Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Great article on gun statistics & DC gun ban today on foxnews.com

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Peoria, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    The title of the thread says it all. There's a few people I'll have to send that link to, lol.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    swift wrote: I read this the other day thought you might like to read it.






    Citizens in Gun Challenge Ask Supreme Court to Reinstate Their Case Against the District of Columbia

    09.10.07

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Five Washington, D.C. residents today filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to reinstate their legal case against the District's restrictive gun laws. The five citizens, Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, and George Lyon, filed a federal court challenge to the District's gun ban in 2003 along with D.C. resident Dick Heller. That lawsuit led to a historic court ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that D.C.'s gun ban violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.



    But the appellate court also held that among the six plaintiffs, only Heller had the necessary "standing" to challenge the law. On September 4, 2007, the District filed papers asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court on the merits of the gun challenge. The five other plaintiffs besides Heller -- Parker, Palmer, St. Lawrence, Ambeau, and Lyon -- today filed their own petition asking the Supreme Court reinstate their case against the District and allow them to proceed along with Heller as they did in the lower courts for over four years. The Supreme Court will likely decide in late October whether to accept the appeals.



    Today's cross-appeal raises an extraordinarily important question about when citizens may vindicate their constitutional rights in federal court. Defying decades of Supreme Court precedent, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held it was not enough that people who wish to keep guns in their home for lawful self-defense risk going to jail under the District's well-known "zero tolerance" policy if they do so. Instead, the court held that in order to challenge any criminal law in federal court, citizens must first break the law, wait for the authorities to discover their violation, and then receive a personal threat of prosecution. But the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected that view, recognizing the unfairness of forcing citizens to choose between breaking the law and going to prison, on the one hand, or giving up valuable constitutional rights, on the other.



    The Parker plaintiffs' lead counsel Alan Gura explained, "The government isn't in the habit of sending warning letters to people before it violates their civil rights. Requiring this type of personalized threat as a prerequisite for filing a civil rights lawsuit slams the courthouse door on law-abiding people who just want to exercise their constitutional rights."



    Plaintiff Gillian St. Lawrence said, "I want to keep a gun in my home for self defense. I believe I have that right under the Constitution. But the only way for me to get a court ruling is to get break the law and wait to get caught? That's not right. I should be able to stand up for my rights without having to risk going to jail."



    The appellate court found that among the six plaintiffs only Heller had standing to challenge D.C.'s gun ban because he -- unlike the other plaintiffs -- tried unsuccessfully to register a pistol in the District. But that was a futile act because District law prohibits the registration of any pistol after 1976. As a matter of common sense and Supreme Court precedent, the government may not require citizens to jump through meaningless hoops in order to have their civil rights claims heard in court. The court of appeals' conclusion that Parker, Palmer, St. Lawrence, Ambeau, and Lyon lacked standing to challenge the District's unconstitutional gun laws because they did not first fill out a meaningless form contradicts that principal and creates a dangerous civil rights precedent in the nation's capital.

  4. #4
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Excellent article! I just wish more people could understand the truth of what was written in the article.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Re: Kelly J's article:

    It's especially ridiculous to require people to break laws regarding firearms, as if the person loses that battle due to the plethora of anti-gun judges, said person will, for all intents and purposes, never be able to legally touch a gun again.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    swift wrote: Thanks for the link, that's a great article! There's some excellent statistical data to use in response to the some of the usual anti-gun arguments.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Peoria, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    You're welcome. I folks here woud enjoy it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post



    It is my honest opinion, that if the Supreme Court upholds the DC Circuit decision, that there will be some major changes in the Nation, and in the eyes of the critics about guns in general.

    For far to long, the gun has been made the criminal, instead of the true criminal, but that is nothing that you need to be told, you have known that from the beginning, maybe if the SCOTUS does the right thing for once in a great while, we will finally be vindicated as people, not gun culture nuts that could not function in the real world without our security item, The Gun.

    The thing that I fail to understand, and I'm sure it has crossed your minds as well, is that with the acceptance of the gun in our daily lives, and Cities, the crime rates have fallen, and that can not be attributed to chance, or just a coincidence of fate.

    I have high hopes, and honestly hope the Court for once will get it right.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    There's some excellent statistical data to use in response to the some of the usual anti-gun arguments.
    For anyone who hasn't already done so, I highly recommend that you read Mr. Lott's books on guns and gun violence: More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.

    He packs a LOT of data into these two books, and shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that guns do more good than harm. There are some really great statistics in there that I often end up quoting to my friends who are less than gun friendly. Everything is cited and many of the statistics come from government agencies, so it's difficult to dismiss them as biased or misleading.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Kelly,

    The situation is similar to decent people (vs. criminals) who carry concealed but without a permit to do so.

    They are exercising their right to self-defense without government permissionbut risk getting caught/arrested before a "test case" can be brought -- the proverbial Federal Case -- and one I'm sure the SCOTUS will, as usual, be afraid to face (the cowards that they are) so it simply will refuse to hear it.

    What complete BS.

    -- John D.


    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  11. #11
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    Kelly,

    The situation is similar to decent people (vs. criminals) who carry concealed but without a permit to do so.

    They are exercising their right to self-defense without government permissionbut risk getting caught/arrested before a "test case" can be brought -- the proverbial Federal Case -- and one I'm sure the SCOTUS will, as usual, be afraid to face (the cowards that they are) so it simply will refuse to hear it.

    What complete BS.

    -- John D.

    I truly hope you are wrong in this case.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    If SCOTUS refuses to hear the case would not that be a positive outcome as well? If they choose to not hear the case that is in a way signifying their agreement with the lower court and the DC ban would be unenforceable. It would be great for the case to be heard since it will have a national effect but that ruling could go either way. I would hope that they would rule consistent with the original intent of the BOR.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    But then again, SCOTUS has yet to rule that the 2nd amendment applies to the states. As I understand it (which indeed could be wrong), all the states could outright ban civilian ownership of guns, and that would be OK "constitutionally" as long as the federal government isn't the entity doing the banning. :shock:

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Toad,

    If that's what "refuses to hear" really means, legally speaking...

    But IMO, if SCOTUS does not ONCE AND FOR ALL set things straight with a "landmark" ruling, then the issue remains a gray area we will continue to debate indefinately.

    Regardless, even the SCOTUS can not GRANT"We the People" any rights as it has no such power...it can only affirm them. Consequently, any ruling from the SCOTUS to the contrary is illegal, null-and-void and therefore deserving of 100% Civil Disobedience.

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    Toad wrote:
    If SCOTUS refuses to hear the case would not that be a positive outcome as well? If they choose to not hear the case that is in a way signifying their agreement with the lower court and the DC ban would be unenforceable. It would be great for the case to be heard since it will have a national effect but that ruling could go either way. I would hope that they would rule consistent with the original intent of the BOR.
    It needs to deal with the Bill of Rights to afirm that indeed the 2nd Amendment dies state that the Individual has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as was intended by the Framers, that is the ruling that is needed to settle a lot of BS in regard to the issue of guns, the use of them, and the fact that we can buy, possess, use carry, hunt, target shoot, of any praticle manner of applications we choose so long as we do not break and Moral or Religious laws with them, if that makes sence, as opposed to using the term breaking the law, (Civil Law).

  16. #16
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    But then again, SCOTUS has yet to rule that the 2nd amendment applies to the states. As I understand it (which indeed could be wrong), all the states could outright ban civilian ownership of guns, and that would be OK "constitutionally" as long as the federal government isn't the entity doing the banning. :shock:
    I am not a Lawyer but I do think that would be against the Constitution, but we both know that it has been done, I don't agree with it but then who am I.

    That is exactly why we need the SCOTUS to clearly state that the Second Amendment does garentee the Right of the People to keep and bear arms. That would make everything a lot better for us all.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Then again, I'm reluctant for the SCOTUS to hear a case that would establish whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to individuals and not just the state... As much as it seems like a slam-dunk victory, in the off chance that they would rule the other way, that there is no constitutional guarentee to individuals' right to keep and bear arms, we're all f*cked. A better way to approach it would be through pro-gun, nation-wide legislation in the US congress, though with the Democrat (not Democrat-ic) majority, that won't be happening any time soon.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Then again, I'm reluctant for the SCOTUS to hear a case that would establish whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to individuals and not just the state... As much as it seems like a slam-dunk victory, in the off chance that they would rule the other way, that there is no constitutional guarentee to individuals' right to keep and bear arms, we're all f*cked. A better way to approach it would be through pro-gun, nation-wide legislation in the US congress, though with the Democrat (not Democrat-ic) majority, that won't be happening any time soon.


    “Second Amendmentto the Constitution of the United States of America"[/b][/b][/b]

    "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".[/b]
    [/b]
    This is the issue, the Supreme Court Justices must adhere to,[/b] it is their responsibility to uphold the Constitution of these United States, and if they do that, there will be no question as to the outcome, of any honest decision regarding the issue of the peoples right to keep and bear arms, the statement is clear, and in truth, leaves no room for an ulterior definition of the meaning of the Article. Common since, and simple reading of the words, will settle the argument, if the Justices will forget their lawyers language, and read the constitution, as it was intended to be read, "by the Common Man",[/b] its a done deal.

    If however, the Justices fail to understand the wording, and imply their personal understanding, or the popular anti meaning of it, then we do not have Justices in the Supreme Court, we have Activist sitting the Bench of the High Court, and should be removed.

    This is my personal opinion of it, and I will not suffer any other interpretation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •