-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Fox News reporting 5-4 the DC gun ban is history
- Thread starter doctork
- Start date
67GT390FB
Regular Member
imported post
from cnn:
High court strikes down gun ban
"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.
Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.
from cnn:
High court strikes down gun ban
- Story Highlights
- NEW:[/b] Justices split 5-4 in favor of overturning Washington's handgun ban
- Ruling could spark debate on whether right to own gun is collective or individual
- Virginia Tech massacre survivor told court, "There has to be tighter gun control"
- Chicago, San Francisco back Washington ban; NRA, most congressmen oppose it
- Next Article in U.S. »
From Bill MearsCNN Supreme Court Producer
WASHINGTON (CNN)[/b] -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.
A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.
The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.
At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.
District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.
In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.
Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.
"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' "See how proponents, opponents argued »
Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.
"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."
In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.
It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.
City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."
There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.
The Second Amendment says, "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 wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.
The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.
Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.
The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.
In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.
"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.
Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.
67GT390FB
Regular Member
imported post
from fox:
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.[/b]
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
from fox:
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.[/b]
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
67GT390FB
Regular Member
imported post
67GT390FB wrote:
67GT390FB wrote:
Can someone tell me how a person can become a Supreme Court Justice and not have basic reading or reading comprehension skills?
67GT390FB
Regular Member
imported post
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.[/b]
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.[/b]
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
smccomas
Regular Member
imported post
open carry rally DCon July 4th!
open carry rally DCon July 4th!
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
I am going to head to the range during lunch to celebrate
I am going to head to the range during lunch to celebrate
smccomas
Regular Member
imported post
Think my wife and I will go after work, I will buy extra box of ammo and call it my "DC .40" in celebration.
Think my wife and I will go after work, I will buy extra box of ammo and call it my "DC .40" in celebration.
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
Great news!
Great news!
Freeflight
Campaign Veteran
imported post
smccomas wrote:
smccomas wrote:
Thats a good idea!!!! I'm in
tripledipper
Regular Member
imported post
Have not open carried in VAbut a newCHP holder. I just wanted to show my support.
Have not open carried in VAbut a newCHP holder. I just wanted to show my support.
DonTreadOnMe
Regular Member
imported post
5-4 hmm.....5-4....FIVE TO FREAKING FOUR!
I was all :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate when I heard the ruling, but the more I think about it the less happy I am. :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Just think, four of them did not support our human right to defend ourselves.
If Obama wins in november and replaces one of the five with a gun hater.... ...or more than one!
Yes, today was a win, but a scary win in how close it was.
Can we afford to let a guy that would say this be president, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or anti-pathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."?
Be active, be active, be active....and vote in november!!!
5-4 hmm.....5-4....FIVE TO FREAKING FOUR!
I was all :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate when I heard the ruling, but the more I think about it the less happy I am. :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Just think, four of them did not support our human right to defend ourselves.
If Obama wins in november and replaces one of the five with a gun hater.... ...or more than one!
Yes, today was a win, but a scary win in how close it was.
Can we afford to let a guy that would say this be president, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or anti-pathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."?
Be active, be active, be active....and vote in november!!!
jack
Banned
imported post
Now some needs to get arrested for open carry in DC so we can fight for that RIGHT.
I would like to nominate LEO 229 for the job, any seconds ?
Now some needs to get arrested for open carry in DC so we can fight for that RIGHT.
I would like to nominate LEO 229 for the job, any seconds ?
ProShooter
Regular Member
imported post
tripledipper wrote:
tripledipper wrote:
Welcome tripledipper!
Glock27Bill
Regular Member
imported post
jack wrote:
I move that we let this issue go.
Any seconds?
jack wrote:
I move that we let this issue go.
Any seconds?
jack
Banned
imported post
Glock27Bill wrote:
No sense of humor on the best day in recent years for GUN rights ?
Come on guys, lighten up.
Glock27Bill wrote:
No sense of humor on the best day in recent years for GUN rights ?
Come on guys, lighten up.
KodiakISGOOD
Regular Member
imported post
jack wrote:
Humor is fine, however he'd be exempt due to H.R. 218
jack wrote:
Humor is fine, however he'd be exempt due to H.R. 218
Glock27Bill
Regular Member
imported post
jack wrote:
Nota problem, Bud, just kinda been beat to death.
Sooooo...how 'bout them Bears?
jack wrote:
Nota problem, Bud, just kinda been beat to death.
Sooooo...how 'bout them Bears?