New Second Amendment Case

Tohatchi NM

Tohatchi NM

Joined
Mar 26, 2002
Messages
2,845
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0924671720070309

The interesting part of this one is that the court interprets the 2nd amendment to protect personal ownership, not just state militias.

The circumstances of the case are great from a pro-personal standpoint - a police officer wants to keep his gun at home and is prevented by DC laws. So he's not some yahoo who lacks responsibility or credibility. Seems like the case sets up a strong precedent supporting the 2nd Amendment if it is upheld, even in very gun-hostile locales.

I'm not sure I like the process, though. The Reuters relase suggests that the court decided directly from the Constitution, not from previous judicial precedent. From what I know about the system, Constitutional interpretation is left to the Supreme Court. Other courts could easily overlook this case and rely on the state militia precedents. I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and it will be interesting reading various judges' positions.
 
Article from the Associated Press has more information:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-DC-Gun-Ban.html


One quote that strikes me as ludicrous is that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to Washington DC because it's not a state. I was under the impression that the Bill of Rights was specifically written to secure rights for the people, regardless of where in America they happen to be. :eek: Time to dig out the civics book.
 
It has always confused me why DC isn't just lumped in with some state, not quite sure which one(s) it borders. I'm normaly pretty good on my US geography but you guys pack those tiny states in so tight out there on the east coast its hard to keep em streight. Just like polititians
 
The current Commisar(sorry- Elected Official) vows to continue enforcing the ban pending appeal.
If ever someone deserved to be drawn and quatered it would be this idiot.
Good news, I hope it will pave the way for other gun rights issues that need to be resovlved.
 
Tohatchi NM said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0924671720070309

I'm not sure I like the process, though. The Reuters relase suggests that the court decided directly from the Constitution, not from previous judicial precedent. From what I know about the system, Constitutional interpretation is left to the Supreme Court. Other courts could easily overlook this case and rely on the state militia precedents. I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and it will be interesting reading various judges' positions.
Click to expand...

Any court in a similar situation can decide a case based directly on Constitutional interpretation, assuming there isn't any clear source of law to use instead.

The court in this case recognized that the issue is in ferment, since there are different opinions in various districts at the federal appellate level now. That's why it went directly to the source.

That is what truly makes it ripe for Supreme Court review, the fact that the lower courts are splitting on the issue.

Andy
 
Grob said:
It has always confused me why DC isn't just lumped in with some state, not quite sure which one(s) it borders.
Click to expand...

When the present capital was established as Washington, D.C., no one expected a densely populated residential area as part of it. Clearly, the area needed for actual governmental functions is less than the total area originally set aside.

If the residential district of the District of Columbia were removed and redesignated, say, the City of Columbia, Maryland, it would give the residents the same rights provided every other citizen of the US.
 
Yeah, people who live in DC can't vote either. Little-publicized fact, but a fairly outrageous one none the less.

Chris
 
I think they do have Federal voting rights now. But it's true, by being designated part of the capital district, they are in an anomalous situation, with a lot to gain by being redefined as a normal, ordinary city within a neighboring state.
 
Sounds like it would make alot more sense to attatch to city of Washinton to maryland then.
 
The last time that I was out that way ('05), I saw a lot of DC license plates featuring "Taxation Without Representation" as the motto. Say what you want about the situation, but I don't believe that the residents are in the dark about it.

If all goes well I'll be in the area next month. I'll be looking for those plates again. I really got a kick out of that.
 
Wow... from second ammendment gun stuff to geography and voting power. I'm impressed with the transition.

Personally though, i don't understand the American.... obserssion (though it may not be an accurate word) with guns and the right to bear arms. rifle's for hunting i understand. A rifle for target practice, sure. But i don't think anyone but the army (and the police for that matter) needs or should even have access to automatic weapons. As far as hand guns go, if they weren't so widely distributed, there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem with gun violence.

imo you could drastically drop the homicide rate by baning hand-held semiautomatic pistols from all but the police.

there's my little tyrade ;)
 
Radrunner said:
As far as hand guns go, if they weren't so widely distributed, there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem with gun violence.

imo you could drastically drop the homicide rate by baning hand-held semiautomatic pistols from all but the police.
Click to expand...

This shows how uninformed you are about the American experience.
Don't feel bad -- many Americans are equally ignorant of the facts.

We have had a slow, rolling revolution in this country in recent years, as one state after another has passed "shall issue" laws. This means that any time a reliable citizen requests a permit for concealed carry of a handgun, the state shall issue it, based solely on the request, not on the vagaries of the local sheriff's belief in citizens rights.

In those states which have instituted this wider availability of carry rights, the violent crime rate has dropped. Logic would suggest that criminals, no longer knowing which simple, wide-eyed citizen is actually armed, have decided to forgo the experiment, and stick to less dangerous pursuits than armed robbery or home invasion.

Follow-up laws protecting citizens from legal consequences of using deadly force to protect persons and property have further accelerated this drop in crime.

In fact, our Second Amendment is a Federal law which had nothing to do with personal protection OR hunting, let alone shooting "sports". In colonial times, all that was taken for granted, that every able-bodied citizen would know how to use his personal weapons.

The Second Amendment was enshrined to celebrate the inherent, God-given right of the citizenry to defend itself from a tyrannical government -- as we had just done against the English king. This strongly supports the right to classify the arms we have the right to bear as personal arms suitable for paramilitary use.
 
Radrunner wrote:
imo you could drastically drop the homicide rate by baning hand-held semiautomatic pistols from all but the police.
Click to expand...

Only 60 or so years after the Holocaust people still think THAT is a good idea?

In 1930's Germany guns were banned for everyone except the police and military. We already played that game, and lost. We've seen the repercussions of disarming the populace.

Bad idea.

Disarming the civilian populace does NOT infact prevent violence.
 
Radrunner said:
As far as hand guns go, if they weren't so widely distributed, there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem with gun violence.
;)
Click to expand...

Nah, we just need better laws. When I was growing up north of Two Harbors, MN every kid over 12 years old had his own rifle, pistol and shotgun and the laws we were concerned about were the ones layed down by our Dads. These prohibited property damage and personal injury with said guns. We were all convinced that if we wanted to see some real property damage and personal injury, all we had to do was get our Dads mad at us.
 
Personally, I think the reason for arming the citizenry is more fundamental than any of those yet mentioned (though the latter are true). IMO, it is a matter of establishing a bond of trust and respect between the rulers and the ruled; of sending the message, 'we're in this together'. Rulers who disarm their citizens send exactly the opposite message: 'we don't trust you, we don't respect you, We are in business for ourselves.' The resulting crime rates in either case come down to people generally living up (or down) to one's stated expectations.

http://itmightbeart.typepad.com
 
Germany 1930's is hardly a proper representation. Your dealing with a disarmed citizenry in a autocratic, anti-seminitic government bent on world domination ;) what did you think was going to happen? a disarmed citizenry isn't an issue if there are laws governing police and military behaviour.

Second, violence decreasing because of fear of what the other has is hardly a good solution. Same thing happened in the cold war... that hardly ended well.

Why don't we bring Britian into this? hardly anyone has guns, police included, and the violence rate is incredibly low (football/soccer games aside)

Someone want to explain to me why citizens need assault rifles?

As far as the message of trust and respect... not to be anti-american here guys, but the mesage i get from the states is hardly one of trust or respect. My impression is that its a lack of trust that causes everyone to arm themselves. Not between citizenry and government, but between the citizens themselves. If your afraid of your government you've got a huge problem.

Esav, lastly, could you explain how the right to bear arms is a God given right? I have yet to find a religion advocating violence and the right to weaponry. if you want to talk about Christianity, there was something about turning the other cheek...
 
Radrunner, we answered those questions before, and you ignore the answers.
What kind of discussion is that? I'll try once more.

I didn't mention WW II myself, so I'll pass on that.

violence decreasing because of fear of what the other has is hardly a good solution. Same thing happened in the cold war... that hardly ended well.
Click to expand...
I disagree entirely. Having criminals fear honest citizens is an excellent solution, stopping crime before it's committed, with no one the worse for it. The Cold War ended quite well.

Why don't we bring Britian into this? hardly anyone has guns, police included, and the violence rate is incredibly low (football/soccer games aside)
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Interpersonal violence is on the rise in Great Britain. This is not entirely because of a lack of personal weaponry, but does include citizen helplessness in the face of social turbulence.

Someone want to explain to me why citizens need assault rifles?
Click to expand...
I did. An armed citizenry is much less tempting a target for a potentially tyrannical government.
Incidentally, you might like to acquaint yourself with the correct definition of "assault rifle".

My impression is that its a lack of trust that causes everyone to arm themselves. Not between citizenry and government, but between the citizens themselves. If your afraid of your government you've got a huge problem.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a lack of trust. Why should I trust strangers when I know there is a percentage of predators among them who will only respect my ability to counter their violence with my own?

If you are not afraid of your government, you are dangerously naive.

Esav, lastly, could you explain how the right to bear arms is a God given right? I have yet to find a religion advocating violence and the right to weaponry.
Click to expand...
The LORD hath delivered you into my hands. :)

From The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

From Genesis Chapter 9

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man.

6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.

How about that? And, no, I do not want to talk about Christianity. I'm sure we have devout and learned Christians here who could do so better than I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top