Court strikes down D.C. ban on guns

2nd Ammendment rights upheld for D.C. citizens

from JoeUser Forums

From The Washington Times:

Court strikes down D.C. ban on guns

A federal appeals court yesterday struck down the District's 30-year-old gun ban, ruling that the right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not only to militias.

Of course the liberal politicians in D.C. aren't happy about these results:

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said he was "outraged" by the court's decision, which overturns a law that "has been unquestioned for more than 30 years."

"Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia," he said. "The ruling also turns aside longstanding precedents and marks the first time in the history of the United States that a federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds."

The second paragraph above is a load of crap. As was Fenty's comments in the first. That gun ban has been questioned many, many times. For example:

Congressional attempts to repeal the District's gun ban in recent years have been criticized as attacks on the District's right to home rule.
In 2004, the House of Representatives voted in favor of repealing the city's restrictions on gun ownership and registration, even though the measure was opposed by the District's mayor, 13 council members, the police chief and the city's congressional delegate. The bill was not brought to a vote in the Senate.

... more in the comments area. Please continue there.

politics
2,558 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

... continued from above.

Lets check things out just a bit more from the words of the mayor that I had clipped above, and am clipping again here:

"Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia," he said. "The ruling also turns aside longstanding precedents and marks the first time in the history of the United States that a federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds."

There's a lot of problems in those statements.  Documented in the same news article here:

But gun violence has continued to plague the city.
    In 2005, firearms were used to commit 157 of the District's 196 homicides, or about 80 percent. That percentage has remained relatively consistent since 2001, when a five-year low of 78.4 percent of homicides were committed using guns.
    FBI crime statistics for 2005 show 10,100 of the country's 14,860 homicide victims, or 68 percent, were killed by guns.
    So far this year, violent crimes involving guns in the District are on the rise, while all other violent crimes are decreasing, according to police statistics.

These problems have continued despite one of the toughest gun laws in the nations.  Again, documented in the original article here:

The District has some of the nation's strictest gun laws, prohibiting ownership of most guns that were not registered before 1977. Privately owned rifles and shotguns must be kept at home and stored unloaded, disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or a similar device.

Personally, I have no issue with putting some restrictions on gun ownership.  Requiring training in gun safety is a good thing.  Requiring guns to be stored unloaded, disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is a good thing. 

Blatantly forbidding gun ownership for a normal (non-criminal) citizen is a bad thing.  If you've never been convicted of a violent crime, or other major felony, then you should not be prohibited from owning a gun for your own protection, because you are a collector, or for any other reason you may choose.

As this appeals court found, the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the 2nd Ammendment to the U.S. constitution, and finally we're seeing courts that are smart enough to say that is the case.

 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Congressional attempts to repeal the District's gun ban in recent years have been criticized as attacks on the District's right to home rule.


I think it's pretty unfair that the Congress can put their nose into a district's business. Specially since this district isn't represented fully as it should.

Why should the rest of USA rule a district's internal government?
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey terp....notice how "nobody" on the left has bothered to comment?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hey terp....notice how "nobody" on the left has bothered to comment?

They're too busy trying to find hiding places from all of the illegal gun shooting (that is, firing of guns that are illegal to own or have in D.C.) that goes on in D.C.