Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The District of Columbia Council passed more regulations for gun owners Tuesday, months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban.

    Among other things, the bill requires gun owners to register their weapons every three years and receive training by a certified firearms instructor.

    "This bill will be, I think, one of the most progressive registration laws in the country," Council member Phil Mendelson said.

    The National Rifle Association accused the city of forcing residents to jump through unnecessary hurdles, thereby undermining the intent of the Supreme Court's ruling in June that affirmed the right of Americans to keep guns in the home for self defense.

    "The D.C. Council continues to try to make it harder and harder for law-abiding citizens to access this freedom," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.

    In September, the House passed an NRA-backed bill that would have essentially stripped the city of its ability to regulate firearms, but the measure died in the Senate.

    D.C. leaders say they are trying to be respectful of the Supreme Court case while doing everything they can to enact strict gun control measures in a city where gun violence is common.

    "No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University. (excuse me?)

    Since the handgun ban was overturned, the council has passed legislation allowing residents to own most semiautomatic pistols while banning magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds. Registration also is limited to one pistol a month, and gun owners face prosecution if they fail to keep loaded weapons away from children.

    Tuesday's bill builds on those regulations. It requires gun owners to spend at least one hour at the firing range and four hours in the classroom with an instructor before registration. The bill also requires a criminal background check for gun owners every six years.

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

    Post imported post

    ...while banning magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds.
    Those sound pretty kool. My magazines aren't capable of firing ANY rounds . I still have to use the rest of the gun for that. I'm so behind the times. Where do we get these magazines that can fire rounds???
    "No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.
    Remind me never to take someone educated at George Washington University serious ever, ever again.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NOVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    732

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    ...while banning magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds.
    Those sound pretty kool. My magazines aren't capable of firing ANY rounds . I still have to use the rest of the gun for that. I'm so behind the times. Where do we get these magazines that can fire rounds???
    "No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.
    Remind me never to take someone educated at George Washington University serious ever, ever again.
    LOL +1

    Also where do they sell those plastic handguns that defeat metal detectors? I've been meaning to buy one as a paper weight...

  4. #4
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Good lord! We don't want them gun owners alive! Better make sure they can't use them guns!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Inwood, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    Text of new regulations:

    http://www.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20081210115303.pdf

    I smell another lawsuit coming...


    EFI, LLC - 07/C2 in Inwood, WV
    Custom firearms, gunsmithing, machine gun rentals, and it's just $10 for a Transfer!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    "No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.
    A former member of the ACLU Board and current Vice-Chair of the ACLU Screening Committee, Mary Cheh is an avid defender of civil liberties.
    http://www.marycheh.com/marycheh.htm


    Avid defender of civil liberties my a$$.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    Dom wrote:
    "No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.
    A former member of the ACLU Board and current Vice-Chair of the ACLU Screening Committee, Mary Cheh