D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court

[northhunter]

If you ever wanted evidence that restricting private ownership of firearms has no positive effect on crinimal activity you need look no further that D.C.
How pathetic is it that you are more likely to get shot to death in our nations capitol than anywhere else in America. I pity people that have to live under such conditions. And the loss of their second ammendment rights did nothing to make them safer did it?
I never understood why some of the same people who insist that the current administration is taking away their rights seem to care less about the one right that is regularly violated.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

So it's a complete ban on guns used for self protection. Last I checked nobody carries a .30-06 for personal protection.

It's a ban on a type of gun, as was argued in the case, Heller did not show that a rifle or shotgun wasn't sufficient for self defense in the home.

Originally Posted by 7960

Reasonable is the key. You don't need a machine gun for personal protection so it's reasonable to ban them. But you can't carry a shotgun for personal protection so it's unreasonable to ban handguns.

Reasonable to who? Like was stated in the transcript, it's likely best left to local legislatures to decide what's best for their community. What's reasonable in New Hampshire or Iowa or Wyoming might not be true in another community.

And, you can't carry any weapons in DC. They want you to be able to protect yourself at home, which is why there's no ban on shotguns or rifles, but believe the ban on handguns is reasonable because criminals can carry them on the metro, or into a school, or whatever.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's a ban on a type of gun, as was argued in the case, Heller did not show that a rifle or shotgun wasn't sufficient for self defense in the home.



Reasonable to who? Like was stated in the transcript, it's likely best left to local legislatures to decide what's best for their community. What's reasonable in New Hampshire or Iowa or Wyoming might not be true in another community.

And, you can't carry any weapons in DC. They want you to be able to protect yourself at home, which is why there's no ban on shotguns or rifles, but believe the ban on handguns is reasonable because criminals can carry them on the metro, or into a school, or whatever.

There effectively is a ban due to the fact the rifle must be locked away or disassembled.

Yes, firearms should be secured, but the restrictions placed on them means that you can't leave the firearm left out when you are home. it must ALWAYS be locked away or disassembled.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

"more guns less crime" and its author were both discredited

One study is questioned and people like you throw out the entire work

I wish he would redo the study in question so people would shut the fuck up about it

[motivez]

Originally Posted by hsmith

There effectively is a ban due to the fact the rifle must be locked away or disassembled.

Yes, firearms should be secured, but the restrictions placed on them means that you can't leave the firearm left out when you are home. it must ALWAYS be locked away or disassembled.

I'm not trying to defend the laws, just saying what I read in the 110 page transcript

[thewise1]

what part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear to the fine students of this country?

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's a ban on a type of gun,

Their ban on "a type of gun" completely removed that "type of gun" as an option. There are (effectively) no legal handguns in DC. That's like saying there's a ban on "a type of car" and removing every car under 6000 lbs. That's not a ban on "a type of car."

Reasonable to who?

To someone who's watched DC turn into the murder capital because there's a ban on handguns?

... but believe the ban on handguns is reasonable because criminals can carry them on the metro, or into a school, or whatever.

And criminals do. They're only restricting people who follow the law from carrying.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thewise1

what part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear to the fine students of this country?

Actually I think the confusion comes from the first part of the sentence. " A well regulated militia, being necesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

THat's a pretty twisted and tortured sentence. It's simple and clear to everyone if you ignore the first part of the amendment. But when you go through the trouble of reading the whole thing, well then you get confusion. Should we simply ignore the militia part? What's the story with the militia? Obviosuly it has something to do with the right being discussed. If the supreme court actually had to argue about this it can't have been quite as simple as you make it out to be.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Actually I think the confusion comes from the first part of the sentence. " A well regulated militia, being necesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

THat's a pretty twisted and tortured sentence. It's simple and clear to everyone if you ignore the first part of the amendment. But when you go through the trouble of reading the whole thing, well then you get confusion. Should we simply ignore the militia part? What's the story with the militia? Obviosuly it has something to do with the right being discussed. If the supreme court actually had to argue about this it can't have been quite as simple as you make it out to be.

At that time a "militia" was any able-bodied male between certain ages. According to the original definition you are in a militia. And according to the original definition you should have a gun (if you want one) and there were no restrictions in place between you and getting one.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Actually I think the confusion comes from the first part of the sentence. " A well regulated militia, being necesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

THat's a pretty twisted and tortured sentence. It's simple and clear to everyone if you ignore the first part of the amendment. But when you go through the trouble of reading the whole thing, well then you get confusion. Should we simply ignore the militia part? What's the story with the militia? Obviosuly it has something to do with the right being discussed. If the supreme court actually had to argue about this it can't have been quite as simple as you make it out to be.

index
With the exception of certain public officials, all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 not currently serving in the regular
armed forces or National Guard, and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the "unorganized"
militia. Law requiring militia participation are no longer enforced.

With very few restrictions, membership in the militia must be open to all citizens regardless of race, sex, religion or political affiliation.
Units not open to public membership and/or which are organized for any purpose other than the support of Constitutional principals
may be considered private armies and are not to be confused with the Constitutional "unorganized" militia.

As a practical matter, effort should be made to incorporate only citizens of good character in the militia. Those who advocate criminal
activity, terrorism, revolution, or a change from our republican form of government should not be tolerated. This implies that militia
members should understand the duties and obligations of both citizens and government under out Constitution.


I don't know how legit they are or if they even exist, but if we join a militia then what?

[kinggovernor]

17 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is
18 reasonable about a total ban on possession?

A new slogan?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

17 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is
18 reasonable about a total ban on possession?

A new slogan?

How was the question answered?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

How was the question answered?

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only an the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's been considered especially -- especially dangerous. The
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?
MR. DELLINGER: No, it's not, and the difference is quite clear. If -- if you -- there is no limit to the public discourse. If there is an individual right to guns for personal use, it's to carry out a purpose, like protecting the home. You could not, for example, say that no one may have more than 50 books. But a law that said no one may possess more than 50 guns would -- would in fact be I think quite reasonable.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The regulation --the regulation at issue here is not one that goes to the number of guns. It goes to the specific type. And I understood your argument to be in your brief that because rifles and shotguns are not banned to the staple extent as handguns, it's all right to ban handguns.
MR. DELLINGER: That is correct because there is no showing in this case that rifles and handguns are not fully satisfactory to carry out the purposes. And what -- and what the court below says about -- about the elimination of this --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: The purposes of what?
MR. DELLINGER: I'm sorry.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: You said there is no showing that rifles and handguns. I think you meant rifles and other guns.
MR. DELLINGER: Yes, I'm sorry. Rifles and handguns.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Is necessary for the purpose of what? What is the purpose?
MR. DELLINGER: The purpose -- if the purpose -- if we are shifting and if we assume for a moment arguendo that you believe this is a right unconnected to the militia, then the purpose would be, say, defense of the home. And where the government here, where the -- where the correct standard has been applied, which is where a State or the district has carefully balanced the considerations of gun ownership and public safety, has eliminated one weapon, the court below has an absolutist standard that cannot be sustained. The court below says that once it is determined that handguns are, quote, "arms," unquote, referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them. And that doesn't promote the security of a free State.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only an the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's been considered especially -- especially dangerous. The
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books,.............

if this was the interents, dellinger would have yelled "STRAWMAN, I WIN!" and turned his back and left.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

if this was the interents, dellinger would have yelled "STRAWMAN, I WIN!" and turned his back and left.

and then the Super Mod Roberts would have permabant him

[7960]

I read the transcript.........

anyone for a $10 charity bet?? loser gives $10 donation to the charity of the winner's choice.

ultimately the decision is going to be that the DC ban is unconstitutional, and that people *CAN* have handguns but the locality can ban certain types of handguns.

so a new DC ban will have to be something like "no magazines that hold more than 5 rounds, nothing over xx caliber, must have a trigger lock, etc, etc." The all-out ban on handguns is going to get shot down (pun intended) even though a "ban" will be found constitutional.

takers??

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

THat's a pretty twisted and tortured sentence. It's simple and clear to everyone if you ignore the first part of the amendment. But when you go through the trouble of reading the whole thing, well then you get confusion. Should we simply ignore the militia part? What's the story with the militia? Obviosuly it has something to do with the right being discussed. If the supreme court actually had to argue about this it can't have been quite as simple as you make it out to be.

The first part of the amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is what is known as a 'nominative absolute'. It exists to explain, 'describe', the main clause, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A nominative absolute is descriptive, and the main clause exists independently of it. In fact, an 'absolute' is an independent clause because it stands as its own sentence.

Since these thoughts are independent of each other, it does not even matter if the USA has no military or militia in service, the right to keep and bear arms would still stand.

The thought is that so long as people are free to keep and bear arms without any infringement, a militia can exist. Since we recognize that militia is necessary for the survival of a free state, we will guarantee that right to be a safeguarded freedom right next to the right to speak freely.

SCOTUS ruled in the thirties that the outright ban of sawed off shotguns is reasonable because as it has NO MILITARY VALUE, it is not protected under the 2nd amendment.

Since this ruling has not been challenged, it should be used in the Washington D.C. handgun ban case.

Since handguns have a legitimate military use, they are protected by the Second Amendment.



As to infringed...... well, to take the amendment as it stands, to simply track someones possession of firearms is an infringement. To gradually intrude, especially with stealth, is an infringement.

The reason that this amendment is so absolute is because it was understood that firearm registries, for example, could lead to late night disappearances by a tyrannical regime or an enemy occupier who seizes control of those records.

In brief, the second amendment is intended to allow the proliferation of ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS military weapons in the hands of the good people of this great land with no government oversight.



Of course..... the Constitution of the U S A is not meant to limit the states. I have not read a clear declaration that the bill of rights applies to the states, although it seems that that was the intent.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Actually I think the confusion comes from the first part of the sentence. " A well regulated militia, being necesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

THat's a pretty twisted and tortured sentence. It's simple and clear to everyone if you ignore the first part of the amendment. But when you go through the trouble of reading the whole thing, well then you get confusion. Should we simply ignore the militia part? What's the story with the militia? Obviosuly it has something to do with the right being discussed. If the supreme court actually had to argue about this it can't have been quite as simple as you make it out to be.

if it were a right reserved for the militia only, it wouldn't have included "the right of the people" clause as well

it is as simple as that

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

if it were a right reserved for the militia only, it wouldn't have included "the right of the people" clause as well

it is as simple as that

the right of the people meant white males, and they did not live particularly long, so basically "the people" could all qualify for government service, like a draft, at any time...the people as the founders saw them, could all join the regulated militia and keep and bear arms

women, no
blacks, hells no
anyone with some color, no
the poor, kinda not really...have to be "well-regulated" and firearms were expensive to keep and maintain, let alone be willing to dedicate time to your militia/training