Heh. I’m really just joking. I just heard about this, I don’t know if I’m going to get a gun or not, especially since I’d have to sign up for expensive safety courses and training. It’s just nice to have the option. (Assuming it doesn’t get overturned.)
But (nothing personal) it is indicative of why this argument is so contentious. The anti-gun people are making an argument based on precise meanings of words that cause them to see it in a different context than others who also see precise meaning in words.
The argument becomes harder to make when you don’t even know what precisely the words are.
I wasn’t really making an argument. I can see exactly why someone might reason that it was judicial activism. I don’t think it’s judicial activism, it’s just a different opinion of a controversial amendment.
The Second Amendment is a strangely worded law. Reasonable people can differ on what they think it means. Remarkably, how much they like or dislike guns seems to strongly correlate with how they interpret it.
If it meant that anyone could have any gun any where they choose, it would be worded more like that. If it meant no one were allowed to own any guns, it would say that. Instead, it says something in between those extremes, and therefore we have laws somewhere in between those extremes. I’m fine with that.
I personally think maybe DC maybe should have the right to ban handguns if its citizens think it’s a good idea. They probably will again at some point in the future, just due to the judicial pendulum swinging back the other way. But I would never say there’s a clear line of gun ownership allowed by the Second Amendment. There is clearly SOME gun ownership allowed by it, but how much will be always be subject to interpretation.
That would be my gut-level interpretation.
Perhaps you are unclear on the concept. The Judge’s dissent was based on the fact, as claimed by her, that the District of Columbia is not a state like Virginia or California, and indeed, in the strictest sense, it is not.
Therefore, rights guaranteed to the states (not the people) by the Constitution do not apply to DC.
There’s no way that this concept applies to SF or NYC. They are unquestionably part of states. DC is not a state or part of one.
However, a good argument can be made that the framers didn’t intend for US citizens to be deprived of their rights no matter where they live, and DC is a de-facto state or whatever. Which makes me wonder: Do Puerto Ricans enjoy those rights? If they do, I’d say the good Judge is out of it; if they do not, perhaps she is on to something.
That point was brought up in the opinion. The claim was made that the no-handgun law didn’t deprive citizens of firearms, just those firearms. After all, it didn’t prohibit home defense with shotguns, claymores, bazookas or rabid ferrets. The counter to that said that since handguns were the most common and practical instruments used to defend a home, banning them effectively removed gun rights.
One of the reasons for constitutional rights is to put some things above the will of the majority.
The current laws make it clear that law-abiding gun owners are not welcome in DC. That’s one of the reasons that I now live in Maryland, even though I grew up in DC. So it’s a bit dishonest to talk about the will of the people, when the opposition has been driven out of town.
As has been previously noted, there is no shortage of guns among the criminal element in DC. DC’s draconian gun laws have only succeeded in disarming law-abiding citizens.
I hope the ruling survives on appeal. If we’re really lucky, the Supreme Court will finally acknowledge that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear. I was asking two independent questions, and was referring to the long term impact on other gun banning cities, realizing that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over NYC. I guess the ruling paves the way for SCOTUS to take up the matter, and their ruling would apply everywhere.
Even if it is unconstitutional?
You are in good company with SCOTUS Justice Scalia. He rejects the “living constitution” idea and feels the legislatures should make the laws and the courts abide by them, as “the people have spoken”. Not all the time, but in the absence of clear-cut constitutional wording, he leans towards the lawmakers, even if they trample on “derived” rights.
Thank goodness he has often been in the minority.
There are two parts to the question here, as I see it:[ol][]Is an all-handgun ban constitutional, and[]Does the constitution apply to the District of Columbia in the same way as the states?[/ol]Number 1 can be decided regardless of what city’s laws are challenged (by the court that has jurisdiction, of course); it’s a gun control question. But number 2 is unique to DC, and could be decided without reference to guns at all.
No, I was not commenting about the constitutionality of the law.
If the DC handgun ban was unconstitutional, that’s fine, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal one way or the other. But it’s not obviously unconstitutional, or there wouldn’t be all these other interpretations of the Second Amendment that allow the handgun ban. The only thing obvious about the Second Amendment is that it’s vague and there will never be a true consensus about it as long as there are both people who like guns and people who dislike guns.
I would say the 14th Amendment put that to rest, is there is no reason to doubt it was meant to apply to DC as well as in all states and, I’m pretty sure, all territory possessions. Insofar as the Bill of Rights has been held to apply to states through the 14th Amendment (not all of it has), it should also apply in DC.
And in Guantanamo Bay. 
Tell it to the Judge.
Henderson, that is. Maybe she didn’t read that far in the Constitution.
I had a thought when I first heard of this decision as well: How did D.C. define a “militia,” if said militia was the only way a person could own a gun? Could I found a militia with only myself and my friends as members, based in my house? The news story I saw on TV about this decision didn’t go into detail, it just said D.C. claimed private citizens couldn’t own guns because they were not part of a militia.
There was a pretty serious flame war in the Pit about this issue recently (as there is every week) that partially revolved around whether this right only applies to “militias” or not. I think it bears repeating here: The First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, among others, all include the phrase “the people,” and no one has ever tried to claim these amendments only applied to a subset of the U.S. population. What justification could there be to claim the Second Amendment is any different, without resorting to currently fashinable political beliefs on the propriety of owning firearms? Sure the Second Amendment references a “well regulated militia,” but is also says “the right of the people.” Many would like to pretend that second clause isn’t there, but it is.
And many more ignore the first clause. I hope by the time the Supreme Court hears the case, that President Edwards has replaced some of the right wing members of the court.
I’m not ignoring it at all. I’m perfectly willing to join a militia if that’s the only way I can keep my guns. (Not that I wouldn’t fight such a Stalinist restriction every step of the way.) In fact, I’ll go one step further, and found my own personal militia, if need be.
Um . . . that’s been tried . . . no good has ever come of it . . .
How would your militia be “well regulated”?
Well, if everybody has a gun, and we all know how to use them, and they are clean and loaded, then we are well-regulated.
Nobody ignores it, any more than we ignore the preamble of the Constitution. It is an expression of justification for the right, not the reason the right was given.
There is ample historical literature from the Founding Fathers on this subject, clearly showing the intent of the amendment.
The Wikipedia article is a good start. Yeah, I know, Wiki, unreliable, blah blah blah… it’s well sourced and easily verifiable. I think you’ll find that there wasn’t much question on the intent until relatively recently, and I think that if you look closely at our history of gun laws you’ll find that most of the first ones were intended to keep guns out of the hands of black people (see here) and to frame up political opponents (see Sullivan Act). What is common with both scenarios is a licensing scheme that arbitrarily determined who could possess weapons, and by God, there’s no way those “undesirable people” were going to get the right, not from us elite white folk, nosirree.
I could ask if that’s the side of the argument you want to be on, but that’s not fair and I know it. The argument has evolved to a point well past that. But it’s still something that you might want to take into account, especially given your history of being against things that are historically unjust.
As has been posted before innumerable times by myself on this board, the history of the wording is well-established. From Wikipedia and the pro-gun FAQ:
From: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The Wikipedia link has much information, especially on who exactly “the People” are who have a right to keep and bear arms.
Should DC be able to ban free speech if the citizens think it’s a good idea?
I don’t know how this works.
Right now their choice is to grant or not grant a cert. The fact that these are their only choices means they now can not duck the subject.
You say this as though this is different than how things have been before. You seem to be saying that before, they were able to (and did) duck the subject.
So there seems to have been some choice presented to them other than a choice to grant or not grant a cert.
What choice was that?
-FRL-