D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

soulsinging · March 2007

69charger wrote:

We’re also left with the conclusion that civilians should be allowed to carry and own firearms of all types and that government shall not be allowed to take away that right. As Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Of course, what do they mean by ‘arms’? There are some libertarians who insist that this implies that we should be able to own anything we wish up to and including nuclear weapons. I left this for the conclusion to show that liberty-minded individuals can be just as self-serving when they read the constitution. Arms is the only word that the Founders used that was truly vague, even when viewed through the light of historical perspective. Artillery and bombs were of course known to exist by then, and were also referred to as ‘arms’. However, ‘Keep and Bear’ would be the key phrases here. I’m a strong guy, but I’d be hard-pressed to bear even a four-pounder cannon. And, I’m almost positive I wouldn’t be able to move more than 5 yards with it strapped to my back, if my knees didn’t collapse with weight in the first place.

Nope, very hard to bear something much bigger than a small arm (firearm). Not to mention that artillery and explosives were not (and for the most part still aren’t) individual weapons at the time of the writing of the Constitution. They are instead thought of as force multipliers and methods of projection of power. Even though there are individuals at the trigger, fuse, or button, they aren’t designed to protect the individual or harm another individual, but to protect and likewise damage larger bodies of men from the squad on up. Thus even though mortars, RPG’s, etc can be born and fired by individuals they aren’t really ‘individual weapons’. Besides, as seen by the Patrick Henry quote and the writings of others’, the Framers clearly meant firearms when discussing individual weapons.

http://www.indiancowboy.net/blog/?p=224

i think you just won the olympic gold medal for most acrobatic stretch of constitutional interpretation. that entire distinction is based upon an interpretation of the word "bear" which is debatable. and there are a LOT of parts of the constitution that are very vague. to say that they CLEARLY meant guns is ridiculous. maybe they did, and maybe there's an argument for it, but it is by no means clear. furthermore, if you're going to argue something like that, there are a lot of guns available today that would certainly not fit into the definition you give.

onelongsong · March 2007

69charger wrote:

D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, Violates Individual Right To Own A Gun

Friday, March 09, 2007

This week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia’s ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people'...leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." Also, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."
In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held as follows:

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Finally they get something right!!! Yay!

the decision did not touch on the right of a person to defend oneself.
IF a person has a right to defend him/her self; THEN the government cannot take away the means by which one must defend themselves.

callen · March 2007

dunkman wrote:

is this because you cant get a girlfriend?

its about feeling insecure in this mean world. Course we're (in the US) bombarded daily about evil doers...and we need to protect ourselves from these evil do'ers....minorities...and added all them muslims.

onelongsong · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

"reliable personal defence weapon" cute name, sounds like a lot for a baseball bat,

ON the subject of what teh Founding Fathers meant, do you really think they meant the types of guns that are around today, and for the ongoing carnage in your society from gun crime, I mean seriously ?? And was it possibly a rash inclusion, inspired by the recent military victory which secured independence ?? What is so sacred about a constitution ??

the founding fathers meant "the most modern weapons available". there were no exceptions included in the second ammendment.

the constitution is sacred because it was written by an oppressed people and designed as a model to keep the people free from oppression. you cannot oppress an armed society. throughout history a people or society had to be disarmed prior to oppression or control by another.

my question is why does americans right to own guns bother so many that do not live here? that seems to be the big opposition here. no one has offered any evidence to prove that their being disarmed has stopped any crime. nor has anyone offered any "per capita" data. if america has 10 times more people; then our crime would be 10 fold to equal your crime rate.

dunkman · March 2007

onelongsong wrote:

nor has anyone offered any "per capita" data. if america has 10 times more people; then our crime would be 10 fold to equal your crime rate.

i've given loads of "per capita" data on here regarding gun related deaths, etc.

data published by the US government as well,.... not data doen by those two geeks on X-files.. or someone who owns a daisy painted VW camper van...

its on the numerous gun threads on the MT... i dont feel the urge to post it again for it to subsequently ignored

mca47 · March 2007

I totally want a fighter jet!!!

How cool would THAT be? Maybe a Harrier jet. Sure, they aren't as fast...but they seem a bit more practical for the average Joe.

If anything, I could fly across country in like 30 minutes!

Then I'd get a tank! Who's gonna fuck with someone who's got a tank?

gue_barium · March 2007

onelongsong wrote:

the founding fathers meant "the most modern weapons available". there were no exceptions included in the second ammendment.

I hardly think so.

onelongsong wrote:

the constitution is sacred because it was written by an oppressed people and designed as a model to keep the people free from oppression. you cannot oppress an armed society. throughout history a people or society had to be disarmed prior to oppression or control by another.

The founding fathers, and constitutions-signers were rich, slave-owning aristocrats.

onelongsong wrote:

if america has 10 times more people; then our crime would be 10 fold to equal your crime rate.

That's a silly argument. It has no basis in fact. Some countries (or cities) have more/less crime than others.

onelongsong · March 2007

mca47 wrote:

I totally want a fighter jet!!!

How cool would THAT be? Maybe a Harrier jet. Sure, they aren't as fast...but they seem a bit more practical for the average Joe.

If anything, I could fly across country in like 30 minutes!

Then I'd get a tank! Who's gonna fuck with someone who's got a tank?

you can own a tank or fighter jet. demiliterized of course. i once had a neighbor who owned a WWI tank. visit an air show and you'll meet a lot of people that privately own military aircraft.

jeffbr · March 2007

gue_barium wrote:

The founding fathers, and constitutions-signers were rich, slave-owning aristocrats.

Well, shit. I guess you just invalidated our entire constitutional republic.

Or maybe this is completely tangential and irrelevant.

gue_barium · March 2007

jeffbr wrote:

Well, shit. I guess you just invalidated our entire constitutional republic.

Or maybe this is completely tangential and irrelevant.

I think the constitution is just fine, but i wouldn't call it sacred.

jeffbr · March 2007

gue_barium wrote:

I think the constitution is just fine, but i wouldn't call it sacred.

I've never called it sacred, but I also don't want to open it up and have people start fucking with it. The only proposals for ammendments to the constitution I've seen lately have had to do with restrictions to freedom and liberty. Ban gay marriage, ban flag burning, ban abortion, ban, ban, ban.

gue_barium · March 2007

jeffbr wrote:

I've never called it sacred, but I also don't want to open it up and have people start fucking with it. The only proposals for ammendments to the constitution I've seen lately have had to do with restrictions to freedom and liberty. Ban gay marriage, ban flag burning, ban abortion, ban, ban, ban.

You responded to a reply I made to someone who did call it sacred.

thankyougrandma · March 2007

So is it legal for an american citizen to buy a private own nuclear missile?

I still laugh at the "RIGHT" to own a gun that is include in the constitution, where is it written in this Constitution that you have a Constitutional right to have a decent place to live in, or a decent roofs to raise your family under? I guess some rights have been forgetten at the profits of corporate rights. But i'm canadian, AND french, so what would i know?

onelongsong · March 2007

gue_barium wrote:

I hardly think so.

then show me the exceptions. if the founding fathers thought that guns would never progress past the point they have; or; if the founding fathers wanted future generations to own/posess weapons inferior to their attackers; please show me the evidence. in addition to the constitution we have letters written between the founding fathers which further express their intent. are you taking these into consideration?

gue_barium wrote:

The founding fathers, and constitutions-signers were rich, slave-owning aristocrats.

which was the accepted behavior of the time. what's your point?

gue_barium wrote:

That's a silly argument. It has no basis in fact. Some countries (or cities) have more/less crime than others.

which is why stats are given "per capita". if i take 10 canadian criminals and 10 american vicars and compare their criminal activities; i could say that 10 out of 10 canadians are criminals yet all americans are not. it's rediculous.

different cities have different crime rates because THERE'S MORE BLOODY PEOPLE! i live in a town of 2000 people. everyone carries guns. we've had no real crime and no gun deaths. following your train of thought; this either proves that an armed society is a polite society; OR; that people here are much better people than those in say NYC.

being on the subject; if you trace back crime rates in cities; cities where you are not allowed to carry a gun have much higher crime rates. search back further and you will see that crime increased when the city banned victims from carrying guns.

a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.

thankyougrandma · March 2007

onelongsong wrote:

then show me the exceptions. if the founding fathers thought that guns would never progress past the point they have; or; if the founding fathers wanted future generations to own/posess weapons inferior to their attackers; please show me the evidence. in addition to the constitution we have letters written between the founding fathers which further express their intent. are you taking these into consideration?

which was the accepted behavior of the time. what's your point?

which is why stats are given "per capita". if i take 10 canadian criminals and 10 american vicars and compare their criminal activities; i could say that 10 out of 10 canadians are criminals yet all americans are not. it's rediculous.

different cities have different crime rates because THERE'S MORE BLOODY PEOPLE! i live in a town of 2000 people. everyone carries guns. we've had no real crime and no gun deaths. following your train of thought; this either proves that an armed society is a polite society; OR; that people here are much better people than those in say NYC.

being on the subject; if you trace back crime rates in cities; cities where you are not allowed to carry a gun have much higher crime rates. search back further and you will see that crime increased when the city banned victims from carrying guns.

a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.

There are citizens who are criminals, and your country give these people easy access to every kind of tools they need, then you claim that you have a right to own a gun to protect yourself against other citizens who own guns but are dangerous. It's a never ending circle that makes the whole bullshit that is the NRA alive and very strong,

In other words, every level of society in the USA is allowed and encourage to own guns, to defend themselves against other gun owners. That's why in most civilized nation in the world, we rely on cops to do this job of protection, and still have lower crime rate than in the US. To each their own i guess.

onelongsong · March 2007

thankyougrandma wrote:

So is it legal for an american citizen to buy a private own nuclear missile?

I still laugh at the "RIGHT" to own a gun that is include in the constitution, where is it written in this Constitution that you have a Constitutional right to have a decent place to live in, or a decent roofs to raise your family under? I guess some rights have been forgetten at the profits of corporate rights. But i'm canadian, AND french, so what would i know?

the persuit of happiness. you don't have a right to a roof over your head; you have the right to put a roof over your head. you have the right to choose. you can choose to be poor or choose to work and persue your dreams and happiness.

a nuclear missle is a WMD and falls under differnt guidelines.

but as you said; you're canadian and a SUBJECT.

thankyougrandma · March 2007

onelongsong wrote:

the persuit of happiness. you don't have a right to a roof over your head; you have the right to put a roof over your head. you have the right to choose. you can choose to be poor or choose to work and persue your dreams and happiness.

a nuclear missle is a WMD and falls under differnt guidelines.

but as you said; you're canadian and a SUBJECT.

It's pretty lame compare to the clear amendment that calls for the RIGHT to own a weapon, the right to have a decent place to live is include in a blurry paragraph (pursuit of happiness). Let me put it this way, a homeless man wouldn't win anything in court if he'd be calling for his right to have a decent place to live, but someone will win his case for his right to have a decent gun to defend himself (probably against the poor homeless guy), pretty fucked up priorities.

onelongsong · March 2007

thankyougrandma wrote:

There are citizens who are criminals, and your country give these people easy access to every kind of tools they need, then you claim that you have a right to own a gun to protect yourself against other citizens who own guns but are dangerous. It's a never ending circle that makes the whole bullshit that is the NRA alive and very strong,

In other words, every level of society in the USA is allowed and encourage to own guns, to defend themselves against other gun owners. That's why in most civilized nation in the world, we rely on cops to do this job of protection, and still have lower crime rate than in the US. To each their own i guess.

so i guess there's a cop following every citizen around to protect them from crime. here; a cop is called AFTER a crime is committed.
i've carried a handgun into canada several times so your laws are worth only the paper they are written on.

gue_barium · March 2007

onelongsong wrote:

then show me the exceptions. if the founding fathers thought that guns would never progress past the point they have; or; if the founding fathers wanted future generations to own/posess weapons inferior to their attackers; please show me the evidence. in addition to the constitution we have letters written between the founding fathers which further express their intent. are you taking these into consideration?

which was the accepted behavior of the time. what's your point?

which is why stats are given "per capita". if i take 10 canadian criminals and 10 american vicars and compare their criminal activities; i could say that 10 out of 10 canadians are criminals yet all americans are not. it's rediculous.

different cities have different crime rates because THERE'S MORE BLOODY PEOPLE! i live in a town of 2000 people. everyone carries guns. we've had no real crime and no gun deaths. following your train of thought; this either proves that an armed society is a polite society; OR; that people here are much better people than those in say NYC.

being on the subject; if you trace back crime rates in cities; cities where you are not allowed to carry a gun have much higher crime rates. search back further and you will see that crime increased when the city banned victims from carrying guns.

a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.

I understand what per capita means. That doesn't change the fact that some regions/countries/cities are have more/less crime, per capita, than others. I don't believe that guns have a direct correlation to most of those stats. The anti-gun crowd uses "gun crimes" in their stats, the pro-gun crowd uses arguments like yours.
I'm pro choice, but I think the NRA and the "anti-gun" groups are both off full of shit for the most part. They both miss the bigger picture entirely when they ply their stats. Bowling for Columbine has a good example of this, when Moore cites the relative peace (and relative lack of "gun crime") in that country depsite the fact that a very large segment of the Canadian population owns guns.

onelongsong · March 2007

http://www.billofrights.com/

here's some information.

D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

Comments

Categories