Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    01.29.02
    Age
    49
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    22,946
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 04:37 PM
    Likes
    842
    Liked 1,229 Times in 448 Posts

    Default High court to weigh ban on gun ownership

    11 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

    The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

    City officials said the law is designed to reduce gun violence, noting that four out of every five homicides this year was committed with a gun. Opponents of the ban pointed to the level of violence to make their case that Washington residents should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves in their homes.

    "This is clearly going to be one of the biggest ... cases decided this year," said Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett. "It is one of the very few times when the Supreme Court has the opportunity to interpret a provision of the Constitution ... unencumbered by previous Supreme Court rulings."

    The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

    The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

    Gun-control advocates say the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th-century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

    Alan Gura, a lawyer for Washington residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.

    Guns be regulated but not banned, Gura said. "This isn't going to let crazy people have guns or felons have guns," he said at a news conference outside the court.

    Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, noted that 44 state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. "The American people know this is an individual right the way they know that water quenches their thirst," LaPierre said. "The Second Amendment allows no line to be drawn between individuals and their firearms."

    Washington Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said city officials were grateful the Supreme Court took the handguns case and believed they would ultimately prevail. Fenty, speaking at a news conference in a District office building, called it "the most important court case the District of Columbia has been involved in and possibly the most important decision a city or state has been involved in for decades."

    Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety."

    Barnett, the Georgetown professor, said that even if the court decides there is an individual right to have guns, it still could determine that broad restrictions short of a ban are legal.

    Such a decision won't "automatically determine the outcome of any challenge to any gun law," Barnett said.

    Arguments probably will be in March, with a decision expected before the end of June. A ruling could energize people on both sides of the issue for the fall campaigns.

    Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who as New York mayor sued the gun industry for letting criminals get guns, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press that the case "is a very, very strong description of how important personal liberties are in this country and how we have to respect them."

    Giuliani now says the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own handguns and is not, as he previously argued, limited to the rights of states to maintain citizen militias.

    The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but it did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

    The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.

    The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

    The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.

    Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.

    Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

    Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home — about a mile from the court — for protection.

    The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."

    If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.

    Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities.

    According to the District's medical examiner, there were 177 homicides in 2006. Of those, 135 were firearm-related. In 1975, the medical examiner said that 135 of the District's 207 homicides were firearm-related, according to a Washington Post article from that era.

    The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted but that the ban went too far.

    The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on the case.

    The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
    "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.” -- Gen. George S. Patton

  2. #2
    Sinner's Swing!
    Join Date
    11.21.03
    Posts
    3,080
    Last Online

    07.01.10 @ 06:21 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Now there is a hot-button issue that will become an issue in the Presidential race if the judges rule a ban is Constitutional.

  3. #3
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,634
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.12.17 @ 02:48 PM
    Likes
    566
    Liked 2,218 Times in 1,118 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    It says "the people" have a right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. If it said "the states" they would have the case. I'm not sure how you could possibly say that ban is constitutional. However much sense it makes or doesn't make, there's no way that's constitutional.
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  4. #4
    Sinner's Swing!
    Join Date
    11.21.03
    Posts
    3,080
    Last Online

    07.01.10 @ 06:21 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    It says "the people" have a right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. If it said "the states" they would have the case. I'm not sure how you could possibly say that ban is constitutional. However much sense it makes or doesn't make, there's no way that's constitutional.
    I agree. But with the legalistic society we have and all the contortions of wording that lawyers and jurist are capable of doing, you can't take anything for granted. I, for one, hate guns but I never felt a full on ban would be legal or have the ultimate desired results. It'll be interesting to see how they rule. If they vote it constitutional, the Republicans Presidential candidate will have been given some serious ammo (pardon the pun) to go up against the Democratic nominee.

  5. #5
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    06.15.06
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,741
    Favorite VH Album

    VHIII/WACF/OU51BALUCK
    Last Online

    07.24.11 @ 04:36 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    to me there's a bigger picture here...this will certainly make into the election and inevitably, the republic party, the party of the conservatives who believe in limiting government involvment in the lives of the individual, will champion people's right to bear arms and argue against the governments ability to pass such bans. I agree with them. What troubles me is that while championing this example of small unintrusive government they will also champion such intrusive concepts as bans against abortion, bans against gay marriage, bans against bedroom activities between consenting adults, and other government programs that extend its influence and intrusiveness into the economy like sanctions, incentives, tax breaks and tax shelters as well as other incredible intrusive notions such as wire taps and relaxed interpretations of probable cause and reasons for search.

    to me small government means small fucking government. Our's is HUGE and it's attempts to ban guns is just one tiny little aspect of how out of control it is. There are laws and regulations banning or limiting citizen's behaviour, speech and access to information in almost every possible area of private life as well as a slew of government programs, sanctions, and legislation that extend its influence into every aspect of our "free market" economy. Add that the disgusting Patriot Act and we have issues that are far bigger than anything that is going to ever come up before the supreme court or end up as talking points during some silly televised debate.

    And I'm not raking on republicans...i'm raking on our government period. It's just that I'm really amazed at the irony of what the republican party is SUPPOSED to stand for and what it actually does.

  6. #6
    Sinner's Swing!
    Join Date
    11.21.03
    Posts
    3,080
    Last Online

    07.01.10 @ 06:21 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by broken9500 View Post
    to me there's a bigger picture here...this will certainly make into the election and inevitably, the republic party, the party of the conservatives who believe in limiting government involvment in the lives of the individual, will champion people's right to bear arms and argue against the governments ability to pass such bans. I agree with them. What troubles me is that while championing this example of small unintrusive government they will also champion such intrusive concepts as bans against abortion, bans against gay marriage, bans against bedroom activities between consenting adults, and other government programs that extend its influence and intrusiveness into the economy like sanctions, incentives, tax breaks and tax shelters as well as other incredible intrusive notions such as wire taps and relaxed interpretations of probable cause and reasons for search.

    to me small government means small fucking government. Our's is HUGE and it's attempts to ban guns is just one tiny little aspect of how out of control it is. There are laws and regulations banning or limiting citizen's behaviour, speech and access to information in almost every possible area of private life as well as a slew of government programs, sanctions, and legislation that extend its influence into every aspect of our "free market" economy. Add that the disgusting Patriot Act and we have issues that are far bigger than anything that is going to ever come up before the supreme court or end up as talking points during some silly televised debate.

    And I'm not raking on republicans...i'm raking on our government period. It's just that I'm really amazed at the irony of what the republican party is SUPPOSED to stand for and what it actually does.
    I agree with you. What pisses me off is that political debate has been reduced to what can be conveyed in TV/radio soundbites/commercials and that policy is dictated by special interest groups. Yes, there have always been special interest groups but when a campaign cost millions of $$$ to run because the candidates need to buy air time to get those meaningless soundbites to the masses, hence a vicious circle that requires said special interest to fund. And nothing comes for free. What gets lost is substantive debate on issues and real legistlation that isn't bogged down by hidden costs (economic and social).

    I agree that government is was too big and, as a by-product, intrusive. Government bureaucracy (any government) is self-perpetuating where the primary purpose is to justify itself and a secondary purpose to expand. Yes, government is necessary for order and protection but there is a fine line in areas where, even with good intentions, government crosses to become constraining.

  7. #7
    Baluchitherium Guitar Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.08.01
    Age
    47
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,334
    Favorite VH Song

    Mean Street
    Last Online

    03.01.10 @ 10:22 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Donor

    Default

    A few random thoughts...

    1. Washington D.C. is not a state.

    2. I think it is highly unlikely the current court will uphold the ban.

    3. According to the article, this "ban" has been in effect since 1976. Obviously, it's been extremely effective.

  8. #8
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    06.15.06
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,741
    Favorite VH Album

    VHIII/WACF/OU51BALUCK
    Last Online

    07.24.11 @ 04:36 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Shark View Post

    3. According to the article, this "ban" has been in effect since 1976. Obviously, it's been extremely effective.
    yeah that little tidbit is more than a little amusing...if there's any place where there is no shortage of handguns, it would be DC...

    on a side note, even as someone who supports gun ownership, I absolutely despise the phrase "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns"

  9. #9
    Good Enough KRAMER5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    04.07.04
    Age
    46
    Location
    NASHVILLE,TN
    Posts
    1,816
    Favorite VH Album

    VH II
    Favorite VH Song

    D.O.A.
    Last Online

    08.22.16 @ 01:33 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 67 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    if they would finally start looking at the real problem rather that using some kinda mechanical piece as a way to escape the real problem at hand you will always have someone to point the finger (not the trigger finger) at
    I used to wonder why he was grinning all the time(Michael Ian Black talkin about EVH on VH1 I love the 80's) but then i realized the reason he's grinning is because he's Eddie F*#king Van Halen

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Court Won't Review Ban on Sex Toys
    By voivod in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02.23.05, 05:25 AM
  2. How much does EDWINAS son weigh?????
    By Axeman5150 in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01.06.05, 07:37 AM
  3. Who has that "court transcript" link of Michael Jackson's '93 court appearance?
    By dirtymovies in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02.20.03, 07:25 PM
  4. Organized Crime In High Court!
    By theodore templeman in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07.17.02, 02:56 PM
  5. Court shows
    By Unchained Wolfie in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07.29.01, 11:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •