Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D.C. Gun Ban Overturned

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • D.C. Gun Ban Overturned

    The US Supreme Court has struck down Washington D.C.'s three decade old ban on handguns. The court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment. More to follow.
    Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

    [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]


  • #2
    I thought the decision was not comming out until tomorrow.

    But good ruling!

    Comment


    • #3
      About dayum time ... do felons care about stupid laws that Democrats make. No.

      This is a good day for America!! ...
      A yard lost by the Democrat left is a yard gained for America.
      Give Americans their 2nd Amendment RIGHT!!
      There is nothing to see here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by farewelltonavy
        happy killing everyone, I mean, happy defending yourself!
        I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not
        But if so, here is a good video for you to watch:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
        There is nothing to see here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SgtCHP View Post
          The US Supreme Court has struck down Washington D.C.'s three decade old ban on handguns. The court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment. More to follow.
          Here are some of the highlights:

          "Held:
          1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
          firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
          traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
          "

          "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
          It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
          manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
          weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
          or state analogues.
          The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
          doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
          felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
          in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
          laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
          arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
          “in common use at the time”
          finds support in the historical tradition
          of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

          "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
          home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
          for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
          is hence unconstitutional."


          I think the statement about the weapons in common use at the time would apply to civilian versions (semi-auto only) of the AR15/AK47 and possibly the .50bmg! I'm wondering if/when someone will challenge California's and other states laws restricting the use of these type of weapons.

          http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/07-2901.pdf PDF of opinion

          Personally I am happy about this opinion. I didn't think it would go as far as it did, but I'm happy with their decision, at least as I understand it.
          Last edited by itnstalln; 06-26-2008, 10:31 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            more stories, collected from google news, here.
            Hatred never ceases by hatred, but by love alone is healed.
            Happiness never decreases by being shared. -- Buddhist quotation
            A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. -- Proverbs 15:1

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JoePublic View Post
              About dayum time ... do felons care about stupid laws that Democrats make. No.

              This is a good day for America!! ...
              A yard lost by the Democrat left is a yard gained for America.
              Give Americans their 2nd Amendment RIGHT!!
              Well said. +1

              Comment


              • #8
                Im glad to see this happen. Being pro gun myself, and a CPL holder, and concealed carrying citizen, this is going to be a great thing for DC. I think this will also help to pass the "Carrying on Campus" issue as well.
                Last edited by Tucker6900; 06-26-2008, 10:37 AM.
                The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



                "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
                George Carlin

                Comment


                • #9
                  The 2nd amendment isn't a carte blanche on weapons; however, I do think the citizens of DC deserve to be treated like citizens of the 50 states.
                  sigpic

                  I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect its straightforwardness in terms of wrongness.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by farewelltonavy
                    happy killing everyone, I mean, happy defending yourself!
                    You're right. Watch that video JoePublic posted. It brings up good points about how gun crime in D.C. increased when the gun ban was put in place. How do you respond to that?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I read this article first thing this morning and decided it was already a good day. Good for Washington.
                      {Insert something witty / insightful here}

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's about time!

                        Of course, the leftists dissented, but what else is new.

                        These are the same people who protect child rapists.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Part of majority opinion copied from other thread

                          ""We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
                          to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
                          permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
                          military equipment” could mean that only those
                          weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
                          startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
                          the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
                          (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
                          machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
                          that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
                          be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
                          when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
                          expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
                          and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
                          179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
                          men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
                          purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
                          war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
                          and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
                          and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
                          P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
                          Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
                          Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
                          in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say
                          only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
                          weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
                          for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

                          That accords with the historical understanding of the
                          scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25""

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by farewelltonavy
                            of course I am being sarcastic, I don't want people killing each other, come on now :P

                            Columbus, I haven't seen the video yet. Might watch it at home. I still think more guns = more crime/dead. No way you can spin that one for me.
                            Yes but aren't there also more auto related fatalities today that in the past. We have the safest cars ever, so the rate goes down but the overall number goes up as a consequence of a growing population and a greater percentage of that population having a car.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by farewelltonavy
                              of course I am being sarcastic, I don't want people killing each other, come on now :P

                              Columbus, I haven't seen the video yet. Might watch it at home. I still think more guns = more crime/dead. No way you can spin that one for me.
                              Not true, I lived in a country that bans ALL firearms to citizens but they have more than double the gun crimes than we do.
                              -Protect human life and property by enforcing
                              state laws, deterring criminal activity, assuring the safety of the motoring public on Arizona’s
                              highways and providing vital scientific, technical and operational support to other criminal
                              justice agencies.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3472 users online. 197 members and 3275 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X