Despite the Supreme Court ruling of less than a month ago, which tossed out the ban on handguns in the nation’s capitol, the D.C. City Council has passed an “emergency law” in an apparent attempt to negate that Supreme Court ruling.
On June 26 the Supreme Court upheld the idea that the Constitution’s Second Amendment does indeed protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, in the home for self-defense as well as for hunting and sport. But there were flaws in the decision as discussed in an excellent analysis by journalist Warren Mass in an article for this Website entitled: “Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Second Amendment.” Now, those flaws have already come home to roost.
By insisting that government confers the right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court opened the door for heavy regulation and registration rules for guns and their owners. And it is exactly on this flaw that the D.C. City Council has based its new emergency laws.
Residents of our nation’s crime-ridden capitol must obtain a city-issued permit and can keep handguns in their homes only for self-defense. But the self-defense principle is immediately negated by also requiring them to keep their firearms unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless they are facing a “threat of immediate harm,” in their homes only; not backyards or front driveways. As criminals rarely allow their victims the amount of time it takes to fiddle around trying to put a gun together in order to protect oneself, this provision will only serve as the impetus for potential prosecution of homeowners who do happen to use their firearms in defense of their homes and families, and further serves to protect criminals.
The registration process and mandates for obtaining a gun permit are burdensome and highly restrictive. The process, according to city officials, could take months with applicants having to submit their weapons to the police chief for an expensive ballistic fingerprinting test. Individuals must be fingerprinted themselves and need to demonstrate their proficiency with their weapon as well as passing a written safety test and vision exam. Anyone with a previous criminal record from a variety of charges may be barred from obtaining a permit.
And then there’s the business of outlawing a whole class of guns, namely semi-automatic pistols, the weapon of choice comprising 75 percent of all handgun sales in the United States. Any gun that carries more than 11 rounds is automatically disqualified from ownership, as well as are those that load from the bottom.
These provisions are some of the toughest in the nation and both the NRA and Bill of rights Foundation will be filing lawsuits to fight the district’s new rules. "This is a blatant defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, a defiance of the law" says Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), "There is no question that their 'emergency legislation' will be challenged and overturned."
But putting it back in the hands of the court is still very worrisome. A better way would be for Congress to uphold the Constitution by limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts when matters of the Second Amendment are concerned.
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 22 July 2008 16:19 )
Comments (6)
2nd ammendment
6
Thursday, 24 July 2008 12:13
Piercemk
It's crazy how you still have to register your guns in D.C.
We need to remove all anti gun laws state by state and then remove the federal laws. It will not change overnight but we have to start with each state.
Gun Carry FREEDOM
5
Wednesday, 23 July 2008 12:07
Wendy Weinbaum
As a Jewess in the US, I say who NEEDS crooked scum cops and politicians like this? Fire them all, then make any NRA membership card an automatic NATIONAL Concealed Carry permit! Think of the money we'd save on police cars and bureaucrat salaries.
Interesting question
4
Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:52
Dave Hudson NH
Regarding RCozine's question, "Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights binding on the District of Columbia", it's ironic that the ACLU is fighting for US Constitutional protection for terrorists in Gitmo, as well as Social Security payments to illegal Mexicans, not to mention that Obama tells us that we should teach our kids to speak Spanish.
But when 2A is involved, liberals do what they do best: re-define words.
Legal Weasels
3
Wednesday, 23 July 2008 09:54
RCozine
Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights binding on the District of Columbia, which is a federal territory and not part of any state?
Because the power elite who are so interested in assaulting our freedoms are nothing if not legal weasels, it makes sense to me that they would use DC as a testbed for their ongoing encroachments on liberty if they can demonstrate that such encroachments are not really violations of the Bill of Rights because DC is not part of the 50 states.
And then...
2
Wednesday, 23 July 2008 01:44
Programmer #A-5
The Constitution disallows, by not stating "it", any other government to override its Articles and Amendments. This is how the Constitution actually works in process:
If a law, treaty, or contract is signed, passed or ratified by anyone or anything within the borders of America, then the parts of that documents that are in direct violation against the Articles and Amendments of the Constitution are null and voided immediately (this includes many employment contracts and un-Constitutional laws passed by low processes). If a part of the document thereof isn't specified in the Constitution, it is also null and voided and must go through the legislature process therefrom to become part of the Constitution or a directorate the Constitution decrees for that part of the document to become active. Therefore, only the basic basics of the document are allowed to go in effect.
If DC wants to pass the gun law, go on ahead, but it means nothing, and it is null and void. The Fore Fathers never saw that un-Constitutional police organizations would be administered to enforce a set of beliefs unto others, so they never took steps to specify that problem therein for the Constitution, but they assumed that an armed citizenry would enforce the laws, on a property-per-property basis. Ergo, like how South Carolina null and void certain USCs passes in the early 1800s, so can a citizen do the same on their property. The government, regardless of any un-Constitutional laws or rules passed, has NO RIGHT to tell people what to do with any form of property. Read the Constitution and point out if I'm wrong. (Of course, they, who are wrong from origin, shall never go to the Constitution from consultation, keeping me correct and them, well, Marxist and/or Hilterite.)
D.C. City Council Passes Law to Restrict Gun Use
1
Tuesday, 22 July 2008 21:27
John Bates Thayer
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?
Emotion in Reading:
The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's restate the 2nd in another context:
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.
There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
On June 26 the Supreme Court upheld the idea that the Constitution’s Second Amendment does indeed protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, in the home for self-defense as well as for hunting and sport. But there were flaws in the decision as discussed in an excellent analysis by journalist Warren Mass in an article for this Website entitled: “
►Recreating Riots
We need to remove all anti gun laws state by state and then remove the federal laws. It will not change overnight but we have to start with each state.
But when 2A is involved, liberals do what they do best: re-define words.
Because the power elite who are so interested in assaulting our freedoms are nothing if not legal weasels, it makes sense to me that they would use DC as a testbed for their ongoing encroachments on liberty if they can demonstrate that such encroachments are not really violations of the Bill of Rights because DC is not part of the 50 states.
If a law, treaty, or contract is signed, passed or ratified by anyone or anything within the borders of America, then the parts of that documents that are in direct violation against the Articles and Amendments of the Constitution are null and voided immediately (this includes many employment contracts and un-Constitutional laws passed by low processes). If a part of the document thereof isn't specified in the Constitution, it is also null and voided and must go through the legislature process therefrom to become part of the Constitution or a directorate the Constitution decrees for that part of the document to become active. Therefore, only the basic basics of the document are allowed to go in effect.
If DC wants to pass the gun law, go on ahead, but it means nothing, and it is null and void. The Fore Fathers never saw that un-Constitutional police organizations would be administered to enforce a set of beliefs unto others, so they never took steps to specify that problem therein for the Constitution, but they assumed that an armed citizenry would enforce the laws, on a property-per-property basis. Ergo, like how South Carolina null and void certain USCs passes in the early 1800s, so can a citizen do the same on their property. The government, regardless of any un-Constitutional laws or rules passed, has NO RIGHT to tell people what to do with any form of property. Read the Constitution and point out if I'm wrong. (Of course, they, who are wrong from origin, shall never go to the Constitution from consultation, keeping me correct and them, well, Marxist and/or Hilterite.)
Emotion in Reading:
The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's restate the 2nd in another context:
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.
There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]