The Washington D.C. Gun Ban

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Well, the people's right is framed within the necessity of a militia, so the relevance of a militia to our times is germane to the discussion.

Of course, as long as your definition of militia means the general citizenry as opposed to a paid standing army created by Congress such as the National Guard and Reserves.

[The WosMan]

All one needs to do is research the writings of all of the founding fathers to see that they 100% meant the 2nd amendment as a individual right and liberty. Thomas Payne, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc have all written about it. There are also dozens of cases before the Supreme Court that have established that it is indeed an individual right.

The 2nd Amendment being an individual liberty has been established in the following cases:

Houston vs Moore
Scott vs Sandford
US v Cruikshank (an interesting case during reconstruction concerning the disarmament of blacks by the KKK and other racist groups. Earlier, KKK member Cruikshank was prosecuted under the Enforcement act and convicted of conspiring to deprive blacks of their rights they had been granted by the constitution including the right to assemble and the right to bear arms. While the Supreme court found the Enforcement Act unconstitutional it also determined that the right to assemble and the right to bear arms were not rights granted by the constitution but rather they were fundamental human rights that pre-dated the document. In other words, the individual's right to arms is protected by the 2nd amendment but not created by it because it comes from natural law. The 2nd amendment merely protects the right against violations by the federal government but not by private citizens.
Presser v Illinois
Logan v US
Miller v Texas
Brown v Walker
Robertson v Baldwin

Now those are alone only 19th century cases. There were several 20th century cases that viewed the 2nd amendment as an individual liberty.

Indeed the DC gun ban is a violation of those who wish to exercise their right and if I was a betting person I would say the Supreme Court may deliver a 6 to 3 ruling that the gun ban is unconstitutional. From the sounds of it we know the following:

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are on the right side of this issue

Swing voter Kennedy is also on the right side

Amazingly liberal and ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to be on the right side of the issue

The other justices are not, including Breyer who got put in his place by Roberts yesterday. Breyer is a very arrogant little sod who has made past crazy comments that the constitution should be subordinated to international law and that it should be a living breathing document. He is absolutely 100% wrong in everything he does while wearing that robe.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The WosMan

The other justices are not, including Breyer who got put in his place by Roberts yesterday. Breyer is a very arrogant little sod who has made past crazy comments that the constitution should be subordinated to international law and that it should be a living breathing document. He is absolutely 100% wrong in everything he does while wearing that robe.

Read above and Breyer seems to be asking the right questions towards an individual right.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

One thought - What I find hard to beleive is that these gun control whackos think that it is 'only' a militia. Back then, no one ever fathomed not owning a firearm, so its not even like they had to write it. In these days, everyone owned a gun, so how could it be interpreted any other way? Also, all these rights are individual rights, so how is only one of them assumed not by control whackos?

All one needs is to look at how gun control has affected crime, but these people are so blind about playing the victim that they need to see a shrink. They have major mental problems. Here is how it really stacks up:

-S

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

One thought - What I find hard to beleive is that these gun control whackos think that it is 'only' a militia. Back then, no one ever fathomed not owning a firearm, so its not even like they had to write it. In these days, everyone owned a gun, so how could it be interpreted any other way? Also, all these rights are individual rights, so how is only one of them assumed not by control whackos?

All one needs is to look at how gun control has affected crime, but these people are so blind about playing the victim that they need to see a shrink. They have major mental problems. Here is how it really stacks up:

-S

Probably going to be stamped a racist here but 56% of the population in DC is black. I think that has more to do with the murder rate then anything. New Orleans was the murder capital of the country/world(?) which had a 67% black population.
So more guns in DC and it's impact is questionable but then more good guys could have guns so the death rate might go up but it would be self defence. Could probably flip a coin and call. But is DC a firearms ban or hand gun ban?

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
This should be interesting because the other states looking to ban might be able to if this goes through. Two things concern me, militia and the fact that DC is not a state per se. I do not see a militia starting anywhere in todays world. The Constitution specifically reads, 'states'. DC does not have statehood unless I missed something along the way. I watched some of this on the new yesterday. One justice was just fine with not banning guns per the Constitution. There was one that favored the ban. Time will tell.

DC is a district of a state - Maryland I believe. It is not independant. ANyway, for all intents and purposes, you can see how ticked these Justices are at the lawyers who are trying to swim againt the Constitution. Seems WA DC will have its rights restored soon.

-S

Subman, a few years ago there was attempts to have Maryland absorb DC but I believe it failed. Just as well as I live in MD and do not want their troubles on my doorstep. We get enough of that from Baltimore City. You know, the 'city that reads'....instructions on how to file off the serial #'s on the 9mm's At any rate, they are still not a state and have no representation. Militia? Come on.

[Yahoshua]

It has a total handgun ban and a technical firearms ban.

Any rifles or shotgun is your home MUST be disassembled or have a gun-lock on the firearm and keep ammunition stored in a seperate and secure area (ie. not even teh same safe).

So if somebody comes crashing through your door or window you have to deal with a perp who is already armed and ready to use their weapon, you have to run upstairs, find the key to the gunlock, unlock the gun (and assemble it if necessary), run over to your ammunition locker, unlock the locker and get out your ammunition so you can defend yourself.

It's a one-sided situation for self-defense (you lose!) and a back-door total gun ban (which only the law-abiding obey).

[Onkel Neal]

Gunshots bring abrupt end to frantic 911 call

Give me a .40 Ruger over the 911 operator any day.

So it goes....

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Probably going to be stamped a racist here but 56% of the population in DC is black. I think that has more to do with the murder rate then anything. New Orleans was the murder capital of the country/world(?) which had a 67% black population.
So more guns in DC and it's impact is questionable but then more good guys could have guns so the death rate might go up but it would be self defence. Could probably flip a coin and call. But is DC a firearms ban or hand gun ban?

The funny thing is, yesterday Obama in his speech said 'The typical White Woman'. Imagine if McCain or Billary said 'The typical Black Woman' in his or hers? :hmm:

My question is - where are the hysterics over that statement?

-S