Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

D.C. Legislation Would Remove More Gun Limits

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 02:21 AM
Original message
D.C. Legislation Would Remove More Gun Limits
Source: Washington Post

D.C. officials, coping with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that threw out the city's handgun ban, have drafted legislation that would do away with several remaining firearms restrictions, including safe-storage requirements and a provision that bars ownership of semiautomatic pistols.

The legislation could come up for a vote in the D.C. Council as early as Tuesday -- the same day the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill that would virtually end local handgun control in the District.

The developments mark another step in what has become a dramatic shift in public policy regarding firearms in a city still plagued by gun violence. Thirty-two years after the first generation of elected D.C. officials under home rule enacted the nation's toughest gun control statutes, banning handguns entirely, the current leaders face a different political and legal climate and appear resigned to debating how best to have a less restrictive law.

....

Although the move by the city to ease handgun restrictions coincides with the House effort to virtually strip the District of its power to regulate firearms, Mendelson said officials are not seeking to placate members of Congress. He said the proposed changes, which he will urge the council to pass Tuesday, result from a careful review of the Supreme Court decision in the weeks since it was issued June 26.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...



For years, the government of the District of Columbia has forbidden self-defense with a gun in the home. (Armed defense of one's business was allowed.) They have required that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and either trigger locked or disassembled, so as to be totally useless. It was illegal to assemble or load a gun, even when one was under imminent threat. It was apparently better, in the eyes of D.C. officials, that citizens be raped, killed, kidnapped, or witness their families suffer than that they assemble or unlock and load a gun.

When confronted with this fact in the recent Heller case, the District tried to convince the Supreme Court otherwise. They tried to pretend that there was an exception for self-defense. Fortunately their opponents pointed out the truth--the record clearly shows that D.C. defeated that very defense in McIntosh v. Washington. Those interested in reading more should follow the link at the foot of this post to my open letter to Obama, and search for "Sensible Gun Control."

Since Heller , the District has sought to enforce its unconstitutional will on the residents of D.C. who wish to be armed. (The fact that many residents support a particular unconstitutional provision is irrelevant, whether the subject is religious freedom, the right to be free of torture and coercion in interrogations, the right to free speech, or the right to keep and bear arms.) They have forbidden common semi-automatic weapons, labeling them "machine guns"--which they clearly are not.

It is good to see these people finally running scared. They may never get the punishment they deserve for depriving innocent Americans of their civil rights--for 32 years!--but at least they are apparently getting the message that the Constitution outranks city hall.

It's also entertaining to read their denials that this has anything to do with the spanking House Democrats and Republicans are preparing to give them. Yeah, right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. The home/business distinction tells us almost everything we need to know
Money and the lives of the monied are more worthy than the moneyless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
east texas lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Indeed!
People with smaller or fixed incomes can't make those big campaign
contributions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. 54 million gun-owners will demand Obama's position on this issue before they vote. They will also
demand Obama explain his statement what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne when Chicago which bans guns has a homicide rate of over 15/100k but Cheyenne where guns are not banned has a much lower homicide rate about 3.5/100k.

Obama wants to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and D.C. which banned guns in 2006 has a homicide rate of 29.1/100k and Obama better be prepared to clearly state whether he supports law-abiding citizens owning handguns in large cities like Chicago and D.C.

See Crime in Washington, D.C.

NOTE: national homicide rate was about 6/100k in 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. and a contingent of self-described Democrats


will continue to do their utmost to persuade owners of firearms that the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate are planning to eat their children ... once they've sent the jackbooted thugs out to confiscate all their gunz ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. ooooooooooh!!!!!


Mojorabbit
I am an ultra left wing female who is heavily armed. I have a lovely gun collection. So screw you and your "self described Dem" comment.


I neither know nor give a flying fuck who you are or what you have. I sure do know what your post is going to be, though.

