July 16, 2007
Fenty to Appeal Handgun Ruling
This morning Mayor Adrian Fenty announced that he would appeal a March ruling that found that the District's handgun law was unconstitutional to the U.S. Supreme Court. His decision sets up the first major battle in decades over whether the Second Amendment confers an individual or collective right to own a handgun. Moreover, it could have a profound effect on gun regulations across the country should the Supreme Court side with the lower court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in early March that the District's handgun ban was unconstitutional, and it turned down an appeal two months later. Since then, Fenty and his advisers have debated whether or not to appeal. The appeal allows the District's three-decade-old handgun ban to remain in place pending any action by the Supreme Court -- but at the same time also gives the new conservative majority on the court a chance to recast the debate over gun ownership and regulations.
District Attorney General Linda Singer announced that she would file a motion for a 30-day extension, allowing city officials to present their formal appeal to the Supreme Court after Labor Day.
|
Oh boy, here we go. I am not at all confident that DC will get to keep its ban.
The headline on this story should be, "Fenty Begs Supreme Court to Overturn Urban Gun Bans."
This is an utterly foolish strategic legal decision.
Guns don't kill people, people with guns do.
Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure that the "handgun" ruling is actually not just about handguns. Click: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/dcguns.htm
The Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also classified weapons that we now call "Assault Rifles" as "Machine Guns" (any clip-loaded rifle holding more than 12 rounds, doesn't have to be fully automatic), so lifting the ban would also provide D.C. residents with the right to purchase certain assault rifles as long as they don't fit in to the "short barreled rifle" category. Theoretically anyway.
Oh also, you wouldn't have to ask someone who breaks in to your home to wait while you assemble and then load whatever firearm you have for home protection anymore: "Repeal's the district's: (3) prohibition on possession of handgun ammunition, (4) requirement that, under certain conditions, firearms in the possession of certain individuals must be kept unloaded, disassembled, or with the trigger locked."
Personally I'm pretty confident that this ban will, eventually, be lifted. It's my impression that the Mayor's office is just dragging their feet through the appeals process in order to draft up clever wording and legislation to stave off what I guess they feel will be some inevitable apocalypse when D.C. residents can finally purchase guns for target shooting and home defense.
Doesn't look good for the ban. SCOTUS hasn't heard a Second Amendment case since the 1930s; they're inclined to let the lower court rulings stay. Although, the way they're swinging right, I wouldn't be surprised if they did hear the case AND uphold the lower court ruling.
The case DC brought was pretty sloppily justified: DC isn't a "State" so the Second Amendment doesn't apply to DC residents. Yet a couple weeks later, they lobby to give DC voting rights because DC residents should be allowed to vote like residents of any other State. Well, either you are or you aren't.
While it's probably legal, the District's handgun ban is ridiculous and should be discarded immediately. I'm not a gun nut or even a gun owner but I would love to see DC's store owners be able to defend themselves from armed robbers the same way they could in any other big city.
DC could sell hunting permits for rats.
There are some really big ones in my alley.
I may need an assult rifle to take them down!
Guest No. 2 is absolutely right. The Court is gonna treat Fenty like Clubber Lang did Rocky. Then they're going to use the case to overturn urban gun bans.
Fenty should have just re-written the law.
Fenty couldn't have re-written the law. The Council is on recess and wouldn't be aroudn to approve any gun laws and regulations. So his only option for keeping the appellate court's ruling from taking effect was to appeal to the Supremes. I guess there is always the option of withdrawing the appeal to the Supremes in the fall and enacting some sort of gun laws in DC. But I don't know if that would be kosher with the appellate court's ruling.
If I were any city or state that had tough gun laws on the books, I would be super-duper nervous about this case.
If I were any city or state that had tough gun laws on the books, I would be super-duper nervous about this case.
Well, maybe they need to get their thumbs out and pass some common-sense, legal access restrictions instead of unenforceable bans. But that would involve dialing down the patronizing rhetoric and, y'know, actually doing their jobs.
And what is the point of repealing the gun ban if I can't celebrate with a forty of Night Train, a NyQuil chaser, and a pickup game of target practice at Joe's Diner?
Duh, Monkeyrotica, Night Train doesn't come in 40 oz. bottles. You can get a tre-deuce of it, though.
My mistake. Have they been upping the methanol content in the Thunderbird lately? My vision isn't what it used to be.
