DC gun ban struck downFollow

Of interest to me because Chicago has a nearly identical ban:No real complaint for me. I'm all for greater gun control but I wouldn't have thought a complete ban on handguns to be realistic nor even within the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I suppose the real question is if/how cities with bans will try to skirt the ruling.

No surprise. Obviously I would have hoped they'd have ruled the other way, but this was widely expected.

To hell with hand guns. Pistols were around when that was written. Semi and automatic weapons weren't. WTF do you need with an Assualt Rifle?

Listen dude, if the government wants to take you out, your Assault rifle isn't stopping them. You don't own any SAMs.

Listen if every american owned an assault rifle then the police would think twice before storming into someones home like the gestapo.

Sure, that's how it would work. The police would just have more respect for people. They definitely wouldn't just get bigger guns and serve more "no knock" warrants ending with people shot in the face.

It's always been the case in this country that law enforcement just throws up their hands and gives up when suspects are well armed.

You almost can't get a more clear violation of the 2nd amendment

Scalia et all. disagree with you completely and were exceptionally cautious when parsing the language in the amendment because this is actually as unclear of a violation of the amendment as you can get. There's near universal agreement there.


And yet, if Gore had won in 2000, or Kerry in 2004, it's almost certain that this ruling would have gone 5-4 (or even 6-3) the other way.


Maybe. As it is, this ruling has to dance on the head of a pin to overturn 70 years of precedent. If you want a definition of "judicial activism" this decision is it.

Which I'm fine with, but you whine like a little ***** about. Apparently not when it goes your way. What a shock, Capitan.


This ruling shouldn't have even been close. The fact that it was should bother most US citizens. Alot.

Most US citizens don't own guns or care much about laws regarding them.

According to the bright bulbs at Wikipedia, who cite "Cook, Philip J.; Ludwig, Jens (2003). Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence.", the number of gun owning adults in the US is 25%, mainly males in rural areas.

Weird. Doing a rough estimate in my head I would say about 70% of the people I know own at least one hand gun (including myself) of some sort and I live in liberal, hippy left coast land. While I consider myself a liberal most of my friends would say they are conservatives and/or are military, retired military or are Five-0. I'm sure that skews it though.

No, I was quoting Cook, Philip J.; Ludwig, Jens (2003). Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence by way of Wikipedia. It's called a cite. You should use one some time As the apocryphal story goes, upon hearing of McGovern's overwhelming loss in '72, a New Yorker was quoted as saying "But everyone I know voted for him!"

Edited, Jun 26th 2008 6:27pm by Jophiel

No. They were exceptionally cautions with their words because they didn't want to make this an "activist" ruling by making their case seem broader then it was. They spent most of their time making it abundantly clear that this ruling doesn't affect prevent restrictions based on things like total number of guns, type of ammunition, rate of fire, etc, but *only* the single case before them: A total ban on handguns.

Cause, see... that's the part that makes it unconstitutional. Clearly and absolutely so.



Wait! So you're arguing that 70 years of rulings OKing bans on things like fully automatic weapons, certain types of ammunition, magazines that hold more then X shots, silencers, etc... establishes a precedent for a complete ban on basic handguns?

Funny how when us Conservatives point out that this is what Liberals are doing, we're bashed for using a "slippery slope!" argument. Yet here you are, saying that those other things act as precedent for a total ban. Hmm...


Let me give you a hint here Smash. There's no "overturning" going on. The US Supreme Court has *never* allowed a total ban on handguns. Ever. What this ruling does is re-affirm the state of constitutionality of basic gun ownership which has been the assumption since the writing of the Bill of Rights. Mapping out the sides of the issue does *not* constitute precedent for removal of the right entirely Smash. Funny that you seem to think so though...




The part after the "or" is pretty questionable Smash. I know you'd like it if moist people didn't care about gun ownership rights. But wishing doesn't make it true...


EDIT: Fixed a typo. Left the other one in, cause it's funny... ;)

Edited, Jun 26th 2008 5:24pm by gbaji

No. They were exceptionally cautions with their words because they didn't want to make this an "activist" ruling by making their case seem broader then it was.

False.


Wait! So you're arguing that 70 years of rulings OKing bans on things like fully automatic weapons, certain types of ammunition, magazines that hold more then X shots, silencers, etc... establishes a precedent for a complete ban on basic handguns?

Yes, me and every legal scholar in the nation.


Let me give you a hint here Smash. There's no "overturning" going on. The US Supreme Court has *never* allowed a total ban on handguns.

False.


What this ruling does is re-affirm the state of constitutionality of basic gun ownership which has been the assumption since the writing of the Bill of Rights.

False.


Mapping out the sides of the issue does *not* constitute precedent for removal of the right entirely Smash. Funny that you seem to think so though...


False.

Four for four, Capitan, you're in rare form. You should go sit for the bar, your legal scholarship is exceptional. I'm sure they'd waive the education requirement once you wrote the exam.



ETA:


The part after the "or" is pretty questionable Smash.

False. Or did you mean "questionable" to someone with absolutely no knowledge on the issue? Then, sure. To you, I suspect a great great great many things are "questionable", aren't they, Capitan?



Edited, Jun 26th 2008 8:56pm by Smasharoo