Breaking -District of Columbia's handgun ban ruled unconstitutional

[malaise]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/27/district-of-columbia-handgun-ban-ruled-unconstitutional
<snip>

A federal judge has ruled that the District of Columbia's ban on carrying handguns outside the home is unconstitutional.

In a 19-page ruling made public on Saturday, US district judge Frederick J Scullin concluded that the second amendment gives people the right to carry a gun outside their home for self-defence.

The lawsuit challenging the city's ban was filed in 2009 by three District of Columbia residents, a New Hampshire resident and the Washington state-based Second Amendment Foundation.

The group's lawyer, Alan Gura, said he was pleased with the decision. The city has the option to appeal the ruling.

[samsingh]

1. of course the vampire was pleased

[Javaman]

121. You've been watching "the strain" haven't you. ;) nt

[samsingh]

125. i confess yes

[Loudly]

2. Just another POS on the pile to be reversed

when this dead end line of jurisprudence is finally recognized to be transforming America into an unacceptably unsafe place.

[malaise]

3. This should scare the shite out of the politicians

who made it possible in the first place.

[Skidmore]

4. Well, we know that they are not capable of being

shamed by their actions or inactions. These past two Congresses have set back civilized behavior by centuries.

[samsingh]

6. same with SCOTUS - the most useless of all time

[samsingh]

5. actually that's true - it balances the field

they have to live with the rules they are inflicting on the rest of the country

I remember when cheney spoke in the city and his audience was frisked to have no guns. I complained and the gun lover's justified it by saying that he was just following the rules. well the rules are now balanced let's see if cheney really believes that people should be able to carry guns around him.

a similar thing happened with the nra executive. (I don't believe everyone is entitled to carry guns in the nra building - imagine that).

[Lurks Often]

8. Your post might have more credibility if you understood what you were talking about

Until the Palmer vs DC ruling NO ONE other then law enforcement were allowed to carry a firearm in Washington DC, so any organization that had offices with the District would be subject to those laws, including the NRA. To put more plainly, the ban on firearms in the NRA offices in DC were due to Distract laws.

You are perfectly welcome to carry a gun in the NRA office building in Fairfax, VA, they even have their own range.

[samsingh]

9. great. i'll check with the other people that told me something different. thanks for supporting the

nra

[Lurks Often]

11. Interjecting facts into a discussion is not supporting the NRA

[hack89]

7. What if things don't get worse?

there have been predictions of blood running in the streets for decades as gun rights are expanded yet they never seem to come to fruition. No reason this ruling is any different.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. All depends on one's perspective

seen from a country where guns are strictly controlled and regulated and the murder rate is one-fifth that of the US and mass shootings and spree killings almost never happen instead of occurring every few weeks? It looks a bit like there's blood running in the streets, yes. But then American gun rights advocates seem to have a tolerance for a certain level of collateral damage. "The roots of the tree of liberty must be watered, from time to time, with the blood of innocents", or something.

[hack89]

12. We have cut our murder rate in half in the past 20 years

and it continues to decline. So it is hard to argue that increased gun rights led to more deaths.

More can be done, especially when it comes to suicide prevention (two thirds of gun deaths) and illegal gun sales (fueling inner city drug violence) but concealed carry is not a problem.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Of course it's a problem.

A significant number of murders are committed by people who were "law-abiding gun owners" until they weren't.

[hack89]

15. What do you suggest as a solution?

just wondering how you would solve this problem.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. With sensible gun laws like the ones pretty much every other developed country has.

Of course thanks to the current Supreme Court that would likely require a Constitutional amendment, which isn't going to happen.

[hack89]

25. The 2A permits the strict regulation of guns

even Scalia admits that in his Heller brief. Assault Weapon Bans, magazine limits, even registration are perfectly constitutional. The only explicit right you have is to own a handgun for self defense.

The obstacle to stricter gun laws is not legal - it is cultural and political. There are simply not enough Americans that agree with you.

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. Except you don't have an explicit right to own a handgun.

Scalia's interpretation is novel.

[hack89]

27. Heller is the law of the land

so yes, we both have an explicit right to own a handgun. That is the way the American legal system works.

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. I'd put it in the same category...

as Dred Scott v Sandford, or Plessy v Ferguson; a bad decision that was bad when made and is likely to be overturned by future law (although probably not anytime within our lifetimes).

[hack89]

35. The right wing says the same about Roe v Wade

using exactly the same logic. They are wrong and so are you.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. Not really the same logic, no

and they're wrong because a foetus is not a person. However Scalia et al are also wrong because the intent of the Second Amendment was specifically related to "well-regulated Militias"; the role of the militia is now irrelevant as the intervening 200 years have seen the creation of a standing army and the supplanting of local militias by the National Guard.

(And support of Heller v DC and Second Amendment absolutism? Generally right-wing positions, in my experience.)

[hack89]

38. The Democratic Party platform says the 2A protects an individual right

the President has said exactly the same thing.

I support gun control with two exceptions - AWBs and registration. Is that an absolute position in your eyes?

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. And?

The Democratic Party is fundamentally centre-right, and so is Obama.

[hack89]

40. So agreeing with the president and the Democratic party makes me right wing

so what party do you belong to - I can't imagine you being right wing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. I am not a member of any organised political party.

I vote Democratic in US elections (and have since casting my first vote for Bill Clinton), because the alternative is the Republicans. When presented with a choice between extreme right-wing and moderate right-wing, then it's a case of the lesser of two evils.

[hack89]

43. But you really believe many here on DU are right wingers

even though they also vote Democratic? Don't you think that kind of renders the word meaningless?

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. No, because partisanship doesn't correlate with "right/left".

There are people who call themselves "Democrats" who are anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-death penalty...I would characterise all of those as being "right-wing".

[hack89]

46. What about someone who is pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-LGBT rights, and pro-gun?

left or right wing?

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. Whatever one's other positions?

Second amendment absolutism is very much right wing. Anyone who thinks they need to go about armed as a matter of course in the name of "self-defence" is pretty obviously a very fearful individual. And fear tends to be a defining characteristic of right-wing politics.

[hack89]

51. But to you the Democratic party's position is right wing.

so you have truly rendered the word meaningless.

[Spider Jerusalem]

54. No, I haven't.

Not unless one accepts that the Democratic Party is definitively "left-wing" (it isn't).

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. "...fear tends to be a defining characteristic of right-wing politics."

Suure:





http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html



Got any more stereotypes you'd like to share with us?

[VScott]

36. I'd put it in the same category...

as Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education.

[mikeysnot]

76. Siting Scalia

Out!

[hack89]

80. Scalia says the 2A allows strict gun control

You actually have a problem with that?

[mikeysnot]

88. well regulated, you have a problem with that...

[hack89]

90. Actually I don't

The only gun control laws I don't support are AWBs and registration.

[Michigander_Life]

105. What number? I've been looking for that stat!

[JaneyVee]

17. Yes, we've cut the murder rate from

Absolutely horrific to completely unacceptable, due mostly to stricter gun control laws.

[IronGate]

19. Stricter gun control laws?

Gun laws have been getting laxer in most states, not stricter, there are more firearms in the public's hands, so how did you come up with this?

[JaneyVee]

68. Cities that have enacted stricter gun laws

Have cut their rates in half, states with lax laws have most gun murder per capita. Red states lead the way: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

[beevul]

77. Uh huh.

You lot are trying to have it both ways again.

When it suits you, you quote "rates" and show things like this picture:




The actual gun violence map (from slate) showing where gun violence actually happens and how much it really happens, tells a different story:




"Most murder per capita" is a handy way of ignoring what the second map shows, and tarring states you lot consider having "lax laws".

What...did you really think nobody was going to notice this "to cute by half" nonsense?

[JaneyVee]

81. How does that map tell a different story?

Red states still lead the way.

[beevul]

82. Continued cuteness, I see.

Compare the maps.

One is very misleading.

The other is actual and accurate, and does not mislead.

[JaneyVee]

95. The statistics don't lie either.

[beevul]

103. They sure paint a misleading picture.

Of course, those who lean heavily on them know that.

[hack89]

21. Actually no - gun rights have been expanded drastically over that time frame

look no further than the expansion of concealed carry - 20 years ago few states had "shall issue" permit laws but now all but a couple do. There has not been any major federal gun control legislation since 1994 so I don't understand where you get the idea that gun laws have become stricter over time.

[upaloopa]

56. Yes you have a tolerance for murder where

others of us feel it is nothing to tolerate.
All violence has decreased yet we still have gun violence. I am not so happy with the level of our gun violence as you are.

[hack89]

58. As long as it continues to decline

then we are on the right path.

That being said, I certainly think the ATF should be significantly expanded to crack down on illegal gun sales. I also support UBCs and most other gun control proposals. The only ones I reject are AWBs and registration.

[upaloopa]

62. I disagree

It is not declining fast enough

[hack89]

64. So lets get the ATF budget increased and focus the legal system on violent crime

there are certainly many things we can do. While we are at, lets fix mental healthcare to reduce the largest source of gun deaths.

[Lurks Often]

31. Perspective is important

because there are any number of countries with very strict gun laws and much higher murder rates or suicide rates:

2012 Murder rates (you can sort by clicking on the column header)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
The US is 4.8, roughly half way on the list

Suicide rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
The US is ranked 33rd, although the World Health Organization numbers aren't from a single year for the study

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. Yes, perspective is important

and it's disingenuous to compare the USA to Venezuela or Mexico and say "look, we have a lower murder rate!" Among advanced industrial economies with longterm stable democratic governments? The US murder rate is an extreme outlier.

[Lurks Often]

50. Ahh, the "those countries are inferior" argument

How about Brazil or Peru or the Bahamas?

Crime has always been a function of economic and social pressures, not the tool used to commit the crime.

[cheapdate]

98. Yes, the US murder rate is about the same as Yemen and Albania.

But why is it three to six times greater than every other industrialized, western, democracy?

[Lurks Often]

114. Cultural, economic & social pressures

play a major factor in crime in the US, much of which is centered around the cities and some of their immediate suburbs.*

Why is our murder rate so much lower then Brazil or Peru or Russia or for that matter the various former and current British colonies in the Caribbean? Russia and the current British colony islands have very strict gun laws.

If gun ownership rates equates to murder as so many like to say, then why are there so few murders in Serbia (2nd), Switzerland (5th), Cyprus (6th) or Saudi Arabia (7th)? I excluded Yemen because it is currently having internal issues related to religious fundamentalist insurgents which would skew the murder rate up. For some reason there is no 4th listed at the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country


*And before someone says "racist", I happen to believe you could drop any racial or ethnic group into the same environment and within 3 generations get the same conditions.

[linuxman]

14. Good.

[Logical]

24. Brilliant analysis! LOL! nt

[rdking647]

16. DC may have done more to hirt gun control in this ocuntry than anyone else

The simple fact is guns are legal. teh second amendment say so. we can argue about what it actually means but the fact is the courts have long ago decided that americans can own guns

Dc tried banning all handguns. which resulted in the heller decision

then they tried to ban carrying guns outside of the home. no concealed carry permits at all
the result is this decision


If Dc had instead allowed concealed carry under limited circumstances this decision would have never been handed down.

[LittleBlue]

18. They had a law prohibiting guns outside homes? That's basically a gun ban

The city must have known the law was unconstitutional when they passed it. No way is that going to fly in the courts.

[IronGate]

23. You were subject to arrest even if you were in your front yard

with a firearm.

[tritsofme]

22. ..."to keep and bear arms."

Makes sense.

[IronGate]

29. Nice rant there.

Now, all you need is 2/3 of the states to go along with you to change the Constitution.
Think you have the votes?

[S_B_Jackson]

104. Actually, the threshold is a bit higher than 2/3rds....

ratification of an amendment requires 3/4ths of the states.

[IronGate]

116. You are correct.

Thanks.

[badtoworse]

30. Problem solved. I can't believe no one came up with that before.

[joeglow3]

55. Interesting view, considering your handle.

[NutmegYankee]

79. You noticed the irony there too?

A name of power to the people but authoritarian views that remove power from the people.

[Throd]

59. No power for you.

[PowerToThePeople]

67. My power comes from my smarts, values, and ethics

Not from some gun in the hands of a punk ass weak excuse for a human being. (weak excuse for a human being anyone who thinks a gun gives them power.)

[badtoworse]

69. What an erudite post.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. "My power comes from my smarts, values, and ethics"

[IronGate]

87. Then your power needs to be recharged. nt.

[Common Sense Party]

129. I think you've suffered a power outage.

Or is that a power outrage?

[NaturalHigh]

100. Does my gun make me a bad person?

[X_Digger]

101. The constitution grants no rights, so changing the constitution would remove no rights.

It's fucking civics 101.

10th grade government, class.. Bueller? Bueller? *tap tap tap* Is this thing on?

*sigh*

[VScott]

32. Meanwhile...

the antis whoop, holler and cheer over some pseudo victory like Starbucks/Target/Chipolte requesting
(not banning as they like to claim), that customers refrain from bringing firearms into their place of business.

[upaloopa]

57. Any time gun nuts are made to respect the

wishes of the rest of us to be in gun free zones is a major victory!

[IronGate]

60. Except those aren't gun free zones.

Those businesses only requested that customers don't open carry their weapons, they didn't ban them.

[upaloopa]

63. Well that shows there is more work to be done

[IronGate]

65. For the record,

I think open carry is counterproductive, but I have no issue with licensed CCW.

[upaloopa]

66. I agree with the open carry thought.

For the record I don't want to be around anyone carrying a gun.
I don't think it is a good sign that people feel the need to be armed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. My husband open carries when we go to the city and circumstances merit.

He would concealed-carry but the cost of a permit is prohibitive. More than $120 in our county.

[Starboard Tack]

108. What circumstances? When your city is under attack?

At least he is honest about carrying and not hiding his gun like the CC crowd. I'd rather be aware of whom I need to stay clear of.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. There are 100 million gun owners. If staying clear of them all is your goal

then perhaps you shouldn't leave your house.

[Starboard Tack]

118. I have no issue with gun owners.

I have owned guns and enjoy shooting them.
Those I wish to avoid are the people I don't know who carry guns in public. Guns have no more business being in the public forum than cars have on the sidewalk.
Personally, this is not a problem as I live on the ocean most of the time, where guns are extremely rare and when I do spend time on land, I visit countries where the general public neither carry guns, nor feel a need to carry guns.

Now, do you care to answer my question? Under what circumstances does your husband feel the need to carry his gun?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

119. "Now, do you care to answer my question?"

Probably not to your satisfaction.

He does not carry consistently. When time, place and activity -- all legal and appropriate -- merit a heightened awareness for personal safety he does carry but costs prohibit him from carrying concealed. Unless you intend to rob him or worse he is no threat to you or anyone else.

Conversely, if a person needed help whether fixing a broken car or repairing something on their house or needing a few dozen eggs to get through the pay period one could not ask for a gracious and cheerful candidate than my husband. Thankfully irrational fears that would stigmatize him are the exception, not the norm.

[Starboard Tack]

122. I'm not here to criticize your husband. I was just curious.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Thankfully irrational fears that would stigmatize him are the exception, not the norm."
Are you referring to his fears or the fear others may have on seeing his gun?
I've seen a lot of open carry during my travels throughout the US, and am aware that in some parts of the country, a gun belt is a socially acceptable form of attire.
D.C., however, is not Wyoming or Montana or Arizona. I'm not saying folk will flee in fear, but it might cause a raised eyebrow here and there.
Personally, I determine my response based on behavior rather than attire.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. "Are you referring to his fears or the fear others may have on seeing his gun?"

The latter.

Personally, I determine my response based on behavior rather than attire.

Really? Because based on your initial response to me in this sub-thread you wanted to steer clear of him based solely on the fact he would be openly carrying --

At least he is honest about carrying and not hiding his gun like the CC crowd. I'd rather be aware of whom I need to stay clear of.

Again, my husband does not carry constantly. Ergo there is no desire to intimidate. In fact, were you ever to meet him the first thing you'd notice is his smile. The second would be his sense of humor.

But to hell with all that; he has a gun. Best just to stay clear of him because he might suddenly snap and start murdering people -- because that's what those gunners do all day every day.

[Starboard Tack]

126. As you point out, I said "I'd rather be aware of whom I need to stay clear of."

That, in no way contradicts "Personally, I determine my response based on behavior rather than attire."

First, I notice the gun, then I examine the demeanor and behavior of the individual. With that information, I determine how to respond. I'm sure your husband's winning smile would put me at ease much more than some surly critter with a gun bulge under his jacket.

Guns do not scare me. Deception makes me wary. Period.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Sounds like "Any time atheists are made to respect the wishes...

...of the rest of us to be in Christian zones is a major victory!"

You and Mayor Jim Fouts are more alike than you'd care to admit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024833761

Seems that it's less about 'guns', and more about 'control' for a certain mindset-
and that mindset is not exclusive to the right wing, sadly...

[clarice]

70. Is there such a term as "anti-gun-nuts" ?nt

[upaloopa]

72. You can use it if you want.

It seems to me that feeling the need to carry a gun is a bit nutty. I mean that in the best way.
Maybe being anti gun is being a bit nutty too in the nicest way.

[clarice]

74. You are right. How about meeting in the middle....

and saying....criminals cannot have guns. Law abiding citizens can. Just a thought.

[upaloopa]

75. My problem with that is law abiding people

commit crimes with guns also. Not the majority but when we read of gun violence it is often criminals and people who were not criminals before the violence occurred.
There is no way to prevent gun violence perfectly but I think less guns would mean less violence. I know the idea that gun violence is in decline. At times I think we just live in the world we make and there is nothing we can do. Then I despair

[Starboard Tack]

109. New criminals are minted every day

Many of them have guns. We all start off as law abiding citizens.

[clarice]

117. Yes, it is a conscious choice to become one. nt

[NaturalHigh]

102. Yes, I've used the term.

[joeybee12]

42. This is the sort of thread where I don't know if I should rec or not...

On the one hand, this is horrific news and needs to be highlighted; on the other hand, this is horrific news.

[joeybee12]

47. And now, yours is a post I'm conflicted as to whether I should alert or not...

Totally uncalled for, totally makes no sense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. You are free to alert or not, as you see fit

I'll note further that while Michael Bloomberg hires PR experts, the NRA,
Second Amendment Foundation, et al hire lawyers and seem to be
getting the better results as of late.

IOW, don't proclaim Bloomie the Messiah of gun control just yet...

[clarice]

71. Yep...there is always that pesky 2nd amendment thingy. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. The billionaire republican has been very effective at getting republicans elected.

If I was more conspiratorially minded I'd swear his is a false flag operation.

[BrotherIvan]

107. Yay!

NRA apologia on DU!

[Starboard Tack]

110. Looks like it was taken care of for you. Got a slam dunk 7-0 hide.

On Tue Jul 29, 2014, 06:34 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Might as well go ahead and rec it; it will give you lot more to talk about
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5302693

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Attacking another DUer to make one's point=alert. The poster responding did not alert on this post, I did. --BrotherIvan

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 29, 2014, 06:53 AM, and the Jury voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attacks are never O.K. Cheap, stupid, unacceptable.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: WHOEVER posted that is a snotty creep.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[joeybee12]

120. Thanks...

It was very personal and I also thought he/she was mistaken and had wanted to reply to someone else...made no sense in respect to what I had posted.

[madinmaryland]

84. What in the heck are you talking about?? Are you afraid that the

fucking NRA and gun industrial complex may now have met someone who can fight bullshit with CASH??

[IronGate]

89. Not worried at all,

So far, M. Bloomberg and his astro turfed MDA minions have been spectacularly ineffective in getting gun control laws passed.

[madinmaryland]

91. Thanks for the laugh! I'm just glad that someone is actually willing to spend money and take

on the corporatized NRA and the gun industrial complex. Someone needs to really give those assholes a good swift kick in the ***s. They are a shitstain on this country.

[IronGate]

92. Who's giving the NRA a swift kick in the ass?

It certainly isn't M. Bloomberg and his MDA.

[madinmaryland]

93. You do not agree that the NRA and Gun Industrial Complex are a shit-stain on this country????

Bloomberg has obviously not gotten very far, but at least he is trying. Thanks to the Scalito/Roberts, et al, we now allow the Gun Industrial Complex to spend billions of dollars more to keep their lackeys in office.

[IronGate]

94. No, I don't agree with that sentiment. nt.

What Gun Industrial Complex? All the firearms manufacturers combined don't even crack Forbes top 500 in profits.

[oneshooter]

127. This is how the MDA (Mothers Demand Action) protest

I am sure that Bloomburg agrees with this. After all, he paid for it.

http://buzzpo.com/mda-supporters-protest-topless-texas-open-carry-group/

[Mugu]

52. K&R

[clarice]

73. Criminals in DC outraged over court ruling on handguns. nt

[NaturalHigh]

99. Exactly. Criminals don't like it when the good guys are armed.

[Recursion]

78. I remember DC in the 90s

I can't say the ban did very much good.

[spanone]

96. just what d.c. needs....guns aplenty

[Recursion]

106. It certainly wasn't short of guns before

Can anybody persuade me (a resident over the course of three different decades, in the less-than-nice parts tourists and Congress people don't go to) that this will increase the number of guns carried in DC?

[roamer65]

97. Dumb move by DC

Better off to be a "may issue" on concealed permits like Maryland. It would hold up in court.

[Recursion]

113. The city dug in its heels after Heller

Before Heller, you could have a rifle in your home disassembled. After Heller, with a license you could also have a disassembled revolver in your house.

This was as far from reality as the pot prohibition in DC was. We used to count gunshots in the night and guess how many murders would make the news. That was back in the 90s. As violence rates in DC and the rest of the country plummeted, that stopped. I can't point to any meaningful relationship between DC's gun laws and the city's violence, one way or the other, but I can say pretty confidently that DC's laws weren't remotely effective at keeping people from getting guns.

[hack89]

115. Peruta will be the end of "may issue"

that is why California has to change to "shall issue". Since Peruta is a logical extension of Heller it won't be long before someone challenges Maryland's law and wins.

[BainsBane]

111. This is complete and utter crap

The gun lobby is the single greatest evil to affect this nation. They come from Hell itself.

[aikoaiko]

123. This is a completely reasonable ruling -- antigunsters foiled again.

[The Straight Story]

128. Good. Don't ban guns, abortions, soda, smoking, pit bulls, birth control, alcohol, etc

But do, please, ban republicans