What we need is for someone to get shot on the steps of the Supreme Court, so Jim Graham can shut that m.f. DOWN.
Bobby D.
Dude, this is totally exciting. I'm almost as stoked to read the briefs on this as I am to read the new Harry Potter. So yeah, this will be the first time SCOTUS has heard a gun case since the 1930's, the last one having the court doing some tap dancing about whether a sawed off shotgun should receive second amendment protection (It doesn't b/c it isn't deemed to be "ordinary military equipment" which might "contribute to the common defense.")
The BIG HUGE question is will the court address what the second amendment means and what the scope is. Usually, that falls into two camps of interpretation. 1). Whether the second amendment is an individual right or 2). if it is the states' right to have a well ordered militia/national guard, and that individuals may bear arms as the states see fit. However the court might avoid the issue again and find a side issue to address (a procedural matter of some sort, perhaps "standing" a favorite of Roberts) or they might address only the most narrow issue possible. Why? Because this isn't just inner city laws that we'd be tossing out--likely also we would have to toss many federal laws restricting intrastate gun sales and possesion.
Let's do some vote counting:
J. Scalia: He went duckhunting with Cheney right before hearing a case in which Cheney was a named party. Gee, I dunno.
J. Thomas: Addressed it in dicta in Printz v. US in 1997. He noted both the "individual right" and "state/militia" right views, but hinted at some radical stuff--essentially saying that if the court addressed the issue and held for the individual right view, that they would be tossing out federal regulation of intrastate gun sales and use restrictions. That's either a bookmark/flag for future justices to note when they decide the case, or it is a hint at his views.
C.J. Roberts: I have no idea. He has said that he likes to rule as narrowly as possible, follow stare decises (give heed to past decisions), etc., but this case seems to present the issue of the meaning of the 2nd amendment on a silver platter. I'm guessing that he (and many of the judges) would like to avoid a far reaching decision that tosses out the gun rules of 50 states, DC, and congressional statutes and the administrative regulations and rulings of the ATF. Judges get nervous about upsetting that big of an appple cart, and they often avoid it by deciding a narrower issue. Hence the Miller case's tapdancing around the issue.
As to the construction of the second amendment, many of the contemporaneous documents point towards an individual's right rather than a state/militia interest. If you take a look at the founding states' constitutions, most guarentee the individual's right to arms. However, the constitution's language does lift a bit from the language in the original Virginia bill of rights, which seems to place the right to bear arms as an adjunct to having a well ordered militia. It should be interesting to say the least.
If you are interested in this debate, google Prof. Eugene Volokh and look for his site called "Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions" for a great collection of sources.
Regarding the appeal, Fenty said in a press release: "Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."
Really?? That explains why DC is such a "safe" city. DC's ban is and ALWAYS has been unconstitutional. Kudos to the small group of citizens who chose to stand up to the system and call them on it. The ban will be history. I'm sure that Fenty will soon be saying that "blood will be flowing in the streets if this ban is not kept in place" just like the gun control folks did when the "Assault Weapons Ban" expired almost 3 YEARS ago. I still see only rainwater in my gutters...
The gun ban may not have saved countless shooting victims, but it has been completely successful in warding off tigers.
15:
I think you get the record for quickest self-contradiction in the history of time.
"Really?? That explains why DC is such a "safe" city."
and seconds later...
"will soon be saying that "blood will be flowing in the streets if this ban is not kept in place" just like the gun control folks did when the "Assault Weapons Ban" expired almost 3 YEARS ago. I still see only rainwater in my gutters..."
So is it safe or not safe?
#17 - DC handgun ban = DC only
Assault Weapon Ban = Federal-wide
Assault weapons were never legal in DC to begin with.
And to answer your question, DC is safe AND it isn't safe. Depends on what part of town you're in and what you look like.
Assault Weapons are illegal in D.C. now simply because they usually fall under either the "short-barreled rifle" category, or the "high capacity rifle" category. In D.C. you can't have a rifle that is magazine fed holding 13 or more rounds, and the barrel can't be less than 14 inches (i'm pretty sure it's 14 because I've been told that the M4 carbine is illegal in D.C., even though you can get 12 round clips for them).
Sorry I was incorrect. Assault rifles are still banned in D.C. because D.C. still classifies them as "Machine Guns."
Ty, Federal law requires a minimum barrel length of 16 inches. Personally, I think that anyone who worries about so called "Assault Weapons" is really not with it. Get someone who knows what they are doing with a good sniper rifle and he or she could bring the city to a stand still for months. Look at what happened with John Mohammad and that kid.
Personally, I have always been against the DC ban and I hope it is lifted. I just hope that when it happens, and the crime rate drops, the anti's will stop with the BS and admit the truth.
#21 - You're right, thanks for the clarification. I'm hoping that the ban gets lifted as well. I have no illusions about protecting myself using a firearm when outside the home (as I won't have a conceal and carry license, nor do I desire one). However, it would be nice to bring my guns from Georgia to my D.C. residence without having to register the legal ones and risk arrest for the ones the District has deemed illegal. It'd simply be nice to be able to save $30-60 every time I go to the shooting range in Virginia by bringing my own firearms.
The Court is gonna treat Fenty like Clubber Lang did Rocky.
Didn't Rocky beat Clubber Lang in the end? And who's Burgess Meredith here?
I'm a current 3rd District DC resident. I have never owned a gun and haven't really put much thought into it, until now. With the Police in this City refusing to do their jobs, my desire to own a hand gun is greater. I have had 2 instances where 3rd District DC Police refuse to charge individuals with crimes -- arson & burglary on my house. If the City Police Department is NOT going to protect my house and my person I have little choice then do it myself. The City has imposed this environment where criminals know how to work the system. They don't support the Police department and now residents don't feel safe. Way to go DC Government! I will be glad when my constitutional rights are given back to me.
In response it Ty and others, in DC, according to § 22-4501 of the DC Official Code, a Machine Gun is defined as "any firearm which shoots automatically or semiautomatically more than 12 shots without reloading."
This would of course include the multitude of pistols that use magazines with a capacity over 12 rounds.
Fenty has knowingly set himself up to be nationally humiliated. The Supremes will side with the lower court. This will probably happen just in time for Fred Tompsom's rise. It will be a major smackdown for the democrats. Very stupid move from a bimbo democrat. I Luv it.
"I think you get the record for quickest self-contradiction in the history of time.....
So is it safe or not safe?"
NOT SAFE!! I was being sarcastic! And, trying to make a point of the delusion that Fenty is a victim of in thinking that by preventing LAW ABIDING people from having the ability to defend themselves makes them safer.
To post #24...AMEN!!
Oh, please. I'm a 3D resident who got his head smacked and phone stolen by a guy. I ended up with a headache for a few hours, and got my phone back within one hour. The guy's still in jail a year later. No fuss, no muss, and no public shootouts.
>>However, it would be nice to bring my guns from Georgia to my D.C. residence without having to register the legal ones and risk arrest for the ones the District has deemed illegal.
"However, it would be nice to bring my guns from Georgia to my D.C. residence without having to register the legal ones and risk arrest for the ones the District has deemed illegal. "
There are no legal firearms in the city except those which are:
1. Owned by a police officer or licensed Security officer.
2. Guns for which a permit has been issued by the District (you pretty much have to have serious political pull for this one)
3. Long guns which were already owned when the ban was implemented. These weapons must be kept dissassembled and may not be moved from one room to another.
Basically you can't bring guns into the District and register them.
DC has created a scenario where people are forced to be victims. One guest stated that he was OK with the fact that he was beaten and robbed because he got his stuff back and the guy spend a measly year in jail. This willingness to accept the role of victim is disturbing. What about Alan Senitt? You think he was ok with his role?
The police cannot protect you because they simply cannot be in all places at all times (Warren vs. DC)
DC has taken away the right to defened themselves.. what other option is there than to be a victim? Well you can move to VA... but that should not be the only option.
I get people from DC come and take my pistol courses who are excited about this development. They want to be ready when the laws FINALLY allow them an effective means to self defense. Anybody who wants to own a gun should be allowed, without a ridiculous permitting process.
www.discovershooting.net
Post #29. So you're comparing getting hit on the head and your phone stolen... to me coming home to a burnt out 3rd floor from a negligent contractor that was working on a neighbors house? Who set my house on fire...! poured water down the dryer vent and left the scene? The 3rd District cops refused to do anything about it. Then when my house was burglarized and we knew who did it and the fact that their actions could have (and would have set my house on fire if I did not notice the break-in) again the officers response. Oh no, we can't charge that. Just re the previous article about 3D officers refusing to arrest criminals and fill out the paperwork. Save your crap for someone else screw head. My point is I have little confidence in the 3rd district to protect my person or my property. I have never owned or even touched a gun... but this city's neglect and the environment that THEY have created really pisses me off with them saying I can not protect myself and my property. Get a clue buddy and hopefully next time you get accosted it is as minor as your previous experience and just a little bump on the head.
#31 - You're completely incorrect. You can register and legally possess guns in the district as long as they aren't handguns, short rifles, rifles with clips more than 12 rounds, etc. I actually called the D.C. Police department on Indiana Avenue and talked to an officer. The procedure is you have to go to the police station with the firearm, give them your fingerprints, and fill out some paperwork. The fingerprints are sent to the FBI for a background check, and assuming that comes back clean, you then have to take a multiple choice safety exam. Assuming you pass that, you register every single firearm you own and you receive certification that you are lisenced and registered in the District of Columbia to own and possess a firearm in your home. This is true, essentially, for shotguns and hunting rifles.
Glad to see you did your homework.
However getting an illegal firearm in DC is relatively easy. I am sure with a few hundred dollars and a few hours I could get one, and no need to fill out any paperwork, or submit to any background checks...
If it weren't for the whole going to prison thing, I might buy my guns that way..
The question is, is the right to protect one's self and one's loved ones a universal right of all American citizens, or is it a right reserved for the wealthy and politically connected?
The politicians pushing for such bans throughout the US almost all depend on armed security personnel for their own safety. Many even carry handguns themselves, and do all kinds of political wrangling to make sure they are allowed to do so. Clearly they feel that the presence of laoded hanguns is crucial to their own personal safety. They therefore have absolutely no right to deny that to other citizens.
Whatever way you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment, or the Founding Fathers' intent, there is no doubt that the overall guiding principle of the Constitution was to set ourselves as a nation apart from the monarchies and aristocracies of Europe, where basic human rights, like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, were not set aside only for those whom a king or ruling body deemed worthy. If the average citizen has no right to protect themselves through the ownership and right to carry firearms, then the rich and powerful should all be prohibited from doing so as well.
I would imagine the easiest way to get a firearm illegally would be to travel to Virginia. I believe Mayor Michael Bloomberg proved that.
#33- Let me see if I understand you- you're gonna pull a gun on a contractor who accidentally sets a fire? And you want to track down people who "attempted" to burglarize your place, and you think a handgun will help with that?
Wow. Here's to hoping you don't pass the psych exam.
Look, the fact is that an overwhelming proportion of violence in DC happens on the street. A handgun (or rifle) won't help you there because a) There's no way in hell the feds will approve a concealed carry situation in the federal city. No. Way. In. Hell. And, b) because, even if they did, you'd be very foolish to pull a gun on someone who's already pointing one at you. Think about it. You gotta reach for it, pull it out, take the safety off, aim it, and fire. The other guy just has to fire.
Oh, #33, and for home protection, you can buy and register a shotgun. Even now. Sure, you're supposed to keep it disassembled and the shells separately, but do you really think anyone actually spot-checks these things? Puh-lease.
"you'd be very foolish to pull a gun on someone who's already pointing one at you. Think about it. You gotta reach for it, pull it out, take the safety off, aim it, and fire. The other guy just has to fire."
Actually the process is: Grasp, Draw, Rotate, Extend, Assess, Aim, Fire. With only a little practice this can be done very quickly. People are able to defend themselves with a gun everyday. Perhaps the would be mugger/murderer only has a knife (remember Alan Senitt). Of course, you can always say "Please don't hurt me Here is all my stuff, I am not resisting you Agiain, please don't hurt me"
"There's no way in hell the feds will approve a concealed carry situation in the federal city. No. Way. In. Hell"
Actually the feds allow it but I will ignore that for now. Why not... What is so different about DC than other major cities in the US? I can carry a gun into the legislative offices in Richmond, with no issues. The only reason it will not happen is people who hate guns refuse to admit the benifts they offer.
#37 Just because Bloomberg broke countless laws to perform his publicity stunt doesn't show that it is easier to get guns in VA. Sure you can buy an illegal gun in VA, but that does not effect the ease of getting guns inside DC.
Let's pretend for a second that all guns are illegal in the entire world, do you think for a moment that the drug dealers would have trouble getting them (where is heroin legal)? or that in their absence knife crime would not be a problem (look at england)?
Some people just need to wake up and think logically and not emotionally...
Hey dumb ass I never said I would pull a gun on a contractor. My point was that the DC police refuse to protect the citizens of this City. I have had not one, but 2 direct instances of this. They refuse to do their job and these criminals continue to get away with it. This is fact, not fiction. That being the case I should be able to buy a gun and protect myself as my hard earned tax dollars are not doing it for me. Will I go out and buy a gun.. gosh I hope not. The previous post regarding 3rd District Police Officers once again brushing off the victim because they don't want to do their job pissed me off. Then to poor salt in the wound the government which I pay a ton of money into says I do not have a constitutional right to protect myself. This is not about actually getting a gun... it's about a right that has been laid out in the constitution. What next they'll start attacking freedom of speech? Gesh, some people around here need to take a refresher course in Civics class.
Learn2Shoot:
It's funny that you bring up how swell it is to carry guns in Richmond.
And Richmond's crime rate is what? That's right. Quite comparable to DC's. And to New Orleans, another gun-happy locale.
I'm of mixed opinions on this one. I do think DC police are virtually useless, and I do think I'd be marginally safer if I had a gun in the house. I personally like guns, having grown up with them.
But anyone suggesting that the crime rate in DC will drop precipitously if the handgun ban is lifted needs to visit Richmond or New Orleans.
As for what's different about DC..... I'd think that's pretty obvious. We are the nation's capital, we are literally chock full of international terrorism targets (both buildings and people), and we have about a jillion police forces that often don't communicate with each other.
Do you really think the Secret Service and other Feds are going to be happy with DC residents and the jillions of visitors to the city being able to wander the city armed to the gills? Wandering up to the Supreme Court or along Embassy Row with their weapon of choice? Not only do we have homegrown nutcases that flock to DC because the aliens have ordered them to meet with the President, we have nutcases from around the globe with an axe to grind against varies countries with very prominent presence in DC.
Not only do we have homegrown nutcases that flock to DC because the aliens have ordered them to meet with the President, we have nutcases from around the globe with an axe to grind against varies countries with very prominent presence in DC.
Ah, the nutcases. Remember the the guy who hopped the White House fence with a sem-auto Chinese AK? Or the guy who flew the plane into the White House? Or the one who drove the tractor that he claimed was full of explosives up to the Washington Monument? And then there's the Beltway Sniper.
I figure lifting the ban will have little affect on violent crime. It won't be the bloodbath the pro-ban crowd fears, neither will it end crime as we know it. Personally, I'd rather have one and not need it than versa visa.
What residents should really be concerned about is a major Katrina-level disaster; a terrorist attack that forces an evacuation. For some, staying behind in a city with no power, no water, no sewage, no public transit, and NO POLICE may be their only option. And if The Omega Man has taught us anything, your luxury condo will have to be surrounded with concertina wire and gun turrets to deal with the vampires, and have a large stockpile of vintage wines so you can wait out the End Times in style.
This law is not about CCW (which would be a good thing) the lawsuit against the city wants to restore the resident's right to own an operational firearm for self defense in the home.
Back to CCW... Yes there are high crime rates in Richmond and New Orleans. But, these crimes are not caused by the CCW holders. In no state where CCW has been implemented has this been repealed. This is because the CCW holders are a self-selected group of people who are law abiding and have not caused crime. Sure as with anything you can find anecdotal instances where a CCW holder did something, but the VAST majority (99.98% I would guess) are safe and legal. There is nothing different about the people of DC which would cause "blood in the streets" There are lots of places in DC which are not federal property in which people could easily have a gun to defend themselves.
Guest 41- Neither did you describe how either situation might have been improved by your possession of a gun. A contractor who sets an accidental fire while working in someone else's apartment? You need a gun for that? An attempted burglary in which the perps never even got into your house, and it's not even clear from what you wrote that anyone was home at the time? How, exactly, would your possession of a gun have helped there? Please explain. 'Cause at the moment you're coming off a a hysterical fool- just the kind of neighbor 99% of people wouldn't want to have a gun.
-a dumbass who's had no recent problems getting the police to do what needs to be done, perhaps because he actually tries to learn and follow procedure and doesn't come off like a raving lunatic.
Learn2Shoot said (along with a bunch of relatively off-point jargon informing the public of the proper terms for the sequential stages of busting a cap in someone's ass)-
"(where is heroin legal)"
Great point. So, since that law has failed, let's just legalize heroin. And, while we're at it, should we should just do away with speedlimits and prohibitions on the keeping of livestock in the city?
By the way, don't assume I'm anti-gun anymore than I'm anti-livestock. Reasonable people can think there's a place and context for everything.
Guest41's situation may not have been helped by the presence of a handgun. But, dealing with a situation where the police didn't or couldn't provide assistance illusrates that you are on your own in many circumstances. What if he was home when the robbery was in place? What the thug had nefarious intent? Ok... so he just wanted your stereo, but what about next time when the police are not on scene already when the event takes place.
Police's job is not to stop crime by being in all places at all times, but to protect society as a whole by catching the people who have already commited a crime, and collecting the evidence to put them away.
There are MANY circumstances where it has been illustrated that police cannot help all the time. Look at the multitide of SHTF scenarios, LA riots many Korean stores were not looted because they had guns. After Katrina many police fled NOLA with their families, the people who stayed behind had to band together to defend their neighborhoods.
AS DC is a popular terrorist target it's residents should have the means to defend themselves in the event of some attack (or Hurricane) which cripples emergency services.
Not owning a gun and knowing how to use it is irresponsible!
There's a big difference between decriminalization and handing out free smack/firearms to schoolkids, doncha think?
I for one would be willing to pay a premium from freshly-slaughtered, organic, cruelty-free livestock.
And what is this "speed limit" of which you speak?
Guest 46...
The point was that making something illegal will not stop the criminals from access, it will only stop the law abiding. Like the old saying says "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."
This has come true 100% everywhere guns have been banned with disasterous results for those who are law-abiding.
Hillman,
Frankly, I don't care whether the Secret Service or the Feds will be "happy" that civilians can own firearms in the district. It's their job to protect the president, diplomats, and other prominent politicians, and they are very well trained to do so. The President travels to many states that have very lax laws on gun control and does so safely.
As for "jillions of people armed to the gills," please. It's not like it's a freaking free handgun giveaway. People that want guns for protection, target shooting, etc., will buy them. I'm willing to bet most people will not.
Ok dumbass I hope you get a cap shot into your person. You want the details... This occurred April of 2006 on a Sunday evening 2 days after a "neighbor" scoped out my house. It was around 9:00pm I heard a bang (which was the cracked out criminals kicking in the door to my basement apartment which was just being used for storage at the time) I mistakingly took it as a truck going down the road and did not investigate. The perps got away with roughly $8,000 in property and caused ~$5,000 in damage to the property. They used a towel to wrap a light fixture to dim the light to prevent anyone from seeing their crime. They left this in place with the light on and it was smoldering when I discovered the scene the next morning. Where would a gun come in handy here? If I had actually investigated the noise and gone down into my basement apartment, what would I have been confronted with? I would have been much happier with a gun in that scenario. I'm not asking the police to be everywhere to prevent crime. They have a roll in this as well, when they don't question the "neighbor" who did this, when they refuse to acknowledge the crime and put the onus on the victim. I have a problem. The contractor issue is just another sample of this, has nothing to do with guns... but has everything to do with the Police not protecting the citizens of this city by enforcing laws. So what do I have to do as a citizen... protect myself if the police department refuses. Plain and simple. I'm sorry that this is too thick of a concept of your to grasp at this point. When you are bleeding to death next time your are attacked, like murdered journalist Rosenthal, I bet you'll wish you had means to protect yourself while you take your last breath.
Thanks. Further confirmation that that you are, in fact, a raving lunatic will not be necessary. Have a nice life.
-a dumbass who somehow actually manages to get police to follow up on things.
learn2shoot wrote: "This has come true 100% everywhere guns have been banned with disasterous results for those who are law-abiding."
100% everywhere? Really?
Monkey wrote: "for one would be willing to pay a premium from freshly-slaughtered, organic, cruelty-free livestock."
- The meat counter at the P Street Whole Foods is ripe for a stick up. Or you could just pay that premium.
-a dumbass who buys his meat off the back of a truck. Well, maybe it falls off that truck. But, hey, it's vacuum packed!
The DC crime rate is rising while the population is the only one in the entire mid-atlantic to be decreasing. The cops can't protect you and in most cases, they won't put their butts on the line for you if they had to.
In every jurisdiction where gun bans have been repealed, the crime rate has dropped without fail. This is according to the FBI's own statistics. Every jurisdiction where tighter gun control laws are enacted, just like DC, the crime rate has increased.
Mayor Fenty must be on drugs to honestly think that the two digit murder rate of 1975 was worse than the almost 300 (or more) people murdered each year now.
I suspect that you'll see a shift in the nature of crime in DC when the ban is finally gone. I don't know if the crime rate will go down but home invasions and home robberies will decrease. I suspect that street crime such as muggings and rapes will increase until CCW comes to DC.
Fenty didn't have any choice but to appeal to the USSC. This way, he can move to narrow the ruling against him. Had he not done this, anyone could have petitioned the court on the disparity and asked for a very broad ruling. He knows the ban is done, he's wagering that he can limit the damage nationwide in his eyes.
#53 - When I say "freshly slaughtered" I mean still-flailing-around-on-the-killing-floor fresh.
The P Street Whole Paycheck has gone to s**t: inventory is stale, meats are overpriced, canned goods are past expiration. WTF?
"The P Street Whole Paycheck has gone to s**t: inventory is stale, meats are overpriced, canned goods are past expiration. WTF?"
I guess that might happen when a store has the highest sales of the entire chain. Flank steak for $9/pound?!?! And I can't recall the last time I bought strip or ribeye there.
But if you like bouillabaisse, give them a shot. Just call early AM and ask what kind of fish they're cutting up that day. They'll sell you the (de-fileted) carcasses for less than $2/lb and they make 1st rate stock.
Oh, and 54, the DC crime rate is falling, just as it has every year for the last decade or so.
These posts are more balanced and thoughtful than I might have expected for DC.
"100% everywhere? Really?"
Yes
DC's request for an extension:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Heller%20applic%20for%20time%207-16-07.pdf
Summary: We've wasted the last two months deciding on whether or not to appeal.
Parker's Opposition to the Request for Extension
http://www.gurapossessky.com/documents/application_opposition.pdf
Summary: DC has had five years to figure out why the gun ban doesn't conflict with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution; 30 more days either way shouldn't matter. Also, the DC Court of Appeals only agreed to a 90-day stay of their decision back on May 8th because it was understood at that time that DC would need the time to draft its appeal to the USSC.
learn2shoot says "yes"
Absolutist tripe like that is flatly incredible. By all means, keep at it.
"Absolutist tripe like that is flatly incredible. By all means, keep at it."
Prove me wrong... Show me an instance where after the law abiding people are disarmed the results are not disasterous. Because even in the few instances where "gun crime" drops knife and machette crime are skyrocketing.
Please educate me...
learn2shoot is correct. go try to find a real example of the law-abiding being disarmed and gun-crime going down. You won't. Since whole countries did it (England, Australia), they have seen gun-crime go UP. How is this possible?
It's possible because "gun-free countries" operate under the same exact fantasy as "gun-free school zones".
It's your premise. The onus is on you to prove it correct. Stating something and asking your opponent to *disprove it* is pretty lazy.
But what would one expect from someone so sloppy as to write: "100% everywhere guns have been banned with disasterous results for those who are law-abiding."
Laughable.
To show that there is indeed evidence behind my laughable claims...
Crime up in Australia after gun ban
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
Crime up in England after gun ban
http://www.gunblast.com/British_Crime_Soars.htm
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/firearms/control/ukutopia.html
DC
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070622/OPINION01/706220393/1008
Kennesaw GA - Crime DOWN!! after guns required
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
To post 64: Did you read the above links from learn2shoot? I mean really READ them? Is that sufficient to "prove it correct"?
I'm guessing that you'll STILL say no. Like the typical anti-gun rights person, you can have multiple, independent, substantiated, documented evidence that doesn't support your views, and it will be summarilly dismissed as being "wrong".
The empirical and the emotional arguments about gun control are entirely incompatible, so it's nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion without resorting to either scare tactics or gross over-generalizations.
Now, abortion on the other hand...
Krisa: Not to mention that it's neigh impossible to conduct a controlled experiment in the real world. There are too many external variables to identify, and quantify and correct for.
learn2shoot: I won't try to hold you to the bar you set ("100% everywhere guns have been banned with disasterous results for those who are law-abiding."). But I will point out that you only provided a few "news" stories by way of example and so, even if they're complete and accurate, you fall more than a wee bit short of proving the (foolishly absolutist) statement you made.
I also cannot resist letting you know how underwhelmed I am by the quality of your sources. For example, one of the publishers of a "news" source you cite also publishes and advertises this book:
shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=23&ITEM_ID=2116
And another "news" source you cite is actually an editorial by the pr director for the NRA... I'll don't think I'll bother to following the remaining link, no matter how amusing it might prove.
Learn2shoot I'm not anti-gun, but nor am I a fanatic.
Regarding Post #69:
No one is asking for "a controlled experiment in the real world". We are asking you to familiarize yourself with DOCUMENTED evidence that was a result of another country who, eleven years ago, DID precisely what you think the solution to US gun violence is. And it has proven to be disastrous to their crime rates. It has backfired...causing the EXACT oposite reaction that they promised. Again, we are not speculating, guessing, experimenting, or fantasizing...we are REPORTING on factual statistics of PAST events.
And since you didn't like learn2shoot's soources (or are too ignorant to READ what the REAL source was), here is the ORIGINAL article (+ another one for good meansure) from the UK Telegraph. Is that a "news" enough source for you??
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/15/ngun15.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml
Oh, wait, here's another great book published by one of learn2shoot's "sources": shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2121
So, I guess they actually *believe* in witchcraft? I'm sorry, what was that you said, #70? Something about me being ignorant?
Sorry, I can't resist shooting fish in a barrel. ;)
But I'm not stupid enough to play the game of "let's run around tracking down every datapoint". The first ones s/he tossed out- his go to collection- were telling enough. Really, your PR abilities are so back-bench it's not worth my time.
I'll just leave you with another "choice" publication by your go-to source. This one speaking the factual history you hold in such high regard:
shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1338
-dumbass, but not a crazy dumbass
I understand now... you have made up your mind and do not want be confused with the facts.
Sure, whatever. I had a great time. We should do this again soon. I'll call you, really.
"I understand now... you have made up your mind and do not want be confused with the facts."
Correct...he/she responded like the TYPICAL anti-gun rights person. Instead of READING and trying to understand FACT, he/she became focused on what books where being sold on the site you referred him/her to. He is so close-minded that he is still blind to the fact that the original sources of the articles were The UK Telegraph and Worldnetdaily, two highly legitimate sources. The site you linked to was just a 3rd party link to the ORIGINAL source, NOT the author of it!!
It's more accurate to say that I noted the publisher of his "facts" also publishes screeds declaring that: Harry Potter encourages witchcraft, JFK was assasenated by the French, and that there is a nefarious plot to meld the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the US. This is aside from the more direct inference one can make of learn2shoot's views by noting one of the "articles" he cites advocates the *mandatory* ownership of guns by every citizen in a jurisdiction.
I have no problem judging a source by the whole of their viewpoint.
-fair and balanced dumbass
Please read "More Guns Less Crime" and "The Bias against Guns" By John Lott.
Also if you have an article which has evidence that when gun bans are put in place crime drops... by all means post it. Educate me. I might be wrong, and YOU could be the person who shows me the ligh! OR perhaps, as I suspect, I am right and you cannot come up with any evidence to refute my claim so you post some ad about a DVD.
Learn2Shoot:
Yes, I posted ads for several books and DVDs published- not just sold, but published- by your go-to "WorldNetDaily" source. Your other go-to sources were "GunBlast.com" and "LibertyNet.com", and an editorial in some TN rag written by an NRA exec.
I'm not sure why I'd bother to refute your ridiculously broad claims when your own choice of sources so adequately does that job for me.
This conversation is past it's expiration date. Cheers.
but you still could not come up with one shred of evidence showin gun-control causes crime to drop, otherwise you would have posted it.
You have proven my claim. thank you
I'll get right to that. Just as soon as I thoroughly investigate whether alligators do, in fact, live in the sewers. I figure that once someone physically inspects each and every mile of sewer line in DC, the mystery will finally be solved.
It'll take a while to do this, I know, but I'll be sure to bring a copy of your pal John Lott's "Freedomnomics" to read while down there. It'll be interesting to ponder his argument that secret ballots suppress voter turnout.
To the poster of #78 & #80:
If you REALLY REALLY concentrate and REALLY REALLY try, you just MAY be able to stay on topic and stick with the issue. Your inability to do this speaks volumes about your ability to prove your point. Knocking the other guy's "sources" only goes so far. Why don't you prove the invalidity of his sources by caming up with your own "real" ones?
#81, see post #72. Post #80 simply recapitulates that. Yet again, it comes down to the fact that it's his premise, and the onus is on him to prove it.
To whoever is this "guest"...
SING PIG SING!!!
I'll see your:
www.csicop.org/si/2006-03/thinking.html
And raise you a:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby