D.C. Is Sued Again Over Handgun Rules

[primavera]

Source: Washington Post

The man who successfully challenged the D.C. handgun ban before the U.S. Supreme Court filed a second federal lawsuit yesterday, alleging that the District's new gun-registration system is burdensome and continues to unlawfully outlaw most semiautomatic pistols.

Dick A. Heller, a 66-year-old security guard who lives on Capitol Hill, and two other plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit that the D.C. government violated the letter and the spirit of the landmark Supreme Court decision, issued June 26, that struck down the District's decades-old handgun ban.

The 5 to 4 ruling concluded that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to possess guns for self-defense but said governments may impose reasonable restrictions. The lawsuit filed yesterday in U.S District Court says the District's restrictions go too far.

The suit urges U.S. District Judge Richard M. Urbina to toss most of the District's new requirements, which include ballistics tests of registered handguns. It also asks him to eliminate restrictions on semiautomatic handguns and to order D.C. police to approve the handgun applications of the three plaintiffs.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072801357.html

[Jack_DeLeon]

1. Good...

the restrictions DC still has in place are ridiculous. They only allow for revolvers, because they stupidly classify semi-automatic handguns as machine guns and such.

[JeanGrey]

10. Ditto.

[cobalt1999]

2. It's like DC wants to be taken to court.

Of course they are violating the Supreme Court Ruling. Instead of a complete handgun ban, now they are just adding a bunch of additional rules/regulations and high hurdles for anyone who dares to apply.

[primavera]

6. No, they just want as close as they can get to the law they had

You have to remember, DC's handgun ban was one of the most popular laws DC had, enjoying virtually universal support among District residents. Despite what five right-wing justices think, DC residents still think they ought to have some say over their own commuity and a community filled with guns still isn't what they want for themselves. So of course they're going to interpret Scalia's ruling as narrowly as humanly possible, because that's what the people want.

[Ikonoklast]

7. You cannot pick and choose which laws you want to apply

Let's use your logic...

"You have to remember, Mississippi's ownership of slaves was one of the most popular laws Mississippi had, enjoying virtually universal support among Mississippi residents. Despite what five left-wing justices think, Mississippi residents still think they ought to have some say over their own commuity and a community filled with slaves still is what they want for themselves. So of course they're going to interpret Scalia's ruling as narrowly as humanly possible, because that's what the people want."

You cannot interpet the Constitution on your own, no matter what part of it you don't agree with.

[primavera]

13. What, are you kidding?

It happens every day of the week, it's one of the unofficial, but most wdely used, checks in our whole system of checks and balances. Bad laws get written all the time, courts make bad rulings, and people do their best to work around them. God knows we've seen the shrub do it often enough, but it cuts both ways. Executive branch agencies will often drag their heels on drafting regs implementing a particularly bad piece of legislation, or draft regs in such a way as to minimize the harmful effects of a bad law, or will simply exercise their discretion and claim insufficient resources to effectively enforce the law's worst provisions. It's no doubt not strictly legal, but a whole lot of innocent people are spared that way from the worst effects of irresponsible legislation and rulings.

[The Croquist]

52. I don't think you get Ikonoklast's point

It doesn't matter if a law is popular or not. The US Constitution supersedes popularity. If you want to ban handguns you need to change the constitution.

[primavera]

58. "Change the Constitution" - interesting choice of words

Therein lies the rub - for 200 years, until five right-wing individuals came along, the prevailing legal scholarship was that the Constitution did not say what Scalia believes it says. So, you see, quite obviously, you do not need to "change" the Constitution, you simply need to find ideological extremists to, like George Bush and his signing statements, unilaterally decide that it means something altogether different than what it in fact means. It is therefore not the Constitution that you are asking me to respect, but rather the warped perversion of the Constitution by a handful of right-wing wackos. Now, since when do we change our opinions simply because Rush Limpballs and Sean Hannanazi tell us to?

[slackmaster]

59. The specific issues that Heller addresses had never been brought before the SC before

Specifically, whether the 2A protects the right of people to own handguns, and whether the 2A protects the right to keep personal firearms in one's home for self-defense.

[primavera]

72. So what was US v. Miller all about then?

Or Lewis v. US? Prinz v. US? Adams v. Williams? Was not the primary conclusion of all of those cases (and others) that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with the view of maintaining a militia" and that the employment of firearms therefore had to have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"?

[tburnsten]

75. In miller the defendant was dead

and I don't think his court appointed lawyer even bothered to show up. Kind of hard to justify a ruling based on a single side's arguments. On top of that, the case only dealt with whether or not a shortened shotgun was reasonably described as suitable for militia use, so that case sort of goes well against your position doesn't it? How do you justify the FACT that the supreme court in that case was looking at whether or not miller and the co-defendant's weapon was suitable for militia use, even though they weren't "officially" a part of any "organized" militia with your position that guns are only ok for government militias? The way they were approaching the situation shows that there was no dispute at all that every U.S. adult citizen is a member of the militia, and therefore for the militia to be suitably armed it meant that all citizens had to have the right to own any suitable military weapon.

Sort of goes directly against what you are arguing doesn't it?

[primavera]

78. I don't think so

The main point of Miller was that employment of guns had to demonstrably relate to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, in other words, that there existed no Constitutional right to use guns for other purposes unrelated to the maintenance of said militia. Sure, it opens the door to the possibility that private citizens who are not necessarily in uniform may conceivably be understood to be engaged in an activity with firearms which does support the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, but the ruling preserves the understanding that the protected usage of firearms described in the 2A is dependent upon connection to the greater purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia; the Court made no statement that any and all firearm activities by any and all persons automatically meets that threshold.

[slackmaster]

79. You're doing the same kind of mish-mash that always gets done to Miller in these discussions

The main point of Miller was that employment of guns had to demonstrably relate to the preservation of a well-regulated militia...

Substitute "a short-barrelled shotgun" for "guns" and you would have a true statement.

Miller had nothing to do with non-NFA firearms.

[tburnsten]

80. Yes, that specific gun

Which was regulated and taxed by the NFA, or at least it would have been had the defendant not been in violation of NFA laws ($200 tax stamp for any short barreled rifle or shotgun, automatic weapon, or destructive device). Miller's defense argument was that his right to own that particular weapon, a sawed off shotgun, was protected by the second amendment, and therefore it was an illegal law that he was convicted of violating. Had he survived long enough to make it to court, I have a feeling the NFA would be a very different animal today.

And regulated doesn't mean supervised, it means well trained and equipped with functional, well maintained weapons useful for current military applications. Like an M16A2/AR-15 rifle dichotomy today, that means that if not an identical model, a weapon with equivalent capabilities (I mean real capabilities, like ballistics and configuration, not just full auto, which is incredibly overrated anyway) that would have meant in his time a rifle similiar to the 1903 Springfield rifle, or any rifle in a caliber roughly equal to the .30-06 Government, so popular for deer hunting today, and two to three times as powerful as the current caliber of the U.S. military, the .223 Remington.

[Recursion]

111. I think you should read Miller

The point of Miller was that Congress could require a tax stamp on a weapon that was not a common militia weapon.

[slackmaster]

77. US v. Miller established the constitutionality of the registration and tax provisions of the NFA

The National Firearms Act. Heller had nothing to do with the NFA.

Lewis v. US confirmed the constitutionality of the provision of the Gun Control Act that prohibits convicted felons from owning guns. The Heller decision explicitly says that it is not intended to undermine that restriction or the others in the GCA.

Prinz v. US held that Congress can't order state officials to execute federal laws such as the Brady Act's background check requirement for gun buyers. It was basically a states' rights issue.

Adams v. Williams was a search-and-seizure case involving a guy who had a loaded gun and heroin in his car. Mainly a Fourth Amendment case. Heller does not conflict with it in any way.

Was not the primary conclusion of all of those cases (and others) that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with the view of maintaining a militia" and that the employment of firearms therefore had to have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"?

No. That statement applies only to Miller, and the court said that in the absense of evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun had some reasonable relationship to the wah-dah-doo-dah it was unable to say that the 2A protected the right to have a short-barrelled shotgun.

The Heller decision in no way conflicts with any of those cases, including Miller. Why would the right to keep a handgun or any other firearm at home for protection NOT have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia?

Since the militia is the people, I say it does.

[primavera]

82. My compliments

You know your case law. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you, slackmaster? If you're not, you should consider it. You're a fine debater and a tough opponent. Mind you, I still disagree with most of what you have to say, but I have to admit, with grudging respect, that your posts are very challenging. I tip my hat to you, sir, and thank you for an unusually stimulating, thought-provoking, and civil debate.

[slackmaster]

84. I'm not a lawyer, but I pretend to be a paralegal on the Interpipes

I have been studying the issue for a long time, and one of the obligations of my type 03 Federal Firearms License is that I keep up with the law.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your civility as well.

[SteveM]

56. No one's kidding here. Mississippi & other states are good examples...

When challenges were made to southern states' voter registration laws, many states resorted to "literacy tests," "civics tests," and poll taxes (see U.S. Amendment XXIV) to further restrict blacks from voting. It took the 1965 voting rights act to put an end to that kind of subterfuge.

Who is being spared "...the worst effects of irresponsible legislation and rulings"?

[cobalt1999]

8. However, too narrowly and they'll be back in court again.

Also, what the community wants does not supersede an individual's Bill of Rights. There were many communities in the past that didn't want school integration or free speech, as Kennedy had to say to them, "Tough shit".

I understand they want to play it as close to the line as possible, but it's going to cost them lots of time and money in court with that attitude.

[primavera]

17. Quite true

The current situation vis a vis the court I agree is quite analagous to that which existed with respect to segregation. Really the main difference I see between the two instances is that, in the case of segregation, it was Democrats going against the populist wishes of conservatives; in the current case, gun advocates are allied with right-wing judges and activists to fight the popular wishes of a Democratic community.

[aspergris]

24. not true

"gun advocates are allied with right-wing judges and activists to fight the popular wishes of a Democratic community."

it is NOT right-wing judges. It is judges who know how to frigging READ.

The RKBA is not a rightwing idea. It's a civil right, and no more "rightwing" than any other civil right or right under the bill of rights.

The fact that, historically, the leftwing has been remiss in respecting this particular civil right is a sad fact of history (that is slowly changing).

[cobalt1999]

32. Those darn activists and activist judges.

Always disrupting the status-quo by trying to protect all those annoying & dangerous constitutional rights.

Seriously, gun rights is no longer the sole domain of the republicans. It was a sad and suicidal move by the democrats to ever be on the side of arguing against our rights (even the rights you don't personally like). I'm glad that situation is finally changing.

BTW, I don't even have a gun, but I'll argue for every citizen's right to own one if they want.

[atreides1]

9. I've Got News For You

The D.C. community is filled with hand guns, the downside is that all of those guns are being utilized by people who aren't supposed to have them in the first place.

MPD had their little road blocks around the Trinidad neighborhood recently, guess what happened, shootings took place in another location, last night a couple was killed in their home execution style according to police, and they just recently moved in. So I would have to disagree with you that D.C.'s gun laws have worked very well.


Just think about it, someone breaks into your house, and you have to either unlock a trigger lock and get ammunition into the weapon, or worse you have to assemble the gun and then load it. How long do you think that will take, and do you think that a criminal with a weapon is going to wait for the victim to go through that process?

As I understand it those people now filing this new law suit are D.C. residents, don't you think they deserve to have some say? Or do only those against guns have that right?

[primavera]

14. Please don't misquote me

I never said that DC's gun ban worked very well. How could it when, a five minute metro ride across the river in Virginia, you can get any weapon of mass destruction your heart desires with virtually no restrictions whatsoever? They practially dispense guns from ATMs there. So no, I have no illusions that DC's handgun ban prevented guns from getting into the District. What I said was that District residents overwhelmingly favored the handgun ban. Obviously no community can boast a 100% consensus on any issue and, most assuredly, there is a tiny percentage of District residents who want to have guns despite the vocal wishes of the vast majority of their fellow residents. Certainly it is their perogative to assert their minority view and, thanks to the sustained efforts of the Republicans and the Federalist Society, the judiciary branch now has enough right-wing wackos on it to take them seriously and grant them their wishes over the resistance of the majority. That's nothing new for District residents - consisting of nearly 90% Democrats, they're used to getting pushed around by Republican administrations - but it's asking a bit much to expect them to like it.

[HiddenCSLib]

18. Not to misquote you

But are you actually saying that a handgun to protect yourself in your home is a weapon of mass destruction? If so then you are a sadly mis-informed idiot! A handgun in the hands of a law abiding person is not a danger to themselves but to the vermin who would want to prey on them. Is there a link to the site that states that the vast majority of DC residents do not want guns or are you pulling that out of your ass also?

I have stated this before and will again. If someone commits a crime with a gun then that person should never see the freedom of society again. If convicted of said crime then the convicted has 2 choices: 1 - Death, 2 - Life in prison WITHOUT any hope of ever getting out, hard time (meaning they have to support themselves by working).

At least here in Colorado people have the ability to defend themselves on their property, inside or out, if they feel threatened.

[primavera]

21. Yawn

A gun nut hurling personal insults instead of facts, how original. You have a nice day, too, sir.

[HiddenCSLib]

48. Provide your facts

I asked you to back up what you has stated. So since you can't I am assuming that you have no idea what your talking about.

Prove me wrong. Show me where I can buy weapons of mass destruction as you stated and the link to the idea that the vast majority of DC residents do not want access to a gun to protect them self. I do not believe you can.

You call me a gun nut, so if that is your term of someone who can handle a weapon well and knows how to keep it available for the protection of my family, then so be. As to your statements I would call you a anti-gun nut.

If you can provide the above information I will apologize to you but until then I will continue to assume that you have absolutely NO idea of what you are screeching about.

[aspergris]

25. you have it backwards

the DC residents support of the handgun ban, which you admit is a MAJORITY view cannot then be asserting "their minority view"

you can't have it both ways. The reality is that the majority of DC residents don't support the constitution when it comes to RKBA. Groovy. But irrelevant. A majority of citizens of a local jurisdiction have NO say as to whether the constitution's ENTIRE panoply of rights applies to them.

If the majority of citizens of Podunk, IA don't support the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and think cops should be able to conduct searches based on reasonable suspicion (note cops can sometimes FRISK based on reasonable suspicion, but not conduct full searches), that may be their MAJORITY view, within that jurisdiction. But it's irrelevant. Because the constitution's entire point is to protect AGAINST majorities (local or otherwise) from restricting rights.

[Dimensio0]

41. Please explain your assertion.

Please describe the means by which a Washington DC resident may legally purchase a firearm from a firearm seller in the state of Virginia, given that sales to out of state residents are restricted by federal law.

Please also justify your assertion that "weapons of mass destruction" are legally obtainable, without restriction, in the state of Virginia.

Please also explain why you believe that it is justifiable for a majority to override Constitutionally protected liberties.

[primavera]

43. For once, I think I'll pass on rising to the bait

Let's face it, these discussions never go anywhere other than to abuse anyway. I think I'll skip that dubious pleasure. I'd like to just once actually have a civil exchange with a gun advocate, so I will wish you a very pleasant evening and go off to dinner instead of entering into yet another pointless argument.

[Dimensio0]

47. It was not my intention to "bait".

I merely requested substantiation of your assertions.

[The Croquist]

53. The handgun ban was popular in DC

That doesn't make it Constitutional but I questioned you when you said it earlier and checked it out. The Washington Post gave it 76% - 23% support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/03/16/GR2008031600072.html?sid=ST2008031502430

[pipoman]

110. Here I'll help you out

Please describe the means by which a Washington DC resident may legally purchase a firearm from a firearm seller in the state of Virginia, given that sales to out of state residents are restricted by federal law.

Answer: They can't

Please also justify your assertion that "weapons of mass destruction" are legally obtainable, without restriction, in the state of Virginia.

Answer: They aren't

Please also explain why you believe that it is justifiable for a majority to override Constitutionally protected liberties.

Answer: It isn't


"Let's face it, these discussions never go anywhere other than to abuse anyway. I think I'll skip that dubious pleasure. I'd like to just once actually have a civil exchange with a gun advocate, so I will wish you a very pleasant evening and go off to dinner instead of entering into yet another pointless argument."

I guess it is far easier to accuse the poser of tough questions that you don't want to answer of being uncivil than to actually engage in a discussion based on your own statements which are demonstrably erroneous, huh?

You said:

I never said that DC's gun ban worked very well. How could it when, a five minute metro ride across the river in Virginia, you can get any weapon of mass destruction your heart desires with virtually no restrictions whatsoever?

I can understand sarcasm so I will overlook the "weapon of mass destruction" comment as I am sure you fully realize that a handgun isn't classified under anyone's definition as such and if you really meant WMD I am sure you are fully aware that true WMD isn't legal to trade in in Virginia or any other state. Since the conversation is in fact about firearms I will assume that is what you are referring to. In case you didn't know a gun dealer in Virginia may only sell guns to Virginia residents unless the non resident purchaser has the Virginia gun dealer mail the gun to another federal firearms dealer in the buyers home state (or in this one case, home city) where the buyer must comply with his/her state laws and receive approval for the purchase from the National Instant Check System. So, in short, your statement is completely erroneous.

They practially dispense guns from ATMs there.

Again erroneous sarcasm.

{i}What I said was that District residents overwhelmingly favored the handgun ban. Obviously no community can boast a 100% consensus on any issue and, most assuredly, there is a tiny percentage of District residents who want to have guns despite the vocal wishes of the vast majority of their fellow residents. Certainly it is their perogative to assert their minority view and, thanks to the sustained efforts of the Republicans and the Federalist Society, the judiciary branch now has enough right-wing wackos on it to take them seriously and grant them their wishes over the resistance of the majority. That's nothing new for District residents - consisting of nearly 90% Democrats, they're used to getting pushed around by Republican administrations - but it's asking a bit much to expect them to like it.

And here you advocate for majority usurpation of Constitutionally protected and enumerated civil rights....

In light of all of this I can't see how Dimensio0's questions can be construed as being uncivil. I believe that you would just prefer not to acknowledge the fallacy of your own words.

[SteveM]

57. Not to make too fine a point, but handguns are not weapons of mass destruction(nt)

[primavera]

61. Not in the common sense of the term, true

But, as far as I'm concerned personally, any device capable of killing multiple people within seconds simply by squeezing a trigger qualifies, in at least a literal sense, if not in the a commonly held sense, as a weapon of mass destruction. To me, a half dozen or so corpses count as "mass destruction." And please spare me the standard gun nut rejoinder about how you can kill just as many people armed with nothing more than a plastic spoon; if guns were not the most lethal weapons available, you wouldn't be demanding them for the protection of your homes.

[SteveM]

63. I'm glad we have some agreement...

Weapons of mass destruction are singularly unsuited for self-defense, regardless of the lethality of any individual weapon. What good would a bomb be for self-defense? What good would an artillery piece be? A fighter plane? Gas? That is why I use a handgun for self-defense.

"Taking life may be a duty... Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." -- Gandhi.

Here, the example Gandhi uses not only shows how pacifism should not be equated with never killing, but incidentally shows how most any weapon (a sword) can be used in the manner you describe. Gandhi was no "gun nut," but he certainly knew how to use one.

I think you use the term "weapons of mass destruction" because it was so popularized by BushCo to stir fear among Americans. I recommend not using such expressions when they come from such extremist types.

[beevul]

89. Thats an interesting way to define a "weapon of mass destruction".

But, as far as I'm concerned personally, any device capable of killing multiple people within seconds simply by squeezing a trigger qualifies, in at least a literal sense, if not in the a commonly held sense, as a weapon of mass destruction. To me, a half dozen or so corpses count as "mass destruction." And please spare me the standard gun nut rejoinder about how you can kill just as many people armed with nothing more than a plastic spoon; if guns were not the most lethal weapons available, you wouldn't be demanding them for the protection of your homes.

You do realize that the automobile fits quite nicely into it, do you not? Of course, that wouldn't be "squeezing a trigger, it would be "pressing a pedal"...but dead bodies are dead bodies whether impacted by a 170 grain projectile, or a three thousand pound one, no?

[primavera]

92. Jeez, you guys are so predictable!

It never fails, gun nuts always trot out automobiles as if they were somehow comparable. I especially love the one about how we should ban paper because you can kill people with paper cuts just as easily as you can with an Uzi. Such comparisons are so marvellously ludicrous and irrelevant. Thanks for the chuckle, I appreciate a good laugh.

[beevul]

93. Hey, it was your definition, not mine.,

It just isn't my fault that you defined it the way you did.

"Such comparisons are so marvellously ludicrous and irrelevant."

And comparisons of a firearm to a "weapon of mass destruction aren't? (and that was the entire point of replying to you in the first place)

"Thanks for the chuckle, I appreciate a good laugh."

Likewise.

[primavera]

95. WMD = Weapon of Mass Destruction

Let's see, according to Webster...

weapon (n.) - something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
mass (adj.) - participated in by or affecting a large number of individuals, as in "mass destruction"
destruction (adj.) - the state or fact of being destroyed

Sure sounds a lot like a gun to me. But again, I freely and openly conceded at the outset that mine was not the conventional definition of WMD as it is commonly used to refer to things like nuclear weapons capable of killing people by the thousands. Personally, I think a dozen or so corpses is enough to meet my personal threshold of "affecting a large number of individuals," so, for me, I think the term fits rather well. But obviously most people consider that to be too few to count as a mass of destruction.

Since the reason a car is not comparable to a gun is evidently not immediately obvious to you, I will explain: a car is not an object "used to injure, defeat, or destroy;" it therefore does not meet the definition of a weapon.

[beevul]

98. Indeed.

Sure sounds a lot like a gun to me. But again, I freely and openly conceded at the outset that mine was not the conventional definition of WMD as it is commonly used to refer to things like nuclear weapons capable of killing people by the thousands. Personally, I think a dozen or so corpses is enough to meet my personal threshold of "affecting a large number of individuals," so, for me, I think the term fits rather well. But obviously most people consider that to be too few to count as a mass of destruction.

The whole "WMD" argument, and that you think that "most people consider that to be too few to count as a mass of destruction", ignore 1 critical thing. That would be that a firearm is a discriminit weapon - that is, it does not indiscriminately kill like a true WMD would (a nuke for example). Firearms only shoot a projectile in the direction they are aimed in. That right there destroys any comparison whatsoever of a firearm to a WMD.

Since the reason a car is not comparable to a gun is evidently not immediately obvious to you, I will explain: a car is not an object "used to injure, defeat, or destroy;" it therefore does not meet the definition of a weapon.

You should have added a qualifier to that statement like "as far as I know" or "generally not used". Of course, you are stuck with your dictionary definitions which sort of paint you into a corner.

If a car is used to deliberately injure someone, than quite clearly by the definitions you came up with, it is being used as a weapon.

Now...I know what you might be tempted to say...that it never happens, and you will be wrong if you do:

Car Slams Into D.C. Festival, Injuring 35

By Susan Levine and Clarence Williams
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 3, 2007; Page A01

"She was driving like 'if you're in my way, you're going to get hit,' " Walker said.

The two described strollers being flung into the air and said they saw the body of a man apparently lodged in the vehicle's wheel well.

Then, after sideswiping an oncoming vehicle, the car finally turned off W Street. Behind the vehicle, the pavement was strewed with bodies, witnesses said.

Witness Carole Harper said the scene was "like something out of the movies." Like the others, she told of seeing bodies fly over the vehicle's hood and onto its roof.

The driver of the station wagon "was purposeful," said a man who saw some of the incident from his porch. "She was going purposefully. She was not going to stop."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/02/AR2007060201293_2.html

And thats just the first example I found, not the only one. A clever guy or gal knowing what keywords to google can come up with many examples of an automobile causing all sorts of mayhem because of someone with bad intent behind the wheel - which would fit well within your definition. Obviously the car in the excerpt WAS an object "used to injure, defeat, or destroy.

I get it. You aren't a fan of guns, or the people that believe it is their right to own and/or carry them, and thats your right by all means.


But don't try to make some sort of specious attempt to compare guns to WMDs (even if by your own less than accurate or fitting definition) and expect not to be taken to task on it - particularly when an improperly used automobile fits your own definitions as good or better better than a firearm does.

[primavera]

99. Man, this is pointless

These discussions always degenerate into splitting hairs over such utterly irrelevant bullshit, which I suppose makes sense since gun nuts never want to deal with the fact that the objects of their adoration are weapons designed for the sole and express purpose of killing, and who wants to think of themselves as being in love with an object for inflicting death and destruction? It sounds so much more noble and romantic when you think of them as tools for saving lives, rather than destroying them, doesn't it?

The definition of weapon does not make any reference to discriminate or indiscriminate destruction, so the distinction you perceive as so critical is of no interest to me: killing is killing, whether you intend to do so or not is of secondary importance to me. So, goodbye to your critical distinction #1.

A car, like virtually anything, can of course be misused as a weapon, as may a pencil or a paperclip or a pine cone or a plastic bag or virtually any other object if used for a destructive purpose other than that for which is was intended. That does not make them weapons, for that is not their purpose. The one and only utility of a gun, the purpose for which it was created, is to be a weapon, i.e., "something used to injure, defeat, or destroy." Goodbye spurious distinction #2.

Here endeth the English lesson. For future word definitions, I would urge you to consult a dictionary. I'm sorry you don't care for my breakdown of the composites in the phrase WMDs; at no point have I ever stated that the common usage of the phrase equalled the sum of its parts, I only personally think it fits. Now, surely we both have more productive things to do with our time than arguing over dictionary definitions, such as watching the paint peel off of the ceiling, for instance.

ed. spelling

[beevul]

101. Good grief.

"These discussions always degenerate into splitting hairs over such utterly irrelevant bullshit, which I suppose makes sense since gun nuts never want to deal with the fact that the objects of their adoration are weapons designed for the sole and express purpose of killing, and who wants to think of themselves as being in love with an object for inflicting death and destruction? It sounds so much more noble and romantic when you think of them as tools for saving lives, rather than destroying them, doesn't it?"

And here is the problem...well not the problem, but YOUR problem - you seem unable to see people like me that believe in the rights of the individual re:firearms as anything other than gun nuts who "adore" firearms. Why on earth would you say what you said to me otherwise? Yet, I haven't touched or even looked at the firearms I own in many weeks. And possibly, its either that or cognitive dissonance, so the former prevails. I honestly don't know. Do you think it impossible that I may be someone that does not "adore" guns? Its easy to paint us all with the same brush, I suppose, but just because its easy doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make it correct, accurate, or representative of reality. At some point, you have to admit to yourself that just because someone disagrees with you that doesn't mean they are a gun nut, or that they are "in love with" or "adore" their firearms.

"The definition of weapon does not make any reference to discriminate or indiscriminate destruction, so the distinction you perceive as so critical is of no interest to me: killing is killing, whether you intend to do so or not is of secondary importance to me. So, goodbye to your critical distinction #1."

The definition of the word "weapon" was not in question. The definition of the term "weapon of mass destruction" was. Just because a distinction is of no meaning to you, does not mean that its not a true or valid or meaningful distinction. It just means that you could care less about it. Your whole spiel was a great big strawman in otherwords. Beyond that, you say "killing is killing, whether you intend to do so or not is of secondary importance" yet make all kinds of distinctions of your own when it suits your argument or your position. Without really attacking you, let me say that doing so is far less than honest discourse.




Like I said, you have every right to dislike guns, knives, swords, weapons of mass destruction, or what ever you feel like. But be honest about it. Comparing a firearm to a "weapon of mass destruction" just isn't going to make your case, nor will it win any debates for you. All it does is give us on the other side of the issue an avenue to paint you as dishonest and extremist. Note that I have not made much of any effort to do so in our exchange, and ask yourself why.

[primavera]

104. I hear you, but would you look at what we're arguing about?

I can scarcely remember anymore what the original point was and, even re-reading the exchange, I'm still not sure. Okay, I get that you do not approve of my improvised use of the term weapon of mass destruction. Fair enough, I've repeatedly acknowledged that my definition of the term probably differs from yours. Not satisfied with that concession, you have to attack my definition and try to convince me that cars are weapons and that guns somehow aren't because they kill discriminately rather than indiscriminately. Now you're telling me that the definition of weapon was never in question, and accuse me of drawing selective distinctions and engaging in less than honest discourse? What have I said that was dishonest? All I said was that, to me personally, a gun is a) a weapon, and b) capable of massive destruction, ergo, the term "weapon of mass destruction" doesn't seem all that inappropriate to me. At no point have I said that you should embrace my definition, or that anyone else does or should. I have stated nothing more than a personal opinion. How is that dishonest?

But again, listen to us for a moment, will you? We have a basic difference of opinion about the benefits of guns and what are we discussing? We're quibbling over whether a car meets the definition of a weapon. It seems like this is such a recurrent pattern in these discussions. Rather than address the substance of a post, gun advocates always seem to want to re-direct to inconsequential details. "What, you can't provide an explanation of the technical differences between a centerfire and a rimfire pistol? Well, obviously you know nothing about guns so you have no right to have an opinion." And you wonder at my disillusionment over these threads? You wonder why I'm perhaps overly ready to perceive you as a "gun nut"? Because I'm being asked to waste my fucking time defending the definiton of the word "weapon" and justify my view that a car isn't one, that's why.

[beevul]

108. Fair enough.

I can scarcely remember anymore what the original point was and, even re-reading the exchange, I'm still not sure. Okay, I get that you do not approve of my improvised use of the term weapon of mass destruction. Fair enough, I've repeatedly acknowledged that my definition of the term probably differs from yours. Not satisfied with that concession, you have to attack my definition and try to convince me that cars are weapons and that guns somehow aren't because they kill discriminately rather than indiscriminately. Now you're telling me that the definition of weapon was never in question, and accuse me of drawing selective distinctions and engaging in less than honest discourse? What have I said that was dishonest? All I said was that, to me personally, a gun is a) a weapon, and b) capable of massive destruction, ergo, the term "weapon of mass destruction" doesn't seem all that inappropriate to me. At no point have I said that you should embrace my definition, or that anyone else does or should. I have stated nothing more than a personal opinion. How is that dishonest?

The entire point, really, is that whether something is "capable" of mass destruction - be it a car, a firearm, or a hammer - is that a true "wmd" is ONLY capable of 2 things. The first would be not being used at all. The second would be mass destruction. A weapon of mass destruction, if DEPLOYED, will result in mass destruction every single time.

Now, I think we are probably in agreement that whether were discussing a car, or a gun, or a hammer, that any of those things can and are deployed in numerous ways where there is no mass destruction what so ever. Thats where I personally see the potential dishonesty in the use of the term. I don't necessarily from my own POV believe this is intentional on your part, and think possibly this is just due to the position each of us are coming at the issue from. My point in saying that, is not so much to say that it really IS dishonest on your part, because in truth, you have not been unreasonable "with extreme prejudice" as others I have had it out with have. Rather, it is to say that very few others will give you the benefit of the doubt, when you define "weapon of mass destruction" in such a way that a firearm fits the term, but an automobile also does. Very few will give you the benefit of the doubt when that definition includes things that CAN be used for mass destruction, where as a true weapon of mass destruction can ONLY be used for mass destruction every single time one is used. People not so interested in giving you the benefit of the doubt - most pro-gun people, due to being gun nuts, due to being on the recieving end of the phalic attacks, due to being on the defensive and thinking turnabout is fair play - ARE going to see your use of the term "WMD" as dishonest, inaccurate, unfair, and as unreasonable with "extreme prejudice", for all the reasons I have stated and a few more. Thats really the point I am trying to make in this paragraph. Whether that matters or not, is entirely up to you, but I will say that examples such as this only serve to make the discussion of firearms more contentious.

But again, listen to us for a moment, will you? We have a basic difference of opinion about the benefits of guns and what are we discussing? We're quibbling over whether a car meets the definition of a weapon. It seems like this is such a recurrent pattern in these discussions. Rather than address the substance of a post, gun advocates always seem to want to re-direct to inconsequential details. "What, you can't provide an explanation of the technical differences between a centerfire and a rimfire pistol? Well, obviously you know nothing about guns so you have no right to have an opinion." And you wonder at my disillusionment over these threads? You wonder why I'm perhaps overly ready to perceive you as a "gun nut"? Because I'm being asked to waste my fucking time defending the definiton of the word "weapon" and justify my view that a car isn't one, that's why.

Indeed we do have differences of opinion about guns. Now, you say that gun advocates always seem to want to re-direct to inconsequential details. I suppose, from a certain point of view thats true, however inconsequential details are the ones that aren't important enough to mention. The ones I see people having a real problem with, ARE important and DO matter. For example so called "high powered assault weapons". Not so high powered in truth and fact, but rather intermediate powered - that is to say LESS powerful than most "traditional" hunting rifles. Or the fact that the weapon in discussion is semi-automatic, not fully automatic. Those examnples might seem from a certqain point of view to be unimportant details to quibble over, but when people might form an opinion based in whole or in part on such descriptions, it is in fact quite meaningful. Another example is the 50 caliber rifle that can "shoot down an air liner". That the truth of the matter is that they are no more likely to shoot down an airliner than any other bolt action or semi-automatic weapon may seem inconsequential from a certain point of view, but again, when people might form an opinion based in whole or in part on such things, from OUR point of view, it is again quite meaningful. More than that though, people on my side of the issue, generally, see anyone that sees those things as "inconsequential" as trying to mislead - that is - trying to shape the opinion of others through attrition, through the misconstruction or ommision of the details you might call inconsequential. And so we war with each other, and history repeats itself yet again.

I don't wonder at your disillusionment over these threads. I really don't. It is almost as if both sides speak an entirely different language. It is easy to...shall we say...paint the other side, characterize them...classify them...catagorize them...crucify them. It takes alot of effort, on the other hand, to talk to them. To find common ground - not agreement, but understanding. I am not trying to get you to agree or disagree, just trying to get you to understand.

Is it safe to say that though we disagree with each other no less than we did yesterday, that we understand each other a little more than we did yesterday? If your answer is yes, then that is a beginning, and makes this exchange worth more than the sum of the time and effort invested by both of us.

[tburnsten]

73. "They practially dispense guns from ATMs there."

Such a classic example of someone who has been utterly taken in by ridiculous anti-gun propaganda, and has clearly never bothered to find out what buying a gun entails.


FYI- The people murdering others in D.C. aren't buying their guns from shops in other states, they get them from their buds.

Vocal wishes of the vast majority of D.C> residents? where's the proof behind that little pile of pudding, or is that all it is?

What do you mean "weapon of mass destruction"? Clearly you have NEVER fired a weapon before, or else you would understand how god-awful dumb you sound trying to characterize a handgun as a weapon of mass destruction. Clue- Real life isn't like the movies, especially not where guns are concerned.

[primavera]

76. See post 53

Croquist provided a link from the Post, showing the overwhelming support DC's handgun ban enjoys among District residents.

[HiddenCSLib]

94. Well there was a post of the poll

but not from you. It had 707 people in it. Small percentage of the people. I say put it on the ballot and see exactly how many gun-nuts are in DC. Being armed to protect yourself from the scum based animals that prey on hard working honest American citizens does not make one a gun-nut. There is NO need for addition gun laws just the enforcement of the ones already on the books.

If any one actually believes that additional gun laws will protect the general population they are flipping idiots. All those laws do is crack down on the already law abiding citizens more. The scum that use guns in the act of a crime do not care a rats ass about more laws except that if the regular citizens get more disarmed it is easier for the scum to attack. And yes again I will state that anyone using a weapon in the act of a crime should be put away forever, either under the dirt or NEVER being able to be release and having to support themselves for their own food.

I would like to get an exact description from you as to what the perfect solution would be, in detail if you can think that hard.

[primavera]

96. Not a lot of point, is there?

I think it's safe to say from your posts that your and my personal priorities and values are so different that there is pretty much no hope of either of us appreciating the other's point of view. So allow me to wish you a very pleasant afternoon and bid you farewell.

[HiddenCSLib]

109. I accept your surrender

But I was hoping for a more well fought battle. I will fight to protect my family and as I can see you will gladly hand over yours as your personal sacrifice.

As you say good day and I really hope that you and yours will never have to have to deal with any scumbag using a firearm to rob or attack you.

[slackmaster]

11. If most of the people in DC don't want guns in their community, then most people won't buy them

The only people affected by the Heller decision are the ones who want to own guns legally. It will have no effect at all on people who have them illegally.

[aspergris]

23. that is true

but under the rule of law, the constitution, the bill of rights, etc. it DOES not matter that the majority of citizens want to restrict civil rights (RKBA).

There are many areas of the country where the majority might want to ignore all sorts of constitutional rights.

It is NOT ok for the local govt. to *knowingly* (or where they should know) ignore the constitution and the supreme court.

civil rights, etc. were DESIGNED to protect against a majority that wants to restrict civil rights or a minority. Because otherwise, they'd have the power to do so.

[primavera]

26. You're right, of course

But it's hard to swallow when it's five ultra right-wing individuals who are telling you that the Constitution suddenly means something different than what it's meant for 200 years.

[hack89]

29. But you can't show that for 200 years

the 2nd amendment applied only towards the militia and not an individual right. I think that the statements and writings of the framers made it clear it was an individual right.

[aspergris]

31. I don't go with that argument

this whole "the ultra-right" says it so it must be wrong.

There are any # of judges, and legal scholars, many of whom are quite leftist, and who AS A MATTER OF POLICY are strongly against RKBA who will grudgingly admit it's an individual right.

I don't care WHO says something if they are correct - right, left, or any wing.

I strongly suggest you read Prof. Volokh's "the Commonplace 2nd amendment". I defy anybody to actually read that book, and still think the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right.

[fascisthunter]

36. no shit

[The Croquist]

54. There are not 5 ultra right-wing judges on the Supreme court

You can make a case for 4 of them but Anthony Kennedy?
Keep in mind that these 4 "ultra right-wing individuals" voted in Kelo v. City of New London, in a losing effort, to protect an individuals right to not have their property seized and transfered to another individual. It looks to me that these "ultra right-wing individuals" are just being consistent.

[tburnsten]

67. So the entire Bill of Rights

was a limitation on Government power and protection of individual rights, except for the 2nd Amendment which has a fairly meaningless little preamble that gives JUST ONE reason why they wrote in a prohibition on the infringment of individual rights to own and carry personal arms, such as pistols, rifles, shotguns, and similiar personal arms?

So all the bill of rights is a limitation on government except for one of its amendments? How do you reconcile that logic to yourself anyway?

[beevul]

91. If you read the Heller dissent...

You will notice that even the dissenting justices said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

[hack89]

28. Would you accept a narrow interpretation of the First amendment?

the right to vote? The freedom of choice? The right not to have your phone tapped?

Why should the default in regard to Constitutional Rights be that local government should err towards less freedom and more control? I thought the Bill of Rights were about the inalienable rights of people, not the powers of government. Lets remember where the real threat to our liberties really lie - the tyranny of the majority is a constant throughout our history.

Why can't we default towards more freedom, not less?

[tburnsten]

64. By what? Delberately ignoring the SC decision?

And that isn't what "people" want, it's what Fenty and some other elitists want.

If D.C. residents wanted to (against the restrictions on goverment set forth in the U.S. Constitution) declare that the official religion of D.C. was Roman Catholicism would that last long, or would the courts strike it down as quickly as they got wind of it? And would they be right to do that, just because a big enough percent of the population wanted to do that?

Besides, the case only ruled that it is unacceptable to unduly prevent individuals from keeping a working handgun in their home, not that the city must provide anyone who asks with a rocket launcher.

[primavera]

65. So I guess that means you're down with Bush v Gore, right?

After all, SCOTUS, in their infinite wisdom, ruled that votes shouldn't be counted and appointed George Bush to the presidency, but you're cool with that, since their word is law and they are the living embodiment of justice, beyond any petty partisan or ideological motivations, right? That's great, I'm glad you have such confidence in our system.

[tburnsten]

66. Even a blind pig finds an acorn

once in awhile. Don't use that ridiculous cold-war "us vs them" bullshit on me, it isn't working. I am a recreational shooter and I keep a shotgun loaded in my home, because you never know. Just because a group does something right doesn't mean supporting that correct move equals supporting ALL their decisions in the past, present and future.

[primavera]

68. If they had done something right...

... I would agree. My point is that, simply because they wear the robes, doesn't mean that they automatically make good decisions. You seem to be suggesting that, because they are the Supreme Court, their word is law and we should all meekly defer to it, whether their decisions be sound or not. Undeniably, their word is the law, but that doesn't necessarily impart any legitimacy to their decisions, anymore in this case than it did in Bush v Gore. You're happy with their decision because it coincides with your personal views on what you think the Constitution says with respect to gun ownership. I am unhappy with their decision because I do not believe their ruling faithfully reflects what the Constitution says or what the framers intended. If the justices who had written the majority opinion in this matter were ones whose scholarship I respected, I might very well consider reassessing my understanding of the Second Amendment and the intention of the framers. I would still oppose, for public safety reasons, a society flooded with lethal weapons, but I would have to consider the possibility that the Constitution and the framers' intentions did nothing to safeguard against that catastrophe. As it is, though, the justices who adopted the opinion you favor are a handful of jack-booted, goose-stepping, Nazi thugs, whose indifference to the Constitution, the intent of the framers, and the majority of legal scholarship has been superabundantly demonstrated in virtually every ruling they have ever made. I therefore perceive no more necessity to re-evaluate my understanding of the Second Amendment than I would if Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or any other jack-booted, goose-stepping, Nazi thug told me that I should.

[tburnsten]

70. Very well then

I am not sure if this applies to you or not, but I think it would be a learning experience for you to dig a little deeper into the Framer's frame of mind at the time. They heavily favored individualism, and in those days, as in these, the goverment has absolutely no responsibility to protect any individual citizen, explicit contracts between an agency and an individual notwithstanding. If there is no way for a government to protect you, then aren't you better off providing yourself with a means and the training to adequately protect yourself in a situation where there is an immediate threat to your life?

If hitler and stalin were all in favor of equal marriage rights for homosexuals, would you completely discount that position based on unrelated stances they took? Because that is what you are saying, that you are unwilling to think about anything for yourself, without someone else first telling you it's ok to think that way. Doesn't seem very progressive to me.

[primavera]

74. No, that wasn't what I said at all

I said that the opinions of right-wing justices did nothing to dissuade me from thinking for myself and reaching my own conclusions; in other words, exactly the opposite of the position you misattribute to me.

[tburnsten]

81. You only disregard their position

because you dislike the answer they came up with in regards to D.C. banning handguns and all functional firearms, as well as the fact that they made a bad call in the 2000 election. That is not indicative of strong critical thinking skills at all.

[primavera]

83. That is your presumption

What was it you were saying about critical thinking skills?

[tburnsten]

85. It isn't a presumption, it's a paraphrasing

of your own words, that you would probably be willing to re-assess your feelings on firearms ownership IF the people who made the ruling weren't jackbooted neo-nazis.

[primavera]

86. Well, then it's not a very faithful paraphrasing

I said that if the people who made the ruling were not jack-booted Nazi thugs, but people whose legal scholarship I respected, I would be more inclined to take seriously their opinions on the legal merits of Heller. I might or might not ultimately agree with their reasoning, it would depend upon what they had to say, and, regardless of whether their point had legal merit or not, it probably still wouldn't change my overall opinion on the social benefits of guns, as that is a much bigger issue, of which the legal aspects are but a part. But sure, I'm not so closed-minded that I can't be moved by a persuasive argument from a credible source. Since the authors of the majority opinion in Heller, however, are jack-booted Nazi thugs and therefore have no credibility, their deranged viewpoints inspire no such call to re-evaluate my position from the hitherto prevailing interpretation affirmed by the Dems on the Court in the minority opinion.

Regardless, though, how do my doubts regarding the credibility of jack-booted Nazi thugs support your allegation that "I only disregard their position because I dislike the answer they came up with"? Sorry, I don't see how that follows logically.

[Recursion]

112. Don't be absurd

In the 4 years I lived in DC I saw more handguns than I ever saw in Virginia. People in DC love guns.

[Caliman73]

3. Reasonable?

I have said on other sites that the ruling was just the beginning. People who are phobic about firearms, especially those in power who say that they are "protecting" us are not going to back down. It is like the poll tax. Sure you have the right to vote now, but you have to pay this tax that is beyond your means in order to exercise your right. That is what DC is doing. A semi-auto pistol is a "machine gun" come on!?! You have to keep your means of defense disabled until the threat is imminent? How is that "reasonable" regulation. Let's hope that the momentum of the Supreme court's decision carries through.

[defendandprotect]

4. NRA's . . . "Wild West America" . . . good for their sales . .. bad for us . ..

This is a politically directed move on the peace of the nation ---

GOP's "third world America" . . .

[krispos42]

5. DC has ridiculous laws, and they're being called on it again.

When semi-automatic handguns are being classified as "machine guns", you have a problem. Aside from the fact that it's like "NewSpeak", which destroyes the meanings of words, it's also just plain ineffective.

DC has been freaking out about guns for a very long time, and as usual, trying to tackle the hardware of a social problem has been ineffective.

The "peace of a nation" has little if anything to do with firearms. We can stop far more crime by advocating for and advancing our traditional liberal causes than by fighting hardware. And by fighting hardware, we make it difficult or impossible to advance our traditional liberal causes.

I'd also like to note that the Heller decision only affects handgun bans in DC, Chicago, and a handfull of smaller cities. 97% of this country's population, or more, was not affected by the declaration that handgun bans were unconstitutional.

[benEzra]

51. Is Minnesota "Third World"? New Hampshire? Ohio?

MASSACHUSETTS, for pete's sake?

The District of Columbia is taking the asinine position that any ordinary pistol in which the magazine loads from the bottom (i.e., all of them) is a "machinegun." That violates both rational basis, AND the USSC ruling, which explicitly protected the right of the law-abiding to lawfully own handguns.

What they are doing is no different than the southern states that thumbed their noses at the initial USSC desegregation rulings, or the states that initially ignored Roe v. Wade. And they are getting called on it.

[primavera]

62. Last time I checked, they were part of the US too

When you look at the gun policies of the rest of the developed world, which are universally much more restrictive than those which prevail here, well, yeah, our gun policies have more in common with the Third World than they do with the developed world.

[benEzra]

69. Most Third World nations restrict gun ownership...

to the military/police or operatives/members of the ruling party, as a way for the strongman du jour to disarm their opposition.

Exhibit A, Zimbabwe.

Exhibit B, Somalia.

Exhibit C, Sudan.

Exhibit D, pretty much everywhere else in the Third World.

As far as the types of guns Americans can own, we are not all that different from Switzerland, France, or Germany. Or Canada or Australia ten or fifteen years ago. We have somewhat less red tape in this country, but most of the world is NOT the UK on the gun issue.

I also suspect that you may not be aware of the degree of restriction we do have in this country (it is not "any gun for anyone," though you'd never know that from the corporatist MSM).

[SteveM]

60. Getting past the bumper stickers, let's look at "third world America:"

If you think the GOP is moving us toward a "third world America" (and here you and I would probably agree), which status almost always requires dictatorial control, why would ANYONE advocate a policy of gun-control when the government would be doing the controlling?

[tburnsten]

71. NRA doesn't sell anything but memberships

and safety classes, not sure what you're on about.

[Recursion]

113. It's a common misconception that NRA represents gun sellers

Gun sellers and manufacturers are not represented by and do not contribute to the NRA.

[gratuitous]

12. I guess that "well-regulated militia" clause is just another quaint relic

Well, "Justice" Scalia will happily make up his fevered little mind and then write his opinion accordingly, with appropriate citations to truncated non-legal sources, fatuous pseudo-research, and the little voices squirrelling around in his empty cabeza.

[primavera]

15. Yeah, I understand he's arguing...

... that the Framers were "on crack" when they added the well-regulated militia qualifier to the right to bear arms; really, they didn't mean to include that modifier and, had they not been coming down from a bad trip when they wrote it, they never would have included it.

[hack89]

20. But aren't there other contemporary writings that make clear

what the framers intended? From everything I have seen, the idea of gun ownership as an individual right was widely accepted at the time.

Just out of curiosity , what do you think is the militia? Do you accept the present Title 10 definition in the US Code?

[aspergris]

30. I can give you numerous other examples that show your logic is flawed

of such "qualifiers", RI state constitution comes to mind, that do NOT limit the right.

Here's an example...

1842 (first) RI constitution

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty"

while the "qualifier" is the "liberty of the press", the right clearly belongs to the PEOPLe, specifically "any person". This is an exact analogy to the 2nd amendment, and shows your "qualifier" logic is flawed.

This was actually a relatively common construction at the time the constitution was written.

[aspergris]

27. can you read?

The 2nd amendment says the right belongs to THE PEOPLE.

It does not say the right belongs to the militia.

[gratuitous]

35. So what does that prefatory clause mean?

Did they put it in there just for laughs? Or was it intended to mean something? Certainly in the Heller opinion it was given remarkably short shrift by "Justice" Scalia, who clearly didn't want to deal with the language at all in his haste to carve out his own interpretation. I wonder where his vaunted fealty to "original intent" was in this instance? But then, as we saw in Bush v. Gore, "Justice" Scalia is pretty flexible on his principles when his own political prejudices are at stake.

[aspergris]

37. It means the same thing it means in the 1842 RI constitution

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . ."

Note there are numerous other examples of similar language in other govt. documents, at the time of our founders.

Compare the structure of the above with the 2nd amendment. It is STRIKINGLY similar.

So read it and tell me. What does the liberty of the press part mean. Does it mean the right does not belong to ANY PERSON, and JUST the press.

Clearly, it doesn't. The right belongs to any PERSON, despite the fact that the prefatory phrase references "the liberty of the press".

Again, this was not an uncommon construction back in the day. Prof. Volokh's Commonplace Second Amendment references many more.

Fwiw, I agree about scalia. When he claimed that the commerce clause justified federal law usurping state medical MJ law, he showed he is NOT a pure originalist or textualist.

But in this case, he happens to be right.

Guess what? many I might disagree with on a whole host of issues, I will agree with on others.

[gratuitous]

39. Except the 2nd Amendment came along 50 years earlier

And if Congress wanted to establish an individual right under the Second Amendment, it would have and could have so stated - just as it did in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Surely the language was known and used in 1791, when the Second Amendment was proposed and ratified.

But Congress did not use the same language, and though Rhode Island used "strikingly similar" language 50 years later, that state did not use identical language. Indeed, Rhode Island used language that is more "strikingly similar" to the language of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The language of the Second Amendment is clearly distinguishable from that of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which were adopted at the same time, and is also clearly distinguishable from the language of the Rhode Island constitution, adopted 50 years later.

I think your "strikingly similar" analysis fails, and the question remains as to the meaning of the prefatory clause.

[Dimensio0]

42. I am certain that you can provide contemporaneous...

...references justifying the position that the Second Amendment is meant only to confer protection from infringement upon members of a militia, in spite of numerous presented documents and legal opinions suggesting that the protection in fact applies to "the people" as apparently clearly stated in the text of the Amendment. Please do so.

[aspergris]

44. none of which addresses the point

so, does the language in the RI constitution reference a right of THE PRESS

or ALL PERSONS?

you completely evaded that.

not very elegantly i might add.

[gratuitous]

45. The Rhode Island constitution is a separate document

The language in the Rhode Island constitution, as I said, is 50 years older than that of the Second Amendment. It was written by people completely different from those who wrote the Second Amendment. The language used in the Rhode Island constitution is not "strikingly similar" to the Second Amendment, as you allege, but is similar to the language of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which were also ratified in 1791 with the Second Amendment.

Simply put, if the Second Amendment was meant to be an individual right, Congress demonstrated quite clearly in those companion amendments (that is, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments) that it could write an amendment meant to establish an individual right. It did not do so, and the easily distinguishable language is pretty clear evidence that no such individual right was meant to be established. The collective noun "militia" used in the prefatory clause (that is to say, one person cannot constitute a "militia" any more than one person can constitute a group) is further evidence that something else was intended.

The language of the Rhode Island constitution, written 50 years later by a different group of people, and which in any case did not use "strikingly similar" language to the Second Amendment, is wholly irrelevant to any discussion of what the Second Amendment meant at the time of its drafting and ratification. I don't know what your point is in bringing up the Rhode Island state constitution (its language being neither identical nor even strikingly similar to the Second Amendment), but it has nothing to do with what the Second Amendment might mean, as the Second Amendment was written and ratified 50 years before that. It is simply nonsensical to think that the second document somehow influenced the drafting of the first document.

If there is an individual right meant to be conveyed by the Second Amendment, it isn't apparent from the prefatory clause and its collective noun, and can only be discerned by an a priori assumption imposed by the reader. There's nothing wrong with that, but to pretend that it has come down to us from the Founding Fathers as if it were some latter day Mount Sinai revelation is not supported by the plain language of the Amendment.

[aspergris]

46. you use much sound and fury to signify nothing

again, the rhode island 1842 constitution (and numerous other examples pointed out by prof. volokh) use the same structure that you erroneously referenced as somehow limiting th eright to militia.

the RI SC 1842 does reference a right of all PERSONS despite its prefatory clause.

just like the 2nd amendment.

again, it was a not uncommon construction. as i have (and prof. volokh has) pointed out. and the meaning is clear.


and you STILL evade the question

1) does the mentioned constitution right reference ALL persons or THE PRESS?

amazing the way you can prattle for paragraphs, while avoiding a simple question.

but not at all surprising.

[slackmaster]

40. It means the reason they specifically enumerated the right of individuals to keep and bear arms

Was that having an armed populace was essential to the maintenance of well-regulated militias. Without armed citizens, it would not have been possible to have an armed citizen militia.

That may no longer be true, the state militia system may be obsolete, but there is no provision in the Constitution for automatically expiring amendments.

[davepc]

16. Why doe DC waste the taxpayers money by not following the law?

Several towns in Illios repealed or relaxed their gun ban laws to comply with the Heller decision is an effort to follow the law and not waste money in legal fees

[slackmaster]

19. I'm sure that at this point it's mostly political

Those DC officials all want to be able to puff about how they "stood up to the evil gun lobby" in the next election cycle.

[primavera]

22. Slackmaster, can it be we are actually in agreement for once?

Believe it or not, but I agree with you! DC's elected officials have to satisfy an electorate that overwhelmingly does not want to be flooded with guns. If elected officials are to faithfully represent their constituents, they have to do something to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the Fascist Five's ruling.

:hi:

[slackmaster]

33. I'd call it about 80% in agreement, here's where I think my view differs

Once again, I don't question that most DC residents favor the ban and don't want handguns around. Most people in DC are not going to buy handguns anyway. Yes, the officials are doing their jobs by trying to uphold the will of their constituencies. But just as has happened twice in recent history in the city of San Francisco, the will of one community has been overshadowed by the will of a larger community (the laws of California explicitly prohibit municipalities from making up their own gun laws). My personal preference is to leave as many choices as possible in the hands of the smallest community unit - the family or the individual.

Elimination of the ban is not going to result in a DC that is any more "flooded" with handguns than it already is. I don't believe more than a handful of DC residents, a few thousand at most, are going to go to the trouble of getting a legal handgun once all the details of how guns are to be regulated are hashed out.

Those people are going to have their backgrounds checked, fingerprints taken, they'll pay fees, etc. etc., and the fact that they have guns isn't going to make jack shit difference in public safety one way or the other. The small chance that a few of them may successfully use handguns to defend themselves may be conterbalanced by the small chance that their guns will be stolen and used in crimes. Most likely, nearly all of those few guns will never be used for anything but an occasional trip to a shooting range. The only guns in DC that really have an impact on public safety are the illegal ones.

I do sympathize with people seeing a problem with crime and trying to do something about it. But banning handguns in a city is inherently futile for the very reason you pointed out earlier. There is no wall around the city.

[primavera]

34. Hey, it's progress

It's so rare for either side of this debate to be able to perceive any common ground, you gotta appreciate it when you find it!

[Recursion]

114. If people in DC didn't want the city flooded in guns, they wouldn't have flooded it

But they did.

[benEzra]

38. Refusing to let Heller register a 97-year-old design, low capacity, full size,

VERY expensive pistol, that has been the most popular centerfire target pistol in the United States for nearly half a century and also one of the most highly regarded defensive handguns (a topic specifically addressed in the original Heller opinion), wasn't exactly the smartest battle for the District to pick.

[depakid]

50. "wasn't exactly the smartest battle for the District to pick."

When was the last time someone accused the DC government of being smart?

[tburnsten]

87. Can't think of a time!

:+

But if everyone and their mother can't think of a time when the DC government was labeled as bright, then why defend their clearly erroneous and cash-bleeding anti-gun policy? :dunce:

[beevul]

102. Touche. N/T.

[Prophet 451]

49. Hmm

I think that the local government is violating the spirit but not the letter of the ruling. The ruling said you had a right to own a firearm, it never said what kind. Based on a very narrow reading of the decision, it would be possible for the local government to allow citizens to own one specific type of firearm and technically satisfy the ruling.

Of course, that'd be back in court by the end of the day since it blatantly violates the spirit of the ruling. Of the actual things mentioned, banning semiautomatic pistols is stupid. Ballistic tests is something I could go either way on but the part I really hope is thrown out is their request for the local police to be forced to approve their applications. First off, I think that would be a dubious use of the SCOTUS's power and secondly, why haven't their applications been approved?

[tburnsten]

88. It did say what kind

Handguns. Specifically, whatever handgun Dick Heller brought in to be registered, they were under a very clear supreme court order to register for him. Since they obviously plan on trying every available plot to avoid following the ruling, they are most likely setting the stage to have their entire registration program struck down as unconstitutional, since they are going well out of their way to prove exactly why registration is a terrible idea.

[tburnsten]

90. Oh and ballistic tests generally fail pretty hard

ballistic tests on bullets are pretty iffy at best, besides, unless they plan on denying an individual the right to properly maintain their weapon, such as replacing the barrel should they somehow wear it out or if they have polygynal rifling for instance and want to shoot lead bullets, they really can't stop anyone from rendering completely meaningless the ballistic testing requirement.

And besides, what use would it be? Generally if a gun is going to be tested because of a criminal case than A. they have a suspect and B. they have a pretty clear murder weapon already. And in some tin hat cases a murderer could frame another legal gun owner by burglarizing their barrel and then replacing it after the murder, or even just the whole gun.

I agree though, D.C> is wasting everyone's time and money and they should be cut down hard over this.

[Prophet 451]

97. Thanks for that

We never had ballistic tests in this country (England) even before handguns were outright banned so I was unclear about what was involved.

[tburnsten]

100. No problem

Bullets tend to be in pretty bad shape after hitting their target, unless you happen to be shooting ballistic gelatin. for instance-

"As I told her, there was no good news for her client. I was able, using the autopsy report and photos of both the body and crime scene, to prove that the first, second, and fourth shots came from the same weapon. (There was not enough left of the bullets to positively identify them as coming from any specific weapon and the report stated that it was impossible to determine which bullets were 38 and which were 9mm."

I will PM you the link to the rest of that story, it was from someone who is going to school for forensic anthropology, and is doing some free work for a criminal defense attorney to gain some experience. The whole rest of the story is similiar, it was a robbery where two lowlives murdered a third lowlife for his drugs, one of the shooting lowlives fired three rounds from a .38 (.357 caliber) and the other fired one round from a 9x19mm (.355 caliber) and the defense attorney was representing the one who shot him with the 9mm. They wanted to prove that it was the other lowlife who fired the final shot, but it was difficult because of the inability to identify what caliber each bullet was.

Ballistic fingerprinting is very easily defeated, even normal use will change the markings that a bullet picks up from a gun barrel, as will a change in ammunition, firing it while dirty after some rangetime, almost anything in the world will cause a firearm to make slightly different marks on a bullet.

[-..__...]

55. Fenty/DC needs to be bootfucked over this nonsense.

Have federal marshals arrest the whole crowd...

Fine the city $1,000,000 a day for each day Heller and other law abiding citizens are turned away from registering their firearms...

Have Congress step in and pass a sweeping bill that would eliminate the whole gun grabbing package (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1399">HR 1399}.

Either, any or all of those would be fine by me.

[Joe Steel]

103. Why Bother

DC shouldn't even bother changing their laws. They should just ignore the Supreme Court. Heller was a farce and acknowledging it is just compounds the joke.

[hack89]

105. So you have no problem with any city or state

ignoring Supreme Court rulings they disagree with? They could ban abortion or institute school prayer? All they need is an honest sense that the ruling was a "farce"? Is that what you really want in America?

[Dimensio0]

106. Your position would be more credible...

...if you substantiated it with a rational argument, rather than the baseless assertion that the ruling was "a farce".

[tburnsten]

107. Why is it a farce?

The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on government power, not a list of specific rights that individuals have. The supreme court ruling is completely in line with that, and all nine of the justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.