DCist: U.S. Supreme Court Rules D.C. Handgun Ban Unconstitutional

will585

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:16:20 -0500

Monkey, That is a Federal law, and an 11 year old one at that, and I believe it applies to the buying and selling of automatic weapons not the purchasing for your own use.

monkeyrotica

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:20:54 -0500

Any adult who has never been convicted of a felony, has no history of mental illness or drug depedency, and pays the fee to the Treasury Department can have a Class III Destructive Device license. With it you can legally purchase and transfer fully automatic weapons, silencers, and sawed off shotguns to other Class III dealers.

will585

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:05:48 -0500

mw2006: The laws in almost all states prohibit automatic weapons.

monkeyrotica

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:05:56 -0500

Hillman - Some get the women, others get the blond manorexic American Apparel models. Also, abortions for some, tiny American flags for others. And there was much rejoycing.

learn2shoot

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:21:14 -0500

I am an NRA and BCI certified instructor. I am offering classes NOW for DC residents who would like to get a head start on getting their gun. Please contact me at www.discovershooting.net

monkeyrotica

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:19:35 -0500

I'm all for the right to own handguns but really have a hard time believing that the people that wrote the constitution would allow automatic weapons. Gimme a break! You know that if Aaron Burr had had a Glock he woulda used it on that pantywaist Alexander Hamilton. Cracka Freemason be talkin trash 'bout da holmes. This MY house! Then he woulda done a little dance and said, "Yeah-uh! That's how we do it in my neighborhood, b***h! Hear da Glock go, 'pop-pop-pop!'" And then he'd pour out a forty of claret for his dead homie! Secretaries of Treasury, REPRESENT!

mw2006

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:06:38 -0500

What does this mean for automatic/semiautomatic weapons? I'm all for the right to own handguns but really have a hard time believing that the people that wrote the constitution would allow automatic weapons.

cminus

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:13:01 -0500

As a libertarian, I hate conservatives, but I really, really hate liberals. You know, as someone who's looking forward to the end of the gun ban, I really want to like libertarians, but the sad fact of the matter is that every libertarian I've ever met comes in one of two stripes: 1. The ones who will cheerfully sacrifice every other liberty in exchange for lots of guns and tax cuts. 2. The ones who do drugs as well. Until libertarians start acting like they care about other liberties -- say, the separation of church and state, or legalized abortion, or gay marriage -- they're just conservatives with poor impulse control. And disturbingly poor taste in literature, given their fondness for Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand.

monkeyrotica

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:55:37 -0500

this is a great day for DC. why, i'm as giddy as a callgirl! i haven't been this happy since i figured out the chord progression to "the immigrant song."

14thandYou

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:43:11 -0500

"Let's face it, while not all black males in DC are criminals, pretty much 100% of violent criminals in DC are black males." And nearly 100% of people living at or near the poverty line in D.C. are black. Now, where's my gun dammit?

IMGoph

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:09:51 -0500

regentrifydcnow: you're still putting words into my mouth. i never said i feared black people would riot. i talked about a potential race riot. that would involve more than one race. like, whites and blacks. hell, let's throw brown people in there for good measure too, eh? i have no issues. this is all a bunch of speculation on a blog comment thread. when it comes down to it, i don't care if you know what my background is (caucasian, ftw) and i don't care about yours.

regentrifydcnow

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:51:42 -0500

IM Goph - methinks thou dost protest too much. Let's face it, while not all black males in DC are criminals, pretty much 100% of violent criminals in DC are black males. Anybody who denies this is either in denial or a liar. I have no idea what your race is - and I'm damned sure you don't know what race I am - but I bet you think you know - and I'm even more willing to bet you're wrong - but even Jesse Jackson admitted as much when he left LeDroit Park because he'd grown tired of hearing steps behind him on the street at night and feeling relief if the unknown person behind him was a white man. If your only reason to not have the meaningful ability to defend oneself is because you fear black people will riot then I think you've got some serious issues to deal with.

IMGoph

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:45:58 -0500

HCE: as myself, i really really hate people who make blanket statements.

HCE

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:32:40 -0500

That First Amendment is really dated. Let's just ignore that and start telling liberals to shut up. Every time a liberal talks about the 2nd Amendment, ask them if they favor the same restrictions on the 1st Amendment. As a libertarian, I hate conservatives, but I really, really hate liberals.

iAManugget

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:21:27 -0500

so wait wait wait - does this mean we are allowed to use the guy at union station for target practice? you know the one that hollers about how his dividend check was stolen from him for 37 years?

IMGoph

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:09:54 -0500

you know, part of what's really pissing me off about this whole thing is the play the news is getting in other parts of the country. my rss reader is giving me news articles from michigan, georgia, and pennsylvania where they're saying "court rules in favor of americans' right to own guns" but doesn't discuss the voting issue here. i feel like some lip service should be payed to our servile status, if we're going to have our laws overturned...

monkeyrotica

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:51:22 -0500

I sincerely hope that aggrivated drivers, bikers, and pedestrians will finally start taking the law into their own hands. Doesn't anyone take the law into their own hands anymore?

boondoggle

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:14:43 -0500

You know, we had a lot of fun today, discussing the impications of the Supreme Court ruling. But, theres nothing funny about vapor lock. Its the third most common cause of car stallings. So please, take care of your car and get it checked. I'm boondoggle. Good night!

rob

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:01:00 -0500

handguns in dc are badass

mdove11

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:58:21 -0500

Well, alright. Let's activate that militia clause and shoot our way to some voting rights! Thanks Supreme Court douche bags. Thanks for abandoning hundreds of years of legal precedent by giving a unquestionably modernist reading of the amendment from this "conservative strict interpreters."

washcycle

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:48:51 -0500

Since our gun laws were the reasons several Republicans voted against representation, I'm sure we'll be getting a vote in congress soon. Right?

swimmies

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:24:14 -0500

Does this mean I can finally buy that "Fashion Pink" Taser I've been eying?

MikeB

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:22:13 -0500

From a Post story on the likely regulations: "Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said. At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations."

UrsusMajeure

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:08:56 -0500

For any DC residents thinking that this means you'll have ready access to effective forms of home defense, my guess is that DC will end up with orwellian, expensive, intrusive, and needlessly time-consuming registration rules such as those in place Massachusetts. So don't get too excited just yet...

dc4life

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:05:57 -0500

bruisedlee, Ohhhh, where have you been? The thugs on the street could care less about your "evolution theory". Signed, Future District Gun Owner

flamingcissy

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:03:48 -0500

Yep. And roughed up a bit for good measure.

IMGoph

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:03:31 -0500

regentrifydcnow: no, sir/madam/eunuch, you have shown that YOU consider all young black males to be criminals. i said that i'd bet an incident happens where a white man shoots a black teen. i didn't say that black teen was automatically a criminal. what i meant (perhaps inelegantly) was that most likely a perfectly innocent teen, who dresses differently and comes from a different cultural background than said goetz-clone, might scare that person into thinking that they need to 'defend' themselves somehow, leading to an unwarranted shooting, and a likely uproar afterwards. the comparison to the goetz incident was a less-that-perfect analogy, but, regardless, don't you go shoving words in my mouth.

jamie

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:02:23 -0500

@bruisedlee, obviously they have not. Unless you plan to take down every moderately shady looking character you see from a distance (and have eyes in the back of your head for the ones behind you), being mugged generally involves being jumped from behind with no warning, or having a gun stuck in your face, also with no warning. A handgun is about the most useless thing I can imagine in a mugging, unless your goal is certain death. Unless you're a jedi knight I really don't see how you'd be able to draw you gun and shoot someone who's already on top of you with his own gun pointed at your face.

Wizzyliz

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:01:39 -0500

"Having more guns or allowing people to carry guns has never been the solution." Nope ... and neither is the Electoral College.

Mike Licht

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:00:52 -0500

There can be an up-side to this.

cminus

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:00:21 -0500

Am I the only person who wants to use his new-found freedom to practice shooting at life-size cutouts of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy, while shouting out "sic semper tyrannis, mofo!" with every shot? Also, I should be wearing a MoveOn t-shirt underneath a criss-crossed pair of ammo bandoliers. I feel this very strongly.

Big L

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:00:18 -0500

Bruised, They arent allowing people to carry guns, they are allowing law abiding individuals the right to own a handgun in their home. You are right its 2008 and it seems this city is on rate to eclipse last years murder rate so yes I would like a handgun in my home in case god forbid someone does break in while I am home and is carrying and decides to shoot first ask later. We are grown up and us grown ups want our rights to be upheld and in your examples those people were crazy and it falls on those states in their registration processes to weed them out. And accidents happen what if the old man backed out his driveway and ran his grandson over...are you going to ban old people from driving then to?

bruisedlee

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:58:12 -0500

flamingcissy: have you ever been mugged?!?!?

DC1

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:54:05 -0500

wow Monkey -- you just always have to go there . . . Why don't you at least mix it up, and toss in Bosnia, Rwanda or Darfur. Better yet, maybe you can combine all four in a giant metaphor of the awful state of your pants.

flamingcissy

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:53:38 -0500

The next time I'm getting mugged I'll just politely ask the mugger to grow up and use his head. That will most definitely work.

bruisedlee

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:45:20 -0500

Having more guns or allowing people to carry guns has never been the solution. The "I need it to protect myself" or "it wouldn't have happened if I had my gun" arguments are ridiculous. It's 2008: haven't we evolved beyond needing guns to solve our problems? For every gun activist, there is a pussy-of-a-man who needs a gun to solve his problem. The kentucky shooter, va. tech, the old man that got his trigger 'stuck in a branch' and killed his grandson. Come on now...grow up and use your head.

Wizzyliz

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:40:36 -0500

Let's hope the District has enough sense to streamline my: (1) Car Registration, (2) Voter Registration, and (3) Gun Owner Registration Now THAT would be awesome.

monkeyrotica

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:39:35 -0500

Seems like they're keeping the registration provision from the 1976 decision. I wonder, if the police recover a stolen registered firearm and trace it back to its original owner, what's that owner's liability? Can the crime victime sue him/her for damages? I'm pretty sure the burglars who get shot are going to sue for violating their civil rights to steal your s**t. And what about my pants? There's blood all over them! And that gunfire made me soil my britches! I demand $23 million for pain and suffering AND A NEW PAIR OF PANTS! This is worse than the Holocaust! Or should I say "Holo-HOAX!" I read about it on the Internets.

Bethesdaist

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:38:58 -0500

Somehow, this decision is connected to the herpes dating site ads and John McCain ads on DCist today.

jamie

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:38:53 -0500

I knew there was a reason I got a plasma instead of an LCD... to make sure someone couldn't just pick it up and walk out the door. Mine is the same size and it's heavy (and awkward) enough that moving it alone is a marginally dangerous proposition. So come 'n get it, boyz... while you're struggling to carry this thing out the door, I'll put a cap in your ass.

dchater

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:36:29 -0500

@flapjack-- tmoney kind of answered your question. The court can't just change its mind without a case before it, but they have reversed themselves on one occassion that i am aware of. In 2003 Lawrence v Texas, overuled the precedent set in the 1986 case Bowers v Hardwick. These cases were about sodomy. I don't see this happening for a gun case even if armagedeon did break out.

iAManugget

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:34:45 -0500

oh AND, burglary has been attempted before, which is why i mentioned it. haha

iAManugget

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:33:42 -0500

@jamie: flat screens are relatively light - i have a 47" and i carried it on my own, and i am a 110 lb girl.

14thandYou

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:31:22 -0500

"Now - on to concealed carry (by law abiding citizens - we know the thugs already carry)." Why stop there? Maybe DC can adopt its own holiday: Annual Gun Discharge Day. Everyone crowds into the streets and simultaneously discharges their legally owned firearms into the air in a show of public force and a not-so-subtle message to the DC government that they damn well better get the lead out of our water and the arsenic out of our parks OR ELSE.

Hillman

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:29:14 -0500

"Thanks to the courts, a “shotgun gay wedding” is indeed possible." Both barrels, baby. Mayor Fenty, with your inexplicably smooth skin, so pliant-looking on my screen-saver, we're coming for you first. Then that hispanic Bush boy (nephew of GW?), whose name I always forget. He's definitely next.

Politburo

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:27:38 -0500

tmoney true but the National Guard doesn't have to cross an ocean to get here.

demonfafa

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:27:24 -0500

@Reid I'm not so sure about that. You think late 18th century New York or London didn't have violent crime? I wouldn't be surpised if the murder rate of those cities (at least pockets thereof) were just as bad, if not worse than our cities today yes, but I'd imagine their drive-by's on horse carriages were old-timey and hilarious.

Hillman

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:26:17 -0500

"Then you get the women." That's my motivation? I'm all about the power, but can that last part be optional? Or, more specifically, me and my guns (literal and figurative) are coming for you, my Succulent Simian Sweetie....

jamie

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:26:16 -0500

@iAManugget, you must have one small-ass flat screen if some thug can carry it out of your house on his own! I'm just sayin'...

tmoney

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:23:05 -0500

Try this again @sordid I think if a bunch of schmo's from DC tried to go up against the Nat'l Guard, they'd have their asses handed to them. I think the British redcoats said the same thing while drinking their tea...and with an English accent.

Reid

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:22:25 -0500

Woah, check out footnote four. Scalia says "Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is 'primarily collective in nature'." Damn, is that a threat? Does Nino need to kill a Justice round here? "I don't think the founding fathers envisioned handguns in their current form nor a populace so wrought with violence." I'm not so sure about that. You think late 18th century New York or London didn't have violent crime? I wouldn't be surpised if the murder rate of those cities (at least pockets thereof) were just as bad, if not worse than our cities today.

tmoney

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:20:55 -0500

@sordid I think if a bunch of schmo's from DC tried to go up against the Nat'l Guard, they'd have their asses handed to them. I think the British redcoats said the same thing will drinking their tea...and an English accent.

monkeyrotica

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:18:08 -0500

Well, it looks like it's finally time to retire the old sewage trebuchet. We've been through a lot together. There was the opening of Starbucks on 8th Street, the NKOTB reunion tour, the Million Mom March. But it's time to let go and embrace new technologies. Good-bye, faithful medieval siege engine. Hellow manure mortar. Welcome to the 19st Century. It smells like...justice.

Hillman

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:17:57 -0500

"In my 9 years of living here, I've seen nothing enforced successfully other than delinquent car registrations and walking a dog off a leash." Never were truer words spoken.

demonfafa

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:17:11 -0500

@tmoney Just because the Supreme Court says so? I think it's historically accurate to say they always rule in favor of more sensible verdicts. Plessy v. Ferguson anyone? I'm not saying that I expect this court to do anything sensible or for the true benefit of its citizens, but someday it might be nice. On that note, off to Bloodbath & Beyond!

tmoney

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:16:55 -0500

@nogard13 remember that those situations wouldn't apply against an army that is fighting it's own people for it's survival. Iraq and Vietnam were and are a PR disaster. The armies cannot go "all out" because of the repercussions. How exactly would the us army go "all out" on a large group in the US versus anywhere else? Drop nukes? carpet bomb everything? Use gas? The problem remains the same in that they can't do those things without risk to hurting loyalists who would be mixed in with guerrillas. And a sure way to get more guerrillas is to kill family members who were innocent and loyalists. So the situation still wouldn't allow the army to go "all out" and would be similar to Iraq, Russians in Afghanistan, etc.

Hillman

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:16:38 -0500

I got mixed opinions on this (not that anybody asked). But shouldn't we at least require anyone applying for a gun to now show up for militia duty at least a couple times a year? As for regulating that militia, I'll volunteer. But I ain't regulating no ugly militia members, so all you non-hotties need to remain gunless.

sordid

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:15:38 -0500

Word to nogard13's comment. Also keep in mind, the people we're fighting in Iraq/AFG have been living their lives in perpetual war and are well trained with firearms. I think if a bunch of schmo's from DC tried to go up against the Nat'l Guard, they'd have their asses handed to them.

iAManugget

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:14:29 -0500

all i can say is now if you bust into my house trying to steal my flat screen, your ass will be met with a ruger. game on, burglarwhores!

regentrifydcnow

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:14:26 -0500

IM Goph writes: "to all of you celebrating this ruling, i'd just like to ask one thing: when the inevitable bernie goetz moment comes (when a white guy shoots a black teen), and this city erupts in a 21st century race riot, are you going to be smiling and happy? seriously, i am taking bets on when DC's version of bernhard goetz happens... Thanks Goph for acknowledging who the perpetrators of DC crime are. Interesting however that you assume that shooting a criminal would lead blacks to riot. Does this mean you assume ALL blacks are criminals? Or is it simply a knee-jerk liberal response of condescension cloaked in the language of concern?

Hillman

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:13:13 -0500

Them damn liberal activist judges, interpretatin' things into the Constitution that aren't plainly written there. Oh, wait...

RJ

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:12:02 -0500

Thanks to the courts, a “shotgun gay wedding” is indeed possible.

HCE

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:10:46 -0500

"when the inevitable bernie goetz moment comes (when a white guy shoots a black teen), and this city erupts in a 21st century race riot, are you going to be smiling and happy?" No, but you can bet that I'll be well-armed if it ever gets to that point. And I agree, it's just a matter of time before someone goes all Bernie Goetz on someone.

regentrifydcnow

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:10:43 -0500

Mendelson says: "We will have time to revise our registration law, while simultaneously ensure that the safety and well-being of those who live, work, and play in the District will be protected.” What a jackass. If he wants to ensure the safety and well being of law abiding DC residents he'll get rid of the ban and pass concealed carry laws. THAT would give our overwhelming thug population somthin to think about.

monkeyrotica

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:09:25 -0500

I'm also selling a rock that wards off tigers, if anyone's interested.

regentrifydcnow

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:07:37 -0500

YAY! Now - on to concealed carry (by law abiding citizens - we know the thugs already carry).

tmoney

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:07:19 -0500

@demonfafa What lawmakers and the courts need to recognize is the need for new laws that address the historical fallacy of "everyone is entitled to a gun" and also addresses the obvious problem of personal safety. Let's accept the reality that the 2nd amendment in its current form doesn't necessarily apply to modern America any longer. I would say that the supreme court just said that ""everyone is entitled to a gun"" is not a "historical fallacy" but reality and that the 2nd amendment does apply to a modern America.

monkeyrotica

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:06:42 -0500

SCOTUS says we can have guns but not representation. First you get the guns. Then you use the guns to get the representation. Then you get the power. Then you get the women.

jamie

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:03:26 -0500

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeee HAW!!!

flapjack

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:02:38 -0500

tmoney - thanks for the clarification. Cranky - Fenty said on Fox5 this morning that they already had a plan B (and presumably C and D) prepared. Well, as prepared as it could be without the specifics of the decision. I imagine they spent a lot of time thus far figuring out "if, then" scenarios so maybe it won't take them very long to make the necessary changes. Is that assuming to much?

nogard13

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:02:06 -0500

Will DC just pass a law that requires a waiting period for guns? Can they make it as long as they'd like? If so, they'll probably pass a 100-year waiting period to purchase a gun or to get a permit for an existing gun, just to snub their noses at the SC. As for those who claim that guerrilla warfare will defeat a standing army (such as some have pointed out: Vietnam and Iraq), remember that those situations wouldn't apply against an army that is fighting it's own people for it's survival. Iraq and Vietnam were and are a PR disaster. The armies cannot go "all out" because of the repercussions. What if they were the ones fighting against an uprising in a civil war? I'm yet to see one civil war where atrocities aren't committed. What is to say that they wouldn't be committed here in the event of an attempted coup? I still believe that the training, precision, technology, and experience held by our military would be enough to quell any uprising in this country.

teddy

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:01:04 -0500

Regardless of what policies and procedures the District puts into place regarding gun ownership, what on earth makes anyone think that they will be able to enforce them successfully? In my 9 years of living here, I've seen nothing enforced successfully other than delinquent car registrations and walking a dog off a leash. So now all of a sudden people believe that DC will be able to keep guns out of the wrong peoples' hands? How is this going to happen?

TLB

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:00:17 -0500

>Americans really need to think about the public good Or, maybe, about the actual Constitution instead of your supposedly consequentialist preferences. Yay guns and self-defense!

demonfafa

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:00:16 -0500

Let's not fool ourselves: The 2nd amendment is a leftover from colonial days when people A) hunted for actual sustenance and B) were sometimes called upon to keep the King of England out of their faces. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned handguns in their current form nor a populace so wrought with violence. Sure, people always find creative ways to kill each other, but handguns make it so damn easy and more can go wrong with handguns as well, causing unintentional harm. On the other hand, if so many people in this city already have illegal firearms, it levels the playing field of law-abiding residents who feel their livelihood threatened. What lawmakers and the courts need to recognize is the need for new laws that address the historical fallacy of "everyone is entitled to a gun" and also addresses the obvious problem of personal safety. Let's accept the reality that the 2nd amendment in its current form doesn't necessarily apply to modern America any longer.

TimmyTucker

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:59:16 -0500

Thank god I can finally take the trigger lock off my prized Flintlock Pirate Blunderbuss! Have no fear, citizens of DC...if those Brits ever try to come back, I'll be ready!

RJ

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:57:30 -0500

"guerrilla warfare can certainly tie up in knots the best army in the world". True, but the kill ratios are still ridiculously high. In a guerilla war situation, the guerilla war fighter faces almost certain death; while the modern war fighter faces an increase possibly of death.

Reid

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:56:12 -0500

Door's Open Boys!!!

14thandYou

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:55:29 -0500

"Woo Hoo! My constitutional rights have been affirmed." Yeah!!! Guns for everybody!!! I just luv 'em.

drew in adams morgan

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:53:56 -0500

Where is the line forming to get a kevlar vest?

flamingcissy

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:52:55 -0500

Hooray.

Carl3000

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:52:00 -0500

Normally I'm opposed to gun ownership but the law that was overturned sounded kind of stupid anyways. I predict nothing much will change.

jm67

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:51:42 -0500

I don't think much will change in the short term. If the PoPo find a gun in your car it's still an automatic felony (which the US Attorney's office will decline to prosecute). Over time, however, one can imagine law-abiding citizens purchasing and storing guns, and then these guns percolating to the "other side" through home robberies. It may result in more guns on the street in the long haul, although I don't get the feeling that anybody has much difficulty finding a firearm right now. As for Bernie Goetz... didn't New York become a lot quieter in the years after that incident...?

hillrat

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:49:46 -0500

However, given the increasing level of arms owned by the government, it's truly idiotic to think that a few hundred thousand people armed with guns could take down a government that has tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons. Please tell me that you were being facetious, sarcastic, snarky, etc. when you wrote that.

Wizzyliz

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:49:38 -0500

Woo Hoo! My constitutional rights have been affirmed.

MikeB

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:49:09 -0500

I will say this -- and it's one of the lovely things about our legal system -- I've never seen so many words spent parsing so few. Seriously. I think they spent about 30 pages just dissecting the 2nd Amendment, word by word, phrase by phrase.

tmoney

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:46:58 -0500

@nogard13 However, given the increasing level of arms owned by the government, it's truly idiotic to think that a few hundred thousand people armed with guns could take down a government that has tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons. I always see someone bring this point up and it always makes me scratch my head. The Iraq war and to some degree the Vietnam war proves that a small group of dedicated people using guerrilla warfare can certainly tie up in knots the best army in the world. @flapjack I have a serious (and maybe stupid) question: has SCOTUS ever gone back and reversed one of their own decisions without a court case being presented? Nope the court can't just issue rulings from the bench. A valid case must come before them. It is not their job to make laws only rule on them. If DC turns out that way congress would have to pass a constitutional amendment to overrule to court ruling. Also bringing a similar case, assuming you could get them to hear it again, wouldn't likely change anything, as the court is loathe to reverse any of its previous rulings especially those made within the justices lifetimes.

dcist20009

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:46:24 -0500

Well now that guns are legal for law abiding citizens, it is time to review the laws that relate to felons and mentally disturbed persons having guns. Fully enforcing the illegal possession of guns by felons needs to start now; DC has been lax on this for a long time. Adams Morgan NIMBYs unite to keep the gun stores out of our neighborhood!

dpmcnevin

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:46:23 -0500

Predictable, but very disappointing. Every day you hear about some disgruntled nut going off and killing a few dozen people, not to mention all of the gun-related deaths in DC alone that aren't reported. The right-leaning SCOTUS decides that the solution is to give *more* people guns, that should solve the problem! Americans really need to think about the public good and get over their fascination with firearms. Unfortunately both McCain and Obama support the very liberal interpretation of the second amendment that it's an individual right. I'm as much of an Obama supporter as anyone, but I wish he would live up to the 'ultra, ultra, no seriously ultra! liberal' label and be for heavily restricted gun control. Dan Woodley Park

samfarmer

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:45:57 -0500

SCOTUS says we can have guns but not representation.

OldPosterKnownAsCranky

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:45:39 -0500

Doing a quick reading, guns are individual rights, requiring guns to be disassembled at home is not allowed, but restrictions on who can buy guns, who can sell them, and where you can be packing heat are all still ok. As is the prohibition on people using non-militia type arms (no nukes for you!). BUt I wonder if this doesn't mean people have the right to automatic weapons like members of the National Guard. Lots to read and dissect. Practical issues: What does DC do now? Will they come up with new laws and regulations? Or will they drag their feet? What ramifications does Fenty face since he decided to appeal the case to the Supremes?

the new demographers

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:44:20 -0500

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh. Please notify the community that all resulting medical bills from guns accidentally discharged in public should be sent directly to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. She understands the price of freedom, right?

IMGoph

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:43:21 -0500

to all of you celebrating this ruling, i'd just like to ask one thing: when the inevitable bernie goetz moment comes (when a white guy shoots a black teen), and this city erupts in a 21st century race riot, are you going to be smiling and happy? seriously, i am taking bets on when DC's version of bernhard goetz happens...

smith07

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:42:53 -0500

Now the decent people of Washington's children can play with daddy's (trigger lock free!) gun. If there's a better way to teach gun safety, I don't know what it is. Sure is hard to fire a gun with one arm.

Lionel M Hutz

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:42:43 -0500

"given the increasing level of arms owned by the government, it's truly idiotic to think that a few hundred thousand people armed with guns could take down a government that has tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons." Tell that to Iraq.

Randy

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:40:02 -0500

The criminals have always had guns, and now the honest people can too. Scumbags will think twice about breaking into somebody's home! Now the decent people of Washington can protect their homes and families.

MikeB

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:37:55 -0500

Haven't read the decision yet, but saw some quotes posted on SCOTUSblog. If I'm reading those quotes correctly, they said the right to bear arms does not extend to weapons designed specifically for military use. So does that mean I can't use my high powered, 60 rounds/sec automatic rifle for deer hunting this year?

monkeyrotica

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:37:31 -0500

Congratulations, DC! This calls for a celebration. I volunteer Sommer's basement where we can take turns going all Hunter Thompson on a typewriter. F**k and kill!

flapjack

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:35:59 -0500

I have a serious (and maybe stupid) question: has SCOTUS ever gone back and reversed one of their own decisions without a court case being presented? I mean, let's say, hypothetically, that 2 years from now DC has become a non-stop gun battle with people getting murdered left and right (more than now obviously). Would the Supreme Court see that and figure it was because of this decision that the city has degraded to that point and thus reverse said decision or is this the final say until another case comes before the court addressing the same issue?

Logan Resident

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:31:30 -0500

Great News!!!!

dc4life

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:30:30 -0500

Take that Mayor Fenty and company!

ces12

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:29:50 -0500

eh, i've been carrying around guns for a long time now. anyone need tickets to the gun show? ps the gym is THAT way.

nogard13

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:25:53 -0500

Eh, I could care less either way. I was kind of hoping they'd lean this way, tho, just to piss the DC government off, but not because I agree with this position. I think the constitution is vague and lucid, intelligent arguments can be made for either side. Regardless of the arguments, I believe the amendment was there to protect an individual's right to rebel against the government and to possibly overthrow it, if necessary. However, given the increasing level of arms owned by the government, it's truly idiotic to think that a few hundred thousand people armed with guns could take down a government that has tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons.

McGillicuddy

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:24:47 -0500

big surprise. as if the Supreme Court will ever overrule anything that's related to an amendment. what a bunch of pussies.

dcmarkie

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:23:37 -0500

Opinion

rob

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:22:18 -0500

sweet. now i can get that glock i've been eying...