• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Federal Appeals Court Overturns DC Handgun Ban

WildCat

NWO Master Conspirator
WildCat
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Messages
59,856
Story:
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, a federal appeals court actually discovered the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution! Decision will be appealed to the full court, and probably to the SCOTUS after that. It would be nice to see the high court actually address this issue for once, we'll see. Chicago has a similar handgun ban.

Interestingly, the dissenting judge didn't really disagree about the militia issue, but said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply because DC isn't a state. Does this judge believe the rest of the Constitution shouldn't apply to DC as well?
 
WildCat said:
Story:


Very interesting, a federal appeals court actually discovered the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution! Decision will be appealed to the full court, and probably to the SCOTUS after that. It would be nice to see the high court actually address this issue for once, we'll see. Chicago has a similar handgun ban.

Interestingly, the dissenting judge didn't really disagree about the militia issue, but said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply because DC isn't a state. Does this judge believe the rest of the Constitution shouldn't apply to DC as well?
Click to expand...
How wonderful. Perhaps the US will finally agree on what their Constitution actually means. After 300 years, its about time.
 
Years from now, at the end of the world, people will look back at their shattered apocalyptic society and blame this decision.

...Either that, or we'll get non-Americans making fun of Americans (Woops, Danish just beat me to it!), and probably another Gun Control argument that goes nowhere.
 
WildCat said:
Interestingly, the dissenting judge didn't really disagree about the militia issue, but said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply because DC isn't a state. Does this judge believe the rest of the Constitution shouldn't apply to DC as well?
Click to expand...


Not being a state, DC does enjoy a certain weird limbo on a number of issues. However, it's good to see the courts draw a line on the extent of restrictions that are allowed under the Constitution.
 
WildCat said:
Very interesting, a federal appeals court actually discovered the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution!
Click to expand...

Oh please. From what I've seen over the years the courts have been looking at the entire 2nd Amendment, not just the right to bear clause. I hear the same thing from accomodationists who seem to only think the religion part of the 1st Amendment consists solely of the free exercise clause....

WildCat said:
Decision will be appealed to the full court, and probably to the SCOTUS after that. It would be nice to see the high court actually address this issue for once, we'll see. Chicago has a similar handgun ban.
Click to expand...

...and I agree completely that this makes for a very interesting case. I can't wait to see how the Supreme Court rules on it and more importantly, on what basis. I think I heard on the radio that it's been 70 years since there's been a right to bear case decided using the 2nd Amendment as it's basis. Anyone more familiar previous decisions than I am with the lack of them?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Oh please. From what I've seen over the years the courts have been looking at the entire 2nd Amendment, not just the right to bear clause.
Click to expand...
If by "looking at the entire 2nd Amendment" you mean define it so narrowly it may as well not exist you're right.
 
70 years ago? That is probably the issue of sub machine guns and sawed off shotguns. The case hinged on the thought that 'militia weapons' are what are used by individual soldiers. They used WWI trenches as the back drop. Through some snafu, the defendants didn't show up for the SCOTUS hearing. So the private ownership of Class 3 weapons (machine guns, sawed of shotguns, shotgun pistols, grenades) was regulated- not banned. 42 states still have no laws against MG's, but you do need to pay a $300 licensing fee to the fed BATF.

I'm sure I'm slightly garbled here, but I think I have the gist of it.
 
I guess they figured, "We may as well . . . "

Pennsylvania Leads Nation in Per Capita Rate of Black Homicide Victimization

Washington, DC—Pennsylvania leads the nation in the rate of black homicide victimization according to a new analysis of unpublished Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).

For homicides in which the weapon used could be identified, 86 percent of victims (335 out of 389) were shot and killed with guns. Of these, 81 percent (273 victims) were killed with handguns. There were 48 victims killed with firearms, type not stated. There were 25 victims killed with knives or other cutting instruments, 7 victims killed by bodily force, and 9 victims killed by a blunt object.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0701homicide.htm
Click to expand...

It's pretty apparent that the ban on handguns in D.C. wasn't working. May as well let people own handguns legally. So much for "gun-control works."
 
Mephisto said:
I guess they figured, "We may as well . . . "



It's pretty apparent that the ban on handguns in D.C. wasn't working. May as well let people own handguns legally. So much for "gun-control works."
Click to expand...
Except for the dateline, that article doesn't mention DC at all...
 
WildCat said:
Except for the dateline, that article doesn't mention DC at all...
Click to expand...

OOPS! Thanks for catching that, WildCat. I guess I was a little too quick with the click . . . DOH!

I meant this one:

Since September 24, 1976, D.C. residents have lived under the nation's most restrictive gun laws: Police enforce a citywide handgun ban, and local statutes require residents to keep long guns disassembled, unloaded and locked up. The law even forbids target shooting.

D.C.'s gun-control regime has aroused surprisingly little controversy until recently. Had the law worked, the relative lack of controversy wouldn't surprise anyone. But, if one looks at the data, it is clear that the law hasn't done anything to reduce violence. Over the last five years, the District, never far out of the running, had in three of those years the highest murder rate among cities over 500,000 people. The other two years the city ranked second and third. It seems clear that D.C. residents need more protection then they are receiving.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22768/pub_detail.asp
Click to expand...


Sorry about that. [/BRAINFART]
 
a_unique_person said:
So, if I bump this in a year, will the crime rate be up or down? Taking bets.
Click to expand...

It depends on what kind of crime you're talking about. Since most D.C. resident won't be able to carry a gun in public, I don't think that armed robbery will be affected. However, I'm willing to bet that home invasion type crimes will definitely be lower.

Even idiotic criminals will think twice about invading a home where they suspect a gun lives. ;) Who knows, maybe even plastering NRA stickers all over the windows could have the same effect?
 
WildCat said:
If by "looking at the entire 2nd Amendment" you mean define it so narrowly it may as well not exist you're right.
Click to expand...

I've owned a Mossberg 500.
I've owned a MAC-9.
I've owned a Russian Mauser.
I've owned a Norinco AK-47 in 5.56 with a bayonet lug and a folding stock.
I've owned a MAK-90 with a 75 round drum magazine.
My grandfather had a Colt .45 and '08 Springfield that of all the children and grandchildren only I expressed an interest in owning or firing but couldn't because of Massachusetts stringent gun laws.

Please don't lecture me, especially with me living in Texas where I can get pretty much what I want when I want about the idological conflict between the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment since Miller (back in the Dust Bowl days) and interpretations of city and state laws within the context of Miller and the 2nd Amendment since then.

I fully agree with the decision in this case that municipal and state laws that restrict firearm ownership to the point where the individual cannot legally own or purchase a firearm are unconstitutional (even though I agree with the last 70 years of precidence that militia clause supercedes the bear clause*). It's one thing to restrict individual ownership of, say, a full auto SAW**, it's another to restrict people from having firearms to protect themselves or hunt.

I'm just curious as to how this decision will play out in the Supreme Court when it comes to how the full text of the 2nd Amendment will be interpreted since it hasn't been interpreted to place the emphasis on the bear clause over the militia clause - at least as I see the history of it - in at least 70 years.

* yes dammit, I wanted to type Bear Claws, but I haven't had breakfast yet
** And yes dammit, if I had the money I would purchase a Steyr AUG not only because they are so cool, but because they're the only bullpup I'm aware of that is manufactured with a left handed eject.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Please don't lecture me, especially with me living in Texas where I can get pretty much what I want when I want about the idological conflict between the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment since Miller (back in the Dust Bowl days) and interpretations of city and state laws within the context of Miller and the 2nd Amendment since then.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I was lecturing you, just responding to your rather snippy "oh please" comment, since in my area (Chicago) handgun bans by Chicago and several suburbs have been challenged and the courts act as if the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist.
 
I don't think this will have much of an effect on crime rates. It might lower some, and others might go up, but the full effect will be a wash. You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.

Ultimately, the only way you'll get the crime rate down is to start enforcing laws that respect the rights of individuals. Take a long hard look at the courts and how they've ruled over the past century, and you try and tell me that's been going on. (And, no, Roe V. Wade does not qualify, for reasons enumerated by Justice Ginsberg.)
 
WildCat said:
This has what to do w/ the OP? Does interpretation of the 2nd Amendment depend on crime rates?
Click to expand...

I'm looking at the claimed benefits of the 2nd amendment. Given that the militia hasn't been needed for 200 years or so, just what benefit does it give the USA? The only one that I have read here is the crime rate.
 
Roadtoad said:
I don't think this will have much of an effect on crime rates. It might lower some, and others might go up, but the full effect will be a wash. You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.

Ultimately, the only way you'll get the crime rate down is to start enforcing laws that respect the rights of individuals. Take a long hard look at the courts and how they've ruled over the past century, and you try and tell me that's been going on. (And, no, Roe V. Wade does not qualify, for reasons enumerated by Justice Ginsberg.)
Click to expand...

IIRC, the USA has an imprisonment rate that is unprecedented in the 'western' societies. That doesn't seem to have helped the crime rate, either.

Australia was founded with convicts, but it's current crime rate is lower than the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World

Gun control and severe punishment for criminals is not, apparently, the answer.
 
Last edited:
Anyone have any comment on this from Judge Karen Henderson, in her dissent?

From here
In 2004, a lower-court judge had told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state (emphasis added).
Click to expand...

If this is indeed accurate (I've not seen the actual dissent to see if it's somehow out of context), but would her argument also mean the 1st Amendment (among others) doesn't apply to DC residents as it's not a state? Seems an odd stance to take.
 
a_unique_person said:
Australia was founded with convicts, but it's current crime rate is lower than the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World.
Click to expand...
Your link doesn't show that. It just says that total crime is more in the US, not the crime rate. Of course a nation w/ 300 million people is going to have more crime than much smaller countries. And according to your link, Australia leads the world in burglary rates, Canada in rape, and England in robbery rates.
 
I can believe that. Burglary is a problem. The crims make sure the place is empty, and rob it. We had a recent problem in our area with cars in the street being robbed. No handguns. What is it with that? Surely if we have no handguns, they'd just attack is with impunity.
 
patchbunny said:
Anyone have any comment on this from Judge Karen Henderson, in her dissent?
Click to expand...

The name of the case is Parker v. the District of Columbia but I couldn't find the complete decision online. Perhaps someone who has access to Lexus/Nexus or the like could provide more info.
 
Roadtoad said:
You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear more about that.

When did this slide begin? And why?
 
At any rate, this is getting off-topic (surprise surprise). I'd like to see more discussion of the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which is what the court based its decision on.

Alt+F4 said:
The name of the case is Parker v. the District of Columbia but I couldn't find the complete decision online. Perhaps someone who has access to Lexus/Nexus or the like could provide more info.
Click to expand...
Yes, please!
 
WildCat said:
This has what to do w/ the OP? Does interpretation of the 2nd Amendment depend on crime rates?
Click to expand...

This reads as if you are saying you are more concerned about "words" then "actions", in other words no matter the affect (effect?) something has does not matter as long as it does not contradict something written what 200 years ago?
 
Roadtoad said:
I don't think this will have much of an effect on crime rates. It might lower some, and others might go up, but the full effect will be a wash. You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.

Ultimately, the only way you'll get the crime rate down is to start enforcing laws that respect the rights of individuals. Take a long hard look at the courts and how they've ruled over the past century, and you try and tell me that's been going on. (And, no, Roe V. Wade does not qualify, for reasons enumerated by Justice Ginsberg.)
Click to expand...

I agree with your first paragraph but disagree at least slightly with your second. In my opinion crime rates are not about the police and court enforcement but society itself and what overall people are willing to tolerate. This is why there is no correlation between private firearm ownership and crime rates (apart from the simple "no guns would mean no crimes committed with guns).
 
Roadtoad said:
You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.
Click to expand...

By your logic apparently we are teaching people to respect themselves and to respect the rights of others since crime rates have been going down.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Source

The year 2005 was overall the safest year in over twenty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased over 42% between its record high point in 1991 and 2005
Click to expand...
 
"Safe", compared to what?

Denmark's crime rate has also decreased. We have a historic low murder rate.
 
HarryKeogh said:
Thank you, Darat. I thought the snippet I posted made it clear that it was comparing crime levels from different points in time and not comparing crime levels between the USA and Denmark.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was the latter.

Would you consider the US crime rate low, compared to other comparable countries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom