west and it won't work now..More guns more gun violence it is very damn simple..Iraq being prime example...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Yes they do
and they have defeated our trillions of dollars military with them... as well as killing eachother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #24
52. Again, there's no problem in OWNING handguns.
The problem is in CARRYING and USING them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #24
60. My concern is...
...I don't want the state power to be the only armed power in society. An armed populace has a sobering effect on certain fascist tendencies in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #24
83. Really?
A ban on handguns would be a GOOD first step against gun violence in major cities.

Here in DC we've had a ban on handguns since 1976.

Great job it's doing, huh? 4 shootings in my neighborhood in 2 months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
19jet54 Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
5. Once and for all...
... this issue can be put to rest, and stop the nuts on guns issue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stressfulreality Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
8. the day they take our right to own guns...
is the day our Constitution has been thrown away. Shame on us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plantwomyn Donating Member (779 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I agree
but the "well regulated" bit shouldn't be ignored. I'd just like to warn all the gun totters that I got some too. I think the NRAers forget that radical, lesbian anarchists can have guns too! So if that think their guns give them an advantage they are wrong. All hail Smith & Wesson, Rugar and Winchester!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. We're already there.....
Bush has used the Constitution to wipe his ass, his Attorney General called it "quaint", and Cheney has written his own version and destroyed all known existing copies of the original. Signing Statements are the Constitution of this country now.

Our Constitution HAS been thrown away.

That being said, this case has about as much a chance of being heard as George Bush does of becoming a humble, decent man. None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stressfulreality Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. so the real question is...
who LET them throw away the Constitution?
from what i've seen the people surely don't support losing our Constitution.
who and WHY? are they all truly paid for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. coup d'tat in slow motion..
started about 100 years ago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stressfulreality Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. pure evil or pure genius?
if the people don't act to save their freedom - do they deserve to lose it?
maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
44. Benjamin Franklin didn't think so..
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarveyBrooks Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
61. Well gee...
since you gun nuts always use the argument that you're the only thing standing in the way of a totalitarian fascist hellhole, I guess YOU let them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. The day it's been thrown away again, you mean. :P (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
37. Agreed.
But I don't see that happening. Do you? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
23. The specific issue in the Heller case is whether he should be allowed a handgun permit
so that he can purchase a handgun and keep it in his home. The article says that he's allowed to keep a handgun on his person for his employment, but for some reason was denied a personal handgun permit.

How was Heller's situation conflated with an individual's right to keep ANY firearm in the home?

(I'd like to hear D.C's rationale for denying Heller a handgun permit, especially considering he's trusted well-enough to tote one for his job. Sounds like typical D.C. City Hall ineptness.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #23
55. DC government is functionally incompetent. Congressman and Senators know this
which is why home rule is just a pipe dream. There are days when it seems that Iraq is running better than the district
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #55
65. Congressman and Senators are equally incompetent, as we are seeing
On a national and international scale, and they are the ones controlling DC's purse-strings, and they are the actual operators of this colony. They are the real government of the District, such as it is.

The DC government is no more or less dysfunctional than the US government running Iraq. And DC has no power, and it is incapable of doing damage to the county and the world the way the US government and its owners have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #23
64. Possibly because D.C. law...
How was Heller's situation conflated with an individual's right to keep ANY firearm in the home?

Possibly because D.C. law also prohibits possession of any firearm in functional condition inside your own home. You can own some types of rifles and shotguns, but it's a crime to have it in a non-disabled condition, and forget about loading it.

I don't know if the Parker case touched on this part of the law or not.

(I'd like to hear D.C's rationale for denying Heller a handgun permit, especially considering he's trusted well-enough to tote one for his job. Sounds like typical D.C. City Hall ineptness.)

Because he didn't apply for it before 1976, when the handgun registry was closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
77. DC has, by policy, issued no new permits since 1976
Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 08:21 PM by dmesg
That's the point. It's technically a "registry", not a "ban", but it's a registry that's been closed for 30 years to new registrations.

Incidentally, today's talk-like-a-DC-resident lesson is that city hall is called "Judiciary square"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
26. I don't know how the ruling is
going to go....but I can guess.

I fervently believe that government should fear it's people, not the other way around. If the people have guns, you don't want to piss off too many of them.

:shrug: That's all I'm going to say about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. "government should fear it's people"
You're right but a bunch of amateur gun owners aren't going to scare "the government"... "The government" has enough firepower to take care of a bunch of untrained gun nuts.

Bodies in the streets and general strikes are what scare governments (and their capitalist masters). The withdrawal of consent from the governed is what government fears.

That's why the most effective tactics have been made illegal in this country -- "free speech zones" and Taft-Hartley...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
68. Don't tell that to the Iraqi insurgency
"... "The government" has enough firepower to take care of a bunch of untrained gun nuts."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speaker Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #33
74. Our Bill of Rights came from the barrel of a gun.
We did not achieve our seperation from England by going on strike.

A bunch of "gun nuts" (apparently compensating for small penises) obtained, for you, the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble...

Many of them didn't even have shoes. But they had guns.

Thank God for gun nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
78. Tell that to my 2 buddies who didn't come back from Iraq
Amateur gun owners can do a lot, no matter how much technology we have.

Bodies in the street scare governments when those bodies are armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Socal31 Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
38. They will never take our handguns away....
thats the main reason the Kucinich is a nobody during this election.

If someone comes in my house after my little girls, im not calling 911 and waiting 5 minutes for the government to show up, im blowing his f*cking head off. If that makes me a "gun-nut", then oh well. Im a gun-nut with an intact family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
39. The stooges at the Brady Campaign don't sound at all happy...
about this.

:evilgrin:


Brady Center Statement On The District Of Columbia's Decision To Appeal Second Amendment Ruling
For Immediate Release:
07-16-2007

Washington, D.C. - Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence President Paul Helmke issued the following statement on the decision by Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty to request U.S. Supreme Court review of the ruling by a Federal Appeals Court striking down the Districts strict handgun law:

The Appeals Court decision striking down the District of Columbia handgun law was a highly questionable example of judicial activism. It ignored longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, discounted the express language of the Second Amendment, and substituted the policy preferences of two federal judges for those of local elected officials and the citizens they represent.

If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear this case, it could produce the most significant Second Amendment ruling in our history. If the U.S. Supreme Court follows the words of the U.S. Constitution and the Courts own precedents, it should reverse the Appeals Court ruling and allow the Districts law to stand.

On March 9, 2007, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, invalidated the District of Columbias handgun law. This ruling was the first Federal Appellate Court ruling in U.S. history striking down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

Departing from the conclusions of nine other Federal Circuit Courts, Judge Laurence Silbermans majority opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia found that the Second Amendments language did not involve just the possession and use of firearms in connection with service in organized militias, but rather extended to the personal possession of guns for private purposes like self-defense and hunting. On May 8, 2007, the D.C. Circuit denied rehearing en banc, with Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel and Garland voting to grant rehearing.


http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=910
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #39
54. Helmke should be WH Press Secretary...he can spin some really big lies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. You expect less from a Republican?
Walter Paul Helmke, Jr. (born 1948) is a U.S. politician, and president of the Washington, DC-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a position he has held since July 1, 2006. He is a former mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and a former president of The United States Conference of Mayors.

...

Helmke defeated Democrat incumbent Mayor Winfield C. Moses, Jr. in 1987. Helmke won re-election in 1991 and 1995. He did not seek re-election in 1999.

In 1980, Helmke ran in the Republican primary for the then Fourth Congressional District open seat in Indiana to replace Dan Quayle who was running for U.S.Senate; he was defeated by Dan Coats, who later went on to serve as U.S. Senator from Indiana and as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. In 1998, he won the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate to replace retiring incumbent Republican Dan Coats, but lost to Democrat Evan Bayh in the general election. In 2002, Helmke unsuccessfully challenged incumbent U.S. Representative Mark Souder in the Republican primary for the Third Congressional District in Indiana.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. I expect nothing but lies from the Brady Bunch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speaker Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #39
75. Another Brady Lie.
Departing from the conclusions of nine other Federal Circuit Courts

The only fed circuit that has ruled the 2nd a collective right is the 9th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
47. The Virginia Tech killer
exercised his RKBA, and 32 innocent people are dead.

The state should severely restrict access to guns. "Well-regulated militia" means what it means.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Nuts Ruining America are frothing at the mouth to get in front of this fascist court
Black rifles for everyone. Metal detectors at every door. Armored police vehicles patrolling. Assassination as an art form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #48
56. Interesting was to describe the mayor of DC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #48
79. "Black rifles"?
WTF does the color of a rifle matter? Rifles are used in a vanishingly small number of crimes, less than 2% IIRC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stressfulreality Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
69. "restrict access to guns"... so more innocent people die?
so when a mentally ill killer buys a gun off the streets he can go shoot as many innocent people as he wants and the best part is thanks to gun restriction they will all be unarmed! what a horrible idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
59. I suspect SCOTUS will strike the ban down.
The court has shown a pattern of pro-authoritarian decisions, so if circumstances were different I would be more worried. However, if the Bush-appointed justices vote in favor of the DC ban, Republican gun owners will be disappointed with the party in a big way. Ideologically, the GOP has abandoned most of its traditional grassroots constituencies, and if a conservative-dominated court decides that there's no right to keep a handgun in the home, Republican gun owners may be dejected enough to sit the next election out.

I can't wait to read the Brady and Gun Guys pages on the day the Supremes decide that guns are groovy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
63. Their timing pretty much sucks...
... they might have had a chance before Roberts and Alito, as of now, it's in the 1% range.

Which is fine with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
71. The very reason we have the 2nd....
...amendment is protect ourselves from the tyranny of those like ProudDad who would try to take those very rights away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
72. i'm pro-choice on both guns and abortion.
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 02:30 PM by QuestionAll
if you don't like them, don't have one- but don't try to impose YOUR choice on the rest of society.

same thing goes for pot and prostitutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
76. Disarm the working class and only the thugs (uniformed or otherwise) will have guns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
80. Great. Thanks for giving the Repukes a reason to rally the vote in 2008.
This will be THE issue of the 2008 election. Watch. The Repukes will work their dumbass members into a frenzy over the loss of guns in the home. Bank on it.

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #80
84. Stop using firearms policy as part of a culture war...
...and it stops being a losing electoral issue for our party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
81. I'm for the right to own a gun and keep it in your home
Not having that right sure hasn't done much to lessen crime in D.C. or any other city with this type of ban. This may be the one time I agree with this SCOTUS. If they uphold the ban I'd be flabbergasted!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC