2nd Amendment Challenge -- DC v. Heller

[Darren]

Has anyone been following the District of Columbia v. Heller case in the Supreme Court?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...tml?sub=AR

The case is a challenge to D.C.'s gun ban which has been in place for 30 years.

The issue is essentially whether the ban is unconsititutional, and whether it is the right of an individual to own guns.

The background for the case starts with another case from 1975, when 3 women who were attacked/tortured/raped for 14 hours sued the District of Columbia because 2 of them called the police when it started and they never showed up.  The ruling in the end was that the police have a responsibility to society but not to protect individuals.

So the question then is who does have the responsibility to protect individuals?  The only conclusion seems to be the individual, but they have eliminated that right with the gun ban.

It's an interesting case because it's really a question about the Bill of Rights and the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

[Wellardmac]

yeah, I've been following it. I'm actually surprised that it has taken so long to come up for review. I'd be willing to bet this one is going to be overturned.

If this ones stands it will be contrary to previous rulings upholding the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that give individuals the right to own weapons.

All hell would break lose if municipalities could create laws banning handguns when Federal Law allows individuals to own weapons.

[ccm911]

They will have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.

[Tony356993]

Bill of Rights and the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

I'm sure the current gun situation is far beyond the wildest dreams or the intent of the bill that our founding fathers invisioned.

Do people really need automatic weapons, or 10,20,30 or more guns to protect individuals?

I agree the court will not find in the favor of "We, The People" but will find on the side of the money.


 

[Darren]

Tony356993 wrote:

Do people really need automatic weapons, or 10,20,30 or more guns to protect individuals?

No, probably not, but the issue here is whether an outright ban is legal. The lawyer for Heller is quoted in the article I linked as saying "...government could ban ownership of some weapons. Machine guns could be one category, he said, and "plastic" handguns manufactured to escape detection."

Hehe, funny though, invisible plastic guns, he must have learned all about guns by watching Die Hard.

The reality is that gun legislation punishes people who are obeying the law, and people who ignore the law are unaffected.

[Tony356993]

The reality is that gun legislation punishes people who are obeying the law, and people who ignore the law are unaffected.

Isn't that with most legislation?

 

[AMoore]

I find it interesting that gun rights advocates fear that certain gun restrictions are designed to, and will lead to an outright ban when legislatures (local, state, and federal) have imposed gun restrictions throughout our history.  Towns in the old west would often prohibit guns in the town.  Under the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the people should be free to own and carry nuclear arms. 

Additionally, I wonder how many NRA members can recit the entire 2nd amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free state.   Does the US or any of its states really need the extra security that could be offered by citizens carrying guns? 

[Darren]

The wording is curious and also done purposely.  If you listened to Obama's speech the other day, he mentioned how the issue of slavery was debated at the time of the Constitution.  Though it wasn't specifically outlawed, there was language about the equality of all people, which later set the stage for outlawing slavery.

A similar debate was going on at the time with gun rights, and the text does not read that "For the purposed of a militia the people have the right to bear arms.  And its specifically not worded that way.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is separated.  The wording was enough to get it accepted as part of the Bill of Rights, but I doubt anyone at the time thought the issue was settled.

[Tony356993]

IMHO "arms" is the key.

At what point is enough, enough? Do we need to have the biggest most powerful weapon because someone might carjack you or break into your home with a bigger-est more powerful-est weapon than you have? Is there a compensation issue? I'm a pretty conservative guy but this gun stuff has gone too far. I'm not sure what the solution is but the current scenario is a sad state of affairs. Does it have to be an all or nothing answer? Nice debate.

[Wally]

Tony356993 wrote:

IMHO "arms" is the key.

At what point is enough, enough? Do we need to have the biggest most powerful weapon because someone might carjack you or break into your home with a bigger-est more powerful-est weapon than you have? Is there a compensation issue? I'm a pretty conservative guy but this gun stuff has gone too far. I'm not sure what the solution is but the current scenario is a sad state of affairs. Does it have to be an all or nothing answer? Nice debate.

Tony, let me ask you, how many cars should a person be able to own? How much horsepower is enough or too much? Should we depend on the government to get us around (public transportation)? If we're worried about the death rate, motor vehicles and their operators are still responsible for more deaths and injury than firearms. The term "accident" does not apply. Most of the vehicle deaths can be attributed to careless use or controlled substance abuse. Be careful of which amendment you want to attack, one you firmly believe in could be next.
Wally