DC Handgun Ban Overturned

[theirishavenger]

This is interesting.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/

[The Man With The Plan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/

Not quite lifted yet. But, at least there are some Federal judges who understand what the second amendment is all about.

[The Man With The Plan]

Dayum! You beat me by 2 seconds! ;)

[Simon]

not that I'm trying to start sh_t but have you ever lived there?! Its scary on one hand its good because you can protect yourself, on the other its going to be a combat zone!!

BTW was thinking about coming to see you about some tires today... are you working?

[Yota]

Combat zone would be an improvement; right now DC is a slaughter zone.

To anyone seriously interested in the 2nd amendment, I recommend reading that opinion. They cover just about every argument against the second amendment and refute each one of them based on specific precedent (there is some), history and common logic. It's really priceless.

Things they deal with:

-- The 2nd am. does not convey any personal rights, just a collective right.
-- You can only keep and bear arms if you are in a militia
-- To "keep" means to "keep up" as in keeping up the military's arsenal
-- That "the right of the people" is collective, not personal
-- That "well-regulated" is operative and means that the state must control the militia.
-- That this law only applies to the States (as opposed to DC, which is a federal district)
-- That the keeping and bearing modern weapons are not protected - only weapons from 1787 and earlier.

This ruling, if it reaches or is upheld by SCOTUS, will be the first one to directly address the second amendment in about 70 years. It would be the only one to confront head-on all the arguments for and against the notion that the 2nd amendment grants personal rights.

It's a pretty big ruling IMHO and I hope SCOTUS upholds it.

[springsman]

and the D.C. mayor is a dummmmass!!! He's fighting it tooth and nail like criminals are all of a sudden not going to carry weapons if it's against the law....helllllooo!
Not only should people have a right to bear arms in some times/places/instances it's damn near a citizens duty to carry. Man if my city were that bad, I'd be arming the people and going Wyatt Earp on thier a$$ like a bad western.

[denverd0n]

Combat zone? Every time anyone suggests loosening up gun control laws, or allowing people to carry guns who weren't allowed before, cries go up that it's going to turn into a "combat zone," or "Dodge City on a Saturday night," or that there will be "blood in the streets." But guess what? It never happens. Ever. No where. Not once. Not in big cities. Not in little towns. Never.

Is there even ONE reason to believe that this will be the exception to this heretofore completely exceptionless rule? Not that I can think of.

[denverd0n]

I would add that, now that different federal courts have ruled differently on this, it is a good possibility that the Supreme Court will take up the matter. If they rule, as the most recent court has, that the Second Amendment is an individual right then it will be a very good thing. If they rule that it is not, however, it will be very bad. I think our odds are good with the current court, but you never know for sure.

We've got a lot on the table with this one.

[Yota]

We've got a lot on the table with this one.

x1000