D.C. Gun Ban Shot Down

[Cerise]

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

....it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

 

[2minkey]

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

that's cool.

i wonder if anything will ever happen in chicago, where through clever and despicable laws they've made it virtually impossible for anyone to own a (new) handgun.

 

[Inkara1]

I'm not familiar with Chicago's gun laws, but from how you phrased that, it sounds like they were a lot smarter about it than Washington was with the outright ban.

 

[BlurOfSerenity]

jay tells me a thing was filed in chicago already, to overturn their ban. i should get him over in here (undeadexploder) to talk more about it, he's the one that actually follows these things, lol.

but yay! the constitution is pretty awesome.

 

[Gonz]

In Chicago the law says you must register your weapon. Anyone owning a weapon prior to the law must register it. Anyone buying a gun after the law must register it. Oh, they aren't accepting new registrations. Ironically, Chicago is riddled with gun crime.

“This is a very frightening decision for America. …Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society? If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then, why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle in the streets,”

Sun-Times

The weight which has been attached to this ruling is distubing. Teh Court is one of three equal branches to our government. Yet, they judged themselves final arbiter of all things Constitutional. So the three branches is now two less equal and one superior?

 

[Cerise]

Thank you President Bush!

Thankyou for appointing solid conservatives to the supreme court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's gun grabbing radical leftists on the bench have been defeated.

If it was upheld, it wasn't about just a state ruling, it was about all the states. One by one all 50 would fall. Everywhere the loss of an individual's ability to defend themself and their loved ones against thugs was guaranteed.

The right of the people to bear Arms, as written in the Constitutuion, rather than a state's right to maintain an armed militia--- was at issue.

And, thankfully, strengthened.

 

[Kruz]

They should still be banned because it's a well known fact that Guns cause global warming!

 

[spike]

If it was upheld, it wasn't about just a state ruling, it was about all the states. One by one all 50 would fall.

Yes, in the 3 decades the ban was in effect they've been falling like crazy.

 

[Cerise]

In those 30 years was the Constitutionality of the ban ever addressed by the Supreme Court?

From the Court's opinion:

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“The most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”


Would you have been happy if the headline had read "Second Amendment Repealed"?

If the ruling had gone the other way, if the DC gun ban were seen as legal, a revolution would've swept across the nation! Freedom and liberty are not simply gifts from the state! And they can't be taken away by the state!

The citizenry of this country would break out the torches and pitchforks and demand their Constitutional rights! You would see mass demonstrations that would make the anti-war loons jealous. They would immediately seek the ouster of socialist, left-wing judges who push their liberal social policies from the bench.

They would confirm the belief that only people willing and able to defend themselves can preserve their liberties.

But thanks to President Bush's choice of nominees, the matter has correctly been decided.

 

[spike]

In those 30 years was the Constitutionality of the ban ever addressed by the Supreme Court?

What's your point?

Would you have been happy if the headline had read "Second Amendment Repealed"?

Umnnn...no. You only seem concerned about certain Amendments though. What do you have against the 4th Amendment exactly?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...eizing-laptops-and-cameras-without-cause.html

If the ruling had gone the other way, if the DC gun ban were seen as legal, a revolution would've swept across the nation!

Wait, so you think that if the same rules would have stayed in effect that have been in effect for 30 years suddenly there'd be a nationwide revolution?

You do live in a fantasy world.

 

[Cerise]

What's your point?

As the Supreme Court goes, so goes the law. Look at the big picture.

Umnnn...no. You only seem concerned about certain Amendments though. What do you have against the 4th Amendment exactly?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...eizing-laptops-and-cameras-without-cause.html

Duuuhhhhhh..... Focus. This thread is about upholding the 2nd ammendment.

Wait, so you think that if the same rules would have stayed in effect that have been in effect for 30 years suddenly there'd be a nationwide revolution?

You do live in a fantasy world.

No, I said the people of this country would revolt against a decision by the Supreme Court that would find the banning of guns legal. Possession of arms is the ultimate assurance that government governs only with the consent of the governed.

To be disarmed by one's government is the equivalent of being enslaved by it. You remember that Nanny State you libs ooh and aah over?

Whose responsibility is it to protect your life?

 

[Kruz]

 

[spike]

As the Supreme Court goes, so goes the law. Look at the big picture.

Yes, the big picture is the law was in effect for 30 years and no other states fell.

Duuuhhhhhh..... Focus. This thread is about upholding the 2nd ammendment.

Right, you're only concerned with certain Amendments.

No, I said the people of this country would revolt against a decision by the Supreme Court that would find the banning of guns legal.

Right, so if things stayed the same in DC as they had been for 30 years people would suddenly revolt. Seems you have no evidence for your claim.

You remember that Nanny State you libs ooh and aah over?

Actually it's the cons that ooh and ah over Nanny States.

Whose responsibility is it to protect your life?

What are you trying to say?

 

[H2O boy]

I guess this ruling makes up for that horrible Gitmo one in some small way. At least with this one if a terrorist tries to wipe out a school somebody can blow him away too. Guns are a great defense against criminals when used propery.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25753541/

 

[Gonz]

Since some rights are lost due to criminal behavior, it'll be an interesting fight. If you vote from prison, do they send you an absentee ballot or are you taken to your precinct?

 

[jimpeel]

that's cool.

i wonder if anything will ever happen in chicago, where through clever and despicable laws they've made it virtually impossible for anyone to own a (new) handgun.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_29-2008_07_05.shtml#1214788657

[David Kopel, June 29, 2008 at 9:17pm] Trackbacks
The First Dominos Fall:

Morton Grove and Wilmette Handgun Bans After the D.C. city council banned handguns in 1976, and the voters of Massachusetts overwhelmingly rejected a handgun ban initiative that same year, the next U.S. jurisdiction to enact a handgun ban was the Chicago suburb of Morton Grove, in 1981. Chicago did the same in 1982, and four other Chicago suburbs, including Wilmette, later followed suit.

The Mayor of Morton Grove has announced that he will propose repeal of the handgun ban. [Note that the linked NPR story misspells the name of Second Amendment attorney Stephen Halbrook.] Wilmette, meanwhile, has suspended enforcement of its handgun ban. [HT Snowflakes in Hell.]

Both Morton Grove and Wilmette were among the cities sued on Friday by the NRA.

[more]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4097

Evanston Votes To Amend Gun Ban—Tries To Avoid NRA Lawsuit

Friday, July 18, 2008

Unlike the debacle in Washington, D.C., in the wake of the Supreme Court's Heller decision -- and in an effort to avoid NRA's lawsuit against their city -- aldermen in the Chicago suburb of Evanston unanimously voted to amend the city's 27-year-old handgun ban at a recent closed-door meeting.

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that laws requiring handguns in homes be disassembled and outfitted with trigger locks are incompatible with the gun rights accorded under the Second Amendment, NRA filed lawsuits challenging local gun bans in Chicago and the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove, and Oak Park. Evanston city council members subsequently authorized a resolution that would rewrite their city's ordinance to comply with the Supreme Court ruling and avoid the NRA lawsuit.

"No one was particularly happy or anxious to do anything that would change the ordinance," Alderman Edmund Moran (6th) said. "But we're being confronted with this lawsuit and rather than engaging in a protracted fight and spending a lot of money, it would be a better course of action to revise our ordinance in a way that it would make it more legally sustainable."

With a new ordinance in place, the city of Evanston is now seeking to have the NRA lawsuit dismissed.

Yet DC comntinues its idiotic path to destruction:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4099

D.C. Refining of Gun Laws--Offensively Stupid

Friday, July 18, 2008

Only a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller case, which struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and allowed having a firearm in operable condition at home, D.C. has passed "emergency" law and new police regulations intended to retain as much of the ban and storage requirement as possible. The law was crafted in consultation with the Brady Campaign, according to the Washington Post.

There are many objectionable features to the new D.C. law and regulations, but two stand out as particularly egregious. Though the Supreme Court ruled that D.C. could not ban handguns, the new rules would still ban all or most semi-automatic pistols. And in spite of the fact that the court ruled that D.C. cannot ban the use of guns for protection in the home, the District still prohibits having a gun loaded and ready unless an attack within your home is imminent or underway.

Without Congress' intervention, D.C. can violate the intent of the Heller decision indefinitely. That is because under "Home Rule," D.C.'s emergency bills are not subject to review by Congress, and D.C. can reinstitute "emergency" laws every 90 days. The city's officials are already thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court.

"They're doing everything that they can to not comply with the Supreme Court ruling," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, who characterized the new law as "a joke." "Unless the criminal calls you beforehand and lets you know he's coming over ... you're going to be left defenseless."

In a true case of irony, and a fine example of the absurdity of the District's "compliance" with the Supreme Court's decision, Dick Heller, the man who brought the lawsuit against the District, and on whose case the Court ruled, was among the first in line this week to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic pistol, he was rejected! Heller's gun has a seven round magazine. D.C.'s law defines any semi-automatic as a "machine gun" if it is "capable of" firing more than 12 shots without reloading. D.C. police interpret this as banning any "bottom-loading" semi-automatic handgun, regardless of its actual capacity.