Of course, I do find anyone who describes him/herself as an "heavily armed" "ultra left wing" anything to be objects of ridicule.

And I find a woman who describes herself as "a female" to be, well, sad.


What I said was:

and a contingent of self-described Democrats will continue to do their utmost to persuade owners of firearms that the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate are planning to eat their children ... once they've sent the jackbooted thugs out to confiscate all their gunz ...

Did you see yourself in that mirror? Really?? How bizarre to find you posting at DU, if so.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. I would hope...
that if elected, and given the opportunity, that Obama will nominate SCOTUS candidates that support the Heller decision and have a pro-RKBA record and/or opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. can you suggest one such
Edited on Sun Sep-14-08 04:20 PM by iverglas

SCOTUS candidates that support the Heller decision and have a pro-RKBA record and/or opinion

who isn't also an advocate for violating women's reproductive rights?


I'd be quite interested to hear of one such. In my own experience, they'd be few and far between.

I mean, look at the present Court ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban...

Gonzales v. Carhart
On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, held that the statute {banning so-called partial-birth abortion} does not violate the Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority which included Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent which was joined by Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._He...

District of Columbia v. Heller
Majority by: Scalia
Joined by: Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent by: Stevens
Joined by: Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent by: Breyer
Joined by: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg


Damn!

Wot an AMAZING coincidence!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. "Violating women's reproductive rights"?
Are you suggesting/hinting that '"womans reproductive rights" outweigh the Right To Keep and Bear Arms?

Do you know of any potential nominees that support womans reproductive rights who isn't also an advocate for violating the Right To Keep And Bear Arms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._He...


On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."<30> This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.<31>


Majority by: Scalia
Joined by: Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

Dissent by: Stevens
Joined by: Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent by: Breyer
Joined by: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg



Lets put aside for the moment that nowhere in the BOR, (or the entire US Constitution for that matter), is any mention of "womans reproductive rights" to be found... whereas the wording of the 2nd amendment seems pretty clear to the majority of Americans and at least 5 sitting SCOTUS justices.


Ideally, we would have a SCOTUS that respected the entire BOR; that would include the RKBA, womans reproductive rights and the right to be protected against the taking of land for personal gain...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London


Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)<1>, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment


Majority by: Stevens
Joined by: Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence by: Kennedy


Dissent by: O'Connor
Joined by: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
Dissent by: Thomas


Damn!

Wot an AMAZING coincidence!!!

(but hardly any surprise).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. hahahahahaha

Are you suggesting/hinting that '"womans reproductive rights" outweigh the Right To Keep and Bear Arms?

Uh ... yeah. Forgive me while I guffaw some more.

Yeah. I am coming right out and saying that the right to life outweighs just about everything, and that the right not be COMPELLED to RISK one's life in an enterprise to which one has NOT CONSENTED is a pretty essential component of that right.

Ta for the giggle.


Do you know of any potential nominees that support womans reproductive rights who isn't also an advocate for violating the Right To Keep And Bear Arms?

Don't know and don't give a shit, as you may have guessed.

You might want to investigate the concept of JUSTIFIED interference in the exercise of a right, of course.


RE: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)

... Majority by: Stevens
Joined by: Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence by: Kennedy

Dissent by: O'Connor
Joined by: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
Dissent by: Thomas

Damn!
Wot an AMAZING coincidence!!!
(but hardly any surprise).


I know, eh?! Who would be surprised to find a, er, RKBA enthusiast objecting to the public interest-based decisions of the more progressive members of the US Supreme Court bench?!?

Hey. Not me.


Lets put aside for the moment that nowhere in the BOR, (or the entire US Constitution for that matter), is any mention of "womans reproductive rights" to be found... whereas the wording of the 2nd amendment seems pretty clear to the majority of Americans and at least 5 sitting SCOTUS justices.

