D.C.: 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply Here

[SUBMAN1]

Nice. Seems they want to live in the US, but don't want to follow its laws.

-S

D.C.: 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply Here

Friday, January 04, 2008
By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON —
The Second Amendment's provisions protecting the right to keep and bear arms apply only to the federal government, not the 50 states and the District of Columbia, lawyers for the nation's capital argued Friday in a written brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The district is seeking to preserve its three-decade ban on handgun possession after a federal appeals court ruled in March that the ban is an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to keep and bear arms.


The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take the case, setting up what could be a landmark ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment. The court has not addressed the issue in a significant way for nearly 70 years.


"We are going to argue not just the most significant legal case in the history of the District of Columbia, but one of the most significant legal challenges in the history of the country," Mayor Adrian Fenty said at a press conference Friday in which he introduced former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger as the lead attorney representing the district.


The primary issue is whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right or a collective right belonging to state militias. A majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the founding fathers intended the right apply to individuals and struck down the D.C. law, though it remains in effect while the case is on appeal.


The district argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia.


In the brief, the district makes an additional argument: That the founding fathers' concern in drafting the Second Amendment was to protect states from an overbearing federal government that might restrict access to firearms as a means of crippling state militias.


As such, the Second Amendment only restricts Congress, they argue.
"The primary goal of those who demanded (the Bill of Rights) as a condition of ratification to the Constitution was to control the federal government," the lawyers wrote. "That is especially true with respect to the inclusion of the Second Amendment."


Alan Gura, the lawyer representing the D.C. resident who challenged the law, called the district's argument "very creative but wrong."


The fundamental flaw, he said, is that the district is a creation of Congress and the federal government, so the D.C. Council would be subject to the same restrictions as Congress in passing gun-control laws.


Randy Barnett, law professor at Georgetown University, agreed that the argument is strained, and said that if the high court accepts the notion that the right to bear arms is an individual right, it would be hard pressed to turn around and allow the district and the states to violate that right.


The district's interpretation "is at odds with the text and the original meaning of the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights as well," Barnett said.
The Supreme Court may hear arguments in the case in March.


Because the case addresses not only the Second Amendment but also the peculiar status of the District of Columbia as a federal enclave, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court ruling will have a direct impact on the national gun-control issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...torney,00.html

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Nice. Seems they want to live in the US, but don't want to follow its laws.

-S

That goes for alot of people in the US who like to pick and choose which laws to follow. But seriously, not to hijack your thread, this is why elections do matter. This is the reason we need to ensure people like Clinton, Edwards, and Obama aren't appointing Supreme Court justices. Their ilk don't have much love for this Amendment.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Nice. Seems they want to live in the US, but don't want to follow its laws.

-S

Isn't the whole issue because DC 'was' a major murder by gun city? (question not statement)

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Isn't the whole issue because DC 'was' a major murder by gun city? (question not statement)

Only since they put the ban into effect. Before the ban, much less murder.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

I love this part:

The Second Amendment's provisions protecting the right to keep and bear arms apply only to the federal government, not the 50 states and the District of Columbia, lawyers for the nation's capital argued Friday in a written brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Y'see, I fully agree with Penn & Teller's take: the only purpose of the 2nd amendment is the violent overthrow of the federal government. Or should I say they agree with me?

Just in case.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346369/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346369/quotes
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...Y/imdb-button/

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Only since they put the ban into effect. Before the ban, much less murder.

-S

Not exactly. Place sounds like the wild west. I wouldn't live in DC, or at least those hoods listed.

At the peak of the violent crime wave in the early 1990s, Washington, D.C., was known as the murder capital of the United States. Homicides peaked in 1991 at 482. As the population of the city was just over 600,000 at that time, this meant that the District's homicide rate was 81 per 100,000 inhabitants. Despite the high rate of violent crime, violence was not evenly distributed across the city, but rather was concentrated in specific neighborhoods—Columbia Heights, Adams Morgan, Georgia Ave/Howard University, Logan Circle, Shaw, Le Droit Park, the East End of Downtown (Chinatown), Trinidad, Langston Lane, Florida Ave NE, Montana, and some of the neighborhoods located east of the Anacostia River. In 2006, Washington's per capita murder rate was reduced by 4.4 murders per 100,000 then being 29.1 per 100,000, the lowest rates since 1985.
Since 1993, crime rates in Washington dropped consistently for over ten years. Along with this trend, gentrification has occurred in many neighborhoods across the District, including Adams Morgan, Logan Circle, Columbia Heights, and the East End of Downtown (Chinatown) and is trending eastward. In the past ten years, the number of homicides has been halved—from 399 in 1994 to 195 in 2005.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Not exactly. Place sounds like the wild west. I wouldn't live in DC, or at least those hoods listed.

WRONG! Look prior to 1975 - the year the gun ban was put into effect. This is why the crime shot through the roof by the early 1990's! All the criminals still had guns, but guns in civilian hands were getting to be non-existant by this time.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This again is further evidence as to whackos using places with gun bans to do their violent gun crimes. DC has had gun control for over 30 years, and as a result, has the highest murder rate in the country!!!

Some facts for ya:

[Seth8530]

So the DC district judges say that only the military where ment to have guns? Then with that logic the bill of rights only aplies to the Federal gov meaning that us civies have no bill or rights............

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Seth8530

So the DC district judges say that only the military where ment to have guns? Then with that logic the bill of rights only aplies to the Federal gov meaning that us civies have no bill or rights............

You get a cookie! This is exactly the problem.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008Jan04/0,4675,GunBanAttorney,00.html

Didn't go back to review the article after checking the source.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Didn't go back to review the article after checking the source.

Oh I'm sorry. Anything against your opinion, no matter how true, you bury your head in the sand? Wow! Pathetic. Seems I just found out the reason why you lack information on other subjects.

In case you care, its a reprint from the Associated Press. Not sure why I'd even bother sharing that with you.

-S

[Seth8530]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You get a cookie! This is exactly the problem.

-S

Mhmmm Liberty cookie! It seems at the big hub gub is over what the right "to keep and bear arms" meant back in the day.

n Amyette v. State the Tennessee Supreme Court stated in 1840 that the term "bear arms" "has a military sense, and no other" and further stated "A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."[56]



I personaly think it means we should have the right to keep guns in our posession because the Bill of Rights applies to all citz of the US.

I note that that is about 60 years after the BoR

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Oh I'm sorry. Anything against your opinion, no matter how true, you bury your head in the sand? Wow! Pathetic. Seems I just found out the reason why you lack information on other subjects.

In case you care, its a reprint from the Associated Press. Not sure why I'd even bother sharing that with you.

-S

You actually trust FOX?:rotfl: :rotfl:

These are people who tried to blame the fires in California that we had a few months back on Al-Qaeda!:rotfl: It was just a couple of idiots running around and playing with matches, not deadly Islamics running around shouting, "ALLAH!!!":rotfl:

Oh, and as some advice, try not to be such a self-centered and arrogant smartass next time we have a conversation like this. Thanks.

[Seth8530]

This right here is not about trusting fox its about trusting the AP...