Court Overturns Washington, D.C. Gun Ban

[bcjack]

Court Overturns Washington, D.C. Gun Ban

The Associated Press

The District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns was overturned Friday by a federal appeals court, which rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

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 upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.:biggrin:

[AyatollahGondola]

Court Overturns Washington, D.C. Gun Ban

The Associated Press

The District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns was overturned Friday by a federal appeals court, which rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

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 upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.:biggrin:
This administration has not been necessarily protective of individual rights per se. At least not on an overall scope. I would be more concerned that this was being used as a stepping stone to get this to the supreme court for some nefarious purpose.

[Onthejob]

...I would be more concerned that this was being used as a stepping stone to get this to the supreme court for some nefarious purpose.

Could this be a little like conspiracy theory.:lol:

[David]

Are those black helicopters that I'm hearing? :badgrin:

Seiously, this is great news. :cool: When I first heard about this I was shocked. I never saw it coming.

[AyatollahGondola]

Are those black helicopters that I'm hearing? :badgrin:

Seiously, this is great news. :cool: When I first heard about this I was shocked. I never saw it coming.

OK,
When something is out of the ordinary, isn't it just good sense to be suspicious? And there are many examples of how the current administration has been rather unfriendly towards constitutional protections. Just look no farther than the current attorney generals public interpretations of it. Do you really want him weighing in on the 2nd amendment court battle?

[carcop]

Oh stop with the silly mumbo jumbo ....... Bush is stomping on my rights.........please!!!!

This is GOOD. I laugh at anyone who thinks that by banning guns, you will reduce crime. Case in point: DC, which has per capita MORE police, LEO, security, serveillence, military and nosey bodies than any other city, district, or township!! How's the crime there????

Let the people who want to own guns, get a background check, do some silly test so they can get a GUN LICENSE, and make them responsible. I can sure bet that the local THUG will think twice about whether that little old lady has a .50 Desert Eagle. :think:

[bcjack]

Oh stop with the silly mumbo jumbo ....... Bush is stomping on my rights.........please!!!!

This is GOOD. I laugh at anyone who thinks that by banning guns, you will reduce crime. Case in point: DC, which has per capita MORE police, LEO, security, serveillence, military and nosey bodies than any other city, district, or township!! How's the crime there????

Let the people who want to own guns, get a background check, do some silly test so they can get a GUN LICENSE, and make them responsible. I can sure bet that the local THUG will think twice about whether that little old lady has a .50 Desert Eagle. :think:

RIGHT ON!!!!

I believe it was Texas or Florida that recently began granting CCW's to almost anyone. Crime went WAAAAAAAAAAY down because the crooks didn't know who had a gun and who didn't!!!!!!!:badgrin:

[AyatollahGondola]

I don't know where you are getting that from,

I do not believe that guns should be banned. Well,...at least not without banning crime and power lust the same way anyhow. I'm stating that this administration, and the current court, have not ruled for individual protections as a pattern. Case in point would be the recent eminent domain ruling. I just do not believe it to be a good time for gun owners to play the trial card without a real back up plan for if the court lets us down.

[gabriel]

Banning guns is a bit too extensive - banning military grade machine guns would be something I'd like to see.

[CGMK]

Banning guns is a bit too extensive - banning military grade machine guns would be something I'd like to see.
Not me.

[gabriel]

Not me.

to each his own? lol :P

[Yzeman]

Not me.

OK.....NOW I'm a bit nervous...:wink:

[Mac]

.....banning military grade machine guns would be something I'd like to see.
I'm pretty sure that was taken care of quite a number of years back. Walk into your local gun store and ask to buy a fully-automatic M16....or even ask them just to show you one.

Some other states are less restrictive than CA, but even in those states the purchase of such weapons is highly restricted and tightly controlled.

[gabriel]

I'm pretty sure that was taken care of quite a number of years back. Walk into your local gun store and ask to buy a fully-automatic M16....or even ask them just to show you one.

Some other states are less restrictive than CA, but even in those states the purchase of such weapons is highly restricted and tightly controlled.

I'm not well versed in the subject so I can't say anything other than "good news". :biggrin:

[IrishJoe]

Banning guns is a bit too extensive - banning military grade machine guns would be something I'd like to see.

Um...I don't think you have to worry about that. :rolleyes: (Oh, and can you tell me where I can get a civilian grade machine gun? I'd love to get one!)

Actually, I can not think of one instance where a civilian owned machine gun was used in a crime....

[Mac]

Actually, I can not think of one instance where a civilian owned machine gun was used in a crime....
Right off the top of my head, try Googling "Norco bank robbery" and "North Hollywood Bank Robbery".

.....not that I think gun bans are a good thing, because I strongly don't. Bans only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - criminals will get ahold of them anyways. The whole California "Assault Weapons Ban" is a farce perpetrated by ignorant left-wing feel-good politicians who don't know the first thing about guns other than what they've seen in Hollywood movies. An Mini-14 is no less dangerous than an AR-15 - yet you can still buy Mini-14's because they don't have those "evil" flash suppressors and pistol grips.....whatever.

[David]

Right off the top of my head, try Googling "Norco bank robbery" and "North Hollywood Bank Robbery". Just what I was thinking.

However the guns that Emil and Larry used were already illegal, not to mention that they were already criminals before that and not supposed to own any firearms period.


.....not that I think gun bans are a good thing, because I strongly don't. Bans only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - criminals will get ahold of them anyways. The whole California "Assault Weapons Ban" is a farce perpetrated by ignorant left-wing feel-good politicians who don't know the first thing about guns other than what they've seen in Hollywood movies. An Mini-14 is no less dangerous than an AR-15 - yet you can still buy Mini-14's because they don't have those "evil" flash suppressors and pistol grips.....whatever. Yeah, I know what you mean.

And don't forget those evil ol' bayonet lugs. We wouldn't any drive-by bayonetings. :wink:

[IrishJoe]

Right off the top of my head, try Googling "Norco bank robbery" and "North Hollywood Bank Robbery".

.....not that I think gun bans are a good thing, because I strongly don't. Bans only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - criminals will get ahold of them anyways. The whole California "Assault Weapons Ban" is a farce perpetrated by ignorant left-wing feel-good politicians who don't know the first thing about guns other than what they've seen in Hollywood movies. An Mini-14 is no less dangerous than an AR-15 - yet you can still buy Mini-14's because they don't have those "evil" flash suppressors and pistol grips.....whatever.

Negative, those weapons are classified as "assault rifles", (a term I find rather ironic...). (At least in the case of the Hollywood shootout; I haven't looked into the other shooting you refered to). In many other states one can buy an AK47 or AR15 as easily as a deer rifle. When one refers to a Machine Gun, (especially in this case where it was discussed that they are very hard to get, requiring all kinds of permits), they generally mean something like the M-60, M-249, M-240, RPK etc.

Referring to you 2nd paragraph...Right on!!!! I could not agree more with you. I think its stupid that cosmetic features on a weapon make it an assault rifle, therefore a felony to own. (For example; bayonet lug...)