Ah yes, the refrain of the anti-choice brigade everywhere ...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Funny how that works...
Edited on Sun Sep-14-08 06:41 PM by D__S
eh?

that the right not be COMPELLED to RISK one's life in an enterprise to which one has NOT CONSENTED goes right out the window when the right to self defense... including family members is restricted/denied through the means of "reasonable" gun control legislation.

Here's another "giggle" for you...

I keep hearing these bed wetting gun prohibitionists crying for "reasonable" gun control measures, but when the right to choose/womyns rights is questioned or burdened with "reasonable" restrictions they have a brain aneurysm?

Are you laughing it up yet?

I know, eh?! Who would be surprised to find a, er, RKBA enthusiast objecting to the public interest-based decisions of the more progressive members of the US Supreme Court bench?!?

Riiiiight... maybe it's fashionable in Cuba, Cambodia or Kanada; seizing privately owned land under the guise of "public interest".
Here the developers and bulldozer operators are more likely to be greeted with a bellyfull of buckshot than applauds of progress.

And before we confine the objection to misogynist, racist gun-heads, you might want to utilize those vaunted Google skills of yours and search the DU archives and see what the "interest-based" / "progressive members" of DU have to say about land grabs and the Kelo decision.


Ah yes, the refrain of the anti-choice brigade everywhere

Which "anti-choice brigade" would that be?

Point them out... I want to know.

And would my previous statement be fact or opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. er ...

when the right to choose/womyns rights is questioned or burdened with "reasonable" restrictions they have a brain aneurysm?

And those "reasonable" (good thing you used those dit-dits) restrictions would be ...?

Do tell.


search the DU archives and see what the "interest-based" / "progressive members" of DU have to say about land grabs and the Kelo decision.

I read about it at the time. Gosh, you must think foreigners are ignorant ...

Btw, I don't know what "interest-based" is. I said public interest-based.

And I've certainly seen what "progressive members" (again, whew for those dit-dits) of DU have to say about quite a lot of things. Up here, and in the rest of the world, they'd be called "far right wing". You know: death penalty and various other aspects of sentencing, equality rights of GLBT people, etc. etc. Stinky far right wing. So don't be thinking I take opinion at DU as the arbiter of anything, 'k?


Ah yes, the refrain of the anti-choice brigade everywhere
Which "anti-choice brigade" would that be?

Uh ... the anti-choice brigade. What is unclear about that? The brigade of anti-choicers. The people who say things like:

Lets put aside for the moment that nowhere in the BOR, (or the entire US Constitution for that matter), is any mention of "womans reproductive rights" to be found...

Anything actually not clear there?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Meh..
Edited on Sun Sep-14-08 09:20 PM by D__S
And those "reasonable" (good thing you used those dit-dits) restrictions would be ...?

Do tell.


That's an easy one!

A national firearms registration database...

A ban on "assault weapons" and "hi-capacity magazines"...

Closing the "gun show loophole"...

Licensing for all firearms owners...

"Safe storage" laws...

Ballistic finger printing...

Did I miss any?

Does that sound "reasonable" to you?

Oh wait... gosh darn I misread the question!

Let's try this again...

How about... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".





I read about it at the time. Gosh, you must think foreigners are ignorant

So, why did you state the "surprised" opinion that being an "RKBA enthusiast" had any relevance to my (and others), being dissatisfied with the courts decision?



Btw, I don't know what "interest-based" is. I said public interest-based.

Ye fail to fathom the understanding of those context based "dit-dat"/ little finger thingies """"""


And I've certainly seen what "progressive members" (again, whew for those dit-dits) of DU have to say about quite a lot of things. Up here, and in the rest of the world, they'd be called "far right wing". You know: death penalty and various other aspects of sentencing, equality rights of GLBT people, etc. etc. Stinky far right wing. 'k?


See... that's what you're missing and fail to understand... this isn't "Up here" or the rest of the world. Myself and many others could give a flying fuck about what "up here" is like and your Kanada ber Allies brow beating/chest thumping. It has little to no relevance here.

