Right to Bear Arms: Not in D.C.?
Yesterday the Supreme Court allowed arguments about the constitutionality of the Washington DC handgun ban giving a chance to define the meaning of the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms". Story Here
At issue is whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or if that right is tied to service in a state militia.
Even if the high court determines individuals have the right to own guns, the justices will still have to decide whether the 32-year handgun ban in the District can stand.
On Sept. 24, 1976, one of the toughest gun laws in the nation took effect in the District of Columbia, essentially outlawing the private ownership of new handguns in a city struggling with violence.
Meanwhile, a man with a .32-caliber pistol recently held up workers at a downtown federal office at midday, a cab driver was shot in the head, and a senator was mugged by three youths, one carrying a revolver, near the U.S. Capitol.
Since the ban was passed, thousands of people have been murdered in DC, many killed by handguns. Nearly 80% of all the murders in 2007 were committed with guns.
Has the ban helped? DC is one of America’s most dangerous cities. Why would honest citizens living there not have a right to bear arms to protect themselves?
Comments
Toe-Knee,
The problem is not the 2nd Amendment rather the misuse of it.
BTW: Our police departments are limited, so by the time they arrive it is often TOO LATE!
If someone doesn't want a gun, don't buy one. But don't try to dictate to everyone else what to do.
For the record, I take the position - as I'm sure you do as well - that the right to bear arms applies to private individuals regardless of participation in a militia. But then I'm not a strict constructionist.
I'm just saying.
Easy enough to get a handgun in DC. Any random yardsale. You can have a gun for each hand and foot for every member of your family, but you still won't have representation.
I'm not into this enough to be like the crazy people camping out. Watching that on the news made me think there's some way dedicated people out there. I have my pet causes and none of them would have me camping out on the stone steps of anywhere in DC in March. It was darned cold last night. Plus the fact nothing is open in that area of town after 5:30/6:00... well a girl's gotta eat you know. But then again, I also couldn't get motivated to go to the Supreme Court on Friday with my kids for the field trip that was planned. I was way more interested in the Library of Congress earlier in the day, but the Congressional Time Change has me all messed up.
My personal belief system is that all the gun laws are stupid beyond belief. You want one you just hop in your car and find a state that is dumb enough to let you get whatever gun you want when you want it regardless of if you can hit the broadside of a barn. These laws don't do anything when they are so easy to circumvent. At this point I don't much care what they say about handguns so long as they say it. Either say they are kosher or not. The poor Founding Fathers put nothing in the 2nd ammendment about all these guns we have that probably aren't really necessary for the average citizen because they just did not exist. I think it needs to be updated on a national level so people will just KNOW. Either say we have a freedom to any and all guns or say what we have the freedom for. Thank you. (Then maybe the NRA would stop sending me mail. I've never belonged to them or WANTED to belong to them. Why do they keep mailing me?)
Around the country we all see law enforcement vehicles with, "TO PROTECT AND SERVE" emblassended on them. Nearly every professional Police Assn
has indicated that they can no longer protect private citizens. Perhaps the 'logo' should read "TO RESPOND AND SERVE"!
For 30+ years I was a Special Agent for a law enforcement and Intel gathering entity. I am now retired!
The person that attempts to enter my home uninvited, with the intent of deprieving me of a civil right or two, will find himself losing all rights, including the right to life.
just alec
You indicated that you, 'don't much care what they say about handguns'!
Now I took that "out of context" didn't I? That's exactly why I care about 'what they say'. Gun owner comments, taken out of context have been used by the Brady Bunch for years. I certainly cannot stop them, but may God help that one person that comes to take my gun.
I do think that on both sides of the argument people take things out of context. I'm not for banning all guns, but I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of nationwide standard.
I'm definitely not with the crazy far left but I'm not with the crazy far right either. I'm far more in the middle on this topic.
It does not sound like toughest gun law in America has prevented violence. From your article there seems to be two choices for Washington, DC: 1) Hire more police with tougher rules of enforcement. 2) Allow hard working citizens to buy hand guns to protect themselves since the police is unable to do its job.
I guess there could be a third option: a beefed up police force and hand guns for citizen protection.
Definitely taking hand guns away has obviously solved nothing.
You think these second/third offense people are buying guns using those standards? No. And the standards are different. I'm 18 and my state says 21? I just go next state over and get one there since they are 18. I don't want to wait the five days in my state, I go the next state over to where it's only a 2 day wait. This is what I"m talking about when I say standards. No one seems concerned that people have to be 21 to drink and that's a mandate that is nationwide. What harm is it for the nation to say 18 or 21 to own a gun and make it flat like that? Or to say x many day wait. Not that these matter anyway since that is not how criminals get guns anyway.
I don't do the gun scene. I'd just like a final ruling on yeah or nay because I'm sick of hearing about it. I'd probably be OK with a handguns are OK. It doesn't really bother me. I'm not going to race out any more now to get one than I did yesterday. But, I do think there are certain types of guns that are really not needed to be owned by the public at large and I'd be fine hearing that's for law enforcement/military only. (Seriously, how many civilians need a grenade launcher in DC?)
I'll stick with my individual state and with my guns. I'm with 1000 here. No one's coming in my home with intentions of robbing me or hurting my family. If they are stupid enough to try -I will take them out!
It is idiotic to think lawbreakers will start to follow laws, because the Supreme Court says somethings unlawful.
But with who we have on the Supreme Court now, I'm not worried about this. We have several judges on the Supreme Court who know their jobs are to interpret the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and so forth. There are still a few who want to legislate from the bench, but if that were to happen every Americans attention would be brought to those judges not doing their jobs, but taking on the jobs of legislators. Many in our country are sick and tired of foul play in our government, It would not stand!
Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns
By Mark Sherman
WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.
The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.
Read the article here.IN REPLY TO AMERICAN INFIDEL
Thank you for advising me that you made a reference to a point on made on the issue.
I am totally comfortable with you're doing so. You have my total confidence!
just alec
Joe it is a cliche', but I fear the hell out of a government that fears my guns. You know cliche's can be cute, but their value is in their truth ie...... Gun Control Isn't About Guns, Its' about CONTROL !
just alec
Well there you have it ,, if your country allows the people to own "shotguns" it becomes very hard indeed to put the boot of oppession on the necks of people who have a shotgun loaded with buckshot in their hands!!!!
GOD BLESS your freedom and right to own a shotgun , may that last forever !!
Joe: The mere act of attempted confiscation WOULD trigger the 'war within'.
It s only if they win that war, that they could attempt confiscation. I don't believe that they could win the internal war. There would instantly be MASS desesertions & defections to the side of right.just alec
quote: "But let me quote the founding fathers and what they said about gun rights. You tell me. If you've ever learned this in school and if there's any doubt in your mind what the intent was of the founding fathers. First, Thomas Jefferson: No Freeman shall ever be disbarred from the use of arms. Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense, John Adams. The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed with Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, where the Government are afraid to trust their people with arms, James Madison. Arms discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue if the law-abiding were deprived the use of private arms, Thomas Payne. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides from an unarmed man, may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man, Thomas Jefferson. Put that one in your pipe and smoke it when you're talking about arming people in schools. A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. They include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them, Richard Henry Lee. The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms, Samuel Adams. I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them, George Mason."
If any of these judges has looked at any of these comments, how can they justify any decision but that we were intended to be armed personally and commonly.
Thanks for pointing this out, for which DC should take read:
Thomas Payne: Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.
And by the looks of it, assailants sure do have it good there in DC!