Of course there are some DU'ers here that will lambaste me for that, but as you say the opinion at DU as the arbiter of anything...

:shrug:


]Anything actually not clear there?

ohhh... it's quite clear...

A) That the statement is a fact and not an opinion.

B) That any schoolchild with minimal reading compression skills could study the BOR/US Constitution and not find a single reference to reproductive rights...

C) that any "clear" thinking person would not confine that fact/speaking point as the sole property of the "anti-choice brigade".

Need I explain it more clearly, or should I t-y-p-e s-l-o-w-e-r ?

Feel free to clean up my board code and grammar usage for me... all those <[[ >]] and """ are hurting my eyes.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. "Oh wait... gosh darn I misread the question!"

You certainly did! What a waste of everybody's time THAT was, eh?!?

We'll try it again, nice and slow this time.

You said: when the right to choose/womyns rights is questioned or burdened with "reasonable" restrictions they have a brain aneurysm?

And then I said: And those "reasonable" (good thing you used those dit-dits) restrictions would be ...?


Short, sweet, really. Have you managed to follow it this time? Do you think you could respond to it without going off on some gunhead tangent?

You made an assertion. I'm asking you to substantiate it.

Now, maybe *I* read something wrong. When you put "reasonable" in dit-dits, maybe you really were being sarcastic. Maybe you really were saying that no restrictions that have been placed on the exercise of reproductive rights have been reasonable. In that case, when we look at that complete thought:

I keep hearing these bed wetting gun prohibitionists crying for "reasonable" gun control measures, but when the right to choose/womyns rights is questioned or burdened with "reasonable" restrictions they have a brain aneurysm?

all we have is a basket of fruit. And a straw fellow. Whoever these adversaries you reference are, with their "reasonable" gun control measures, they ain't me, because I've never said such a thing in my life.


A national firearms registration database...
A ban on "assault weapons" and "hi-capacity magazines"...
Closing the "gun show loophole"...
Licensing for all firearms owners...
"Safe storage" laws...
Ballistic finger printing...
Did I miss any?
Does that sound "reasonable" to you?


Actually, what it mostly sounds to me is justified. Apart from the ballistic finger printing, which we haven't felt a need for, all of that is law in Canada, pretty much. We define restricted and prohibited firearms more specifically, so there isn't an identity between them and the US's "assualt weapons", but we have all the rest. Justified, and wise.


So, why did you state the "surprised" opinion that being an "RKBA enthusiast" had any relevance to my (and others), being dissatisfied with the courts decision?

Uh, I know my humour is sometimes just too dry for south of the border. But you really thought I was really surprised? Really?

Actually, what I said was:

Who would be surprised to find a, er, RKBA enthusiast objecting to the public interest-based decisions of the more progressive members of the US Supreme Court bench?!?

I think the rather clear implication is that no one, including me, would be surprised.


See... that's what you're missing and fail to understand... this isn't "Up here" or the rest of the world. Myself and many others could give a flying fuck about what "up here" is like and your Kanada ber Allies brow beating/chest thumping. It has little to no relevance here.

Tsk, such defensiveness. Such isolationism. Such downright silliness.

I assure you that there are many, many DU members who regard the people I was talking about just as I do. National borders really are not that relevant to matters of human decency, y'know. Capital punishment is just as indecent in the US as it is anywhere else, and people calling for cruel and inhumane punishments are just as indecent at DU as they are anywhere else.


B) That any schoolchild with minimal reading compression skills could study the BOR/US Constitution and not find a single reference to reproductive rights...

And anyone with a pair of eyes could see the question in my post.

Where in your Constitution does the right to a kidney transplant appear? And what recourse would you have if your govt prohibited you by law from obtaining a life-saving kidney transplant?

I'm very patient. Someone, someday, will answer a relevant question.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Ah, the tactic of sophists everywhere
Edited on Sun Sep-14-08 07:13 PM by TPaine7
when they come up against facts they wish to evade.

Lets put aside for the moment that nowhere in the BOR, (or the entire US Constitution for that matter), is any mention of "womans reproductive rights" to be found

Absolutely, irrefutably factual and too hard to lie one's way out of? Check.

whereas the wording of the 2nd amendment seems pretty clear to the majority of Americans

Absolutely, irrefutably factual and too hard to lie one's way out of? Check. That it protects a personal right is even accepted by the overwhelming majority of competent anti-gun scholars. (That would exclude the Brady hacks, and some foreigners who pretend expertise in Second Amendment law.)

whereas the wording of the 2nd amendment seems pretty clear to the majority of Americans and at least 5 sitting SCOTUS justices.

Absolutely, irrefutably factual and too hard to lie one's way out of? Check. Heller makes it impossible to fool even iverglas fans on this one.

So what do you do if you have the ethics of a garden slug, but lies are cut off in every direction? Well there's always the old standby--bullshit.

Ah yes, the refrain of the anti-choice brigade everywhere ...

For those with "special needs" who were impressed with this tactic, please think. Facts are facts. To say that certain facts are spoken by "bad" people is no argument at all. It does not matter if Bush, Stalin, Mao, Cheney, Manson and even iverglas agree on something true; their agreement cannot make it false.

But you probably learned that in second grade, didn't you?

PS: I stopped directly addressing iverglas a while ago. I still point out her BS, sometimes, however.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. aren't you glad I taught you that word?


quoting third party: Lets put aside for the moment that nowhere in the BOR, (or the entire US Constitution for that matter), is any mention of "womans reproductive rights" to be found

Absolutely, irrefutably factual and too hard to lie one's way out of? Check.

Was someone lying his/her way out of something? No? You mean you were just engaging in a bit of demagoguery there? -- Or, yes? Who was that then?

I keep telling you and telling you to go to law school if you want to chatter about this stuff in public.

Do you imagine that it would be constitutional for your government to prohibit you from obtaining a kidney transplant? Anything you can think of in your constitution that might work against such a state measure? Put yer thinking cap on. Twice.


So what do you do if you have the ethics of a garden slug, but lies are cut off in every direction?

I give up. But I'm sure you'll demonstrate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. now that's just odd

PS: I stopped directly addressing iverglas a while ago.

Any reason that post is a reply to mine, then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. It's a very simple minded ploy
to pretend that if someone believes in the Second Amendment, they cannot believe in abortion rights.

The "gun control reality distortion field" blinds some to this reality. Others are just liars.

Ideally, we would have a SCOTUS that respected the entire BOR

Exactly right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. If I understand you correctly,
you are talking about the future--about candidates who would be nominated by President Obama.

Several things are evident:

1) The nine justices currently on the Court are not eligible to be nominated by President Obama. They are already Justices!

2) There are thousands of people in the US with the requisite intellect and legal scholarship to be nominated and confirmed.

3) The fact is that "almost all the qualified historians and constitutional-law scholars who have studied the subject . The overwhelming weight of authority affirms that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms, which is not dependent upon joining something like the National Guard."--Daniel Polsby, Dean of George Mason University School of Law. Certainly among "almost all the qualified constitutional law scholars" there are many liberal scholars who support abortion rights and who are honest enough to interpret the Second Amendment with integrity.

4) Even if item 3 were not a well know fact, to extrapolate from a sample of 9 to thousands of people is, well, less than rigorous methodology. Of course, if you think anything is fair in the service of an anti-gun point...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. were you talking


to anybody in particular, or just to hear yourself talk some more?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Oops
Edited on Sun Sep-14-08 07:16 PM by TPaine7
item 3 should have read

3) The fact is that "almost all the qualified historians and constitutional-law scholars who have studied the subject <concur>. The overwhelming weight of authority affirms that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms, which is not dependent upon joining something like the National Guard."--Daniel Polsby, Dean of George Mason University School of Law. Certainly among "almost all the qualified constitutional law scholars" there are many liberal scholars who support abortion rights and who are honest enough to interpret the Second Amendment with integrity.


(The word "concur" was in brackets in the original, and I forgot to change it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. At a minimum it will save them thousands of dollars in legal fees.
The only thing the ban did was waste dollars. It definitely didn't stop gun ownership and it didn't do anything to the murder rate. All it did was consume $$$.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Many people prefer semi-auto handguns...
because they find a revolver more difficult to master.

The range master at the indoor range I used to shoot at had retired from the local police department. He said, "I always had a hard time qualifying with a revolver. I found reloading difficult under stress and I just wasn't a good shooter. When the department went to the Glock 9mm semi-auto, my scores improved dramatically."

I felt the ban on semi-auto handguns was ridiculous and I'm glad to see that it may disappear. However there are still restrictions:

The council proposal does not give residents blanket approval to own semiautomatic pistols, which have become the most popular kinds of handguns. It would ban magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. It also would repeal a regulation barring a gun owner from registering more than one pistol. In addition, the legislation would do away with the requirement that handgun registrants submit their weapons to D.C. police for ballistics testing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

The ten round magazine requirement doesn't really accomplish much, as an experienced shooter can drop the expended magazine and insert a new one in the blink of an eye. Repealing the regulation limiting an owner to only one semi-auto makes sense, as many shooters practice with a .22 cal semi-auto to gain proficiency that will help them master a larger caliber. The requirement to ballistic test every weapon was draconian. As a gun owner I would be hesitant to turn any of weapons over to some idiot for testing. I would be concerned that he might mistreat the weapon and at the minimum scratch the finish and at the worst misplace it.

Allowing honest citizens to own firearms for self defense in D.C. will be an interesting test. If successful, it will damage the arguments of the extreme gun control groups.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. Ah ... The DU 'High Road' contingent emerges from the muck of the Gungeon ,,,,
And plops into LBN again .....

My one and only kick ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. and get the attention they deserve

Of course, just in case the dungeon denizens aren't keeping up on latest breaking news,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. And meets someone without the courage or character
to honestly and clearly defend D.C.'s defiance of the Constitution and their judgment that it is better for D.C. residents to be victimized than armed.

If you oppose the rule of law, if you think city hall outranks the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, if you agree with D.C. policies, why not just say so? Why use a petty and vacuous insult?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. It's nice you recognize we pro-RKBA DUers who protect all rights enumerated in our Constitution
rather that selecting a few rights to support and opposing the others as do some gun-grabbers.

On this issue, Obama says "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne" but that's a selective application of the Second Amendment analogous to opposing free speech in large cities but supporting free speech in smaller cities and rural America.

Will a majority of voters choose a presidential candidate who has such a cavalier approach to natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights enshrined and enumerated in our Constitution?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. Even if DC is allowed to proceede with and pass their newest proposal...
Edited on Sun Sep-14-08 03:50 PM by D__S
there's still the nagging little problem of how and where DC residents will be able to purchase handguns.

Under current federal law, it's illegal for residents of one state to travel to another state and purchase a handgun.
Instead the firearm has to be shipped to an FFL in the buyers legal state of residence. From there, that FFL can sell/transfer it to
the buyer.

There's only 5-6 licensed FFLs in the city... one is the Violence Policy Center, another is the BATF, 2 belong to some kind of theatrical companies, and the other belongs to an individual that has announced he'll be charging $125.00 per transfer.

I have little doubt that Fenty and the DC licensing/zoning boards will place every conceivable obstacle in the way to prevent any new FFLs from opening a business.

The House bill under consideration would at least allow DC residents to travel to Virgina or Maryland and be able to purchase and take possession of their handguns on the spot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 23rd 2014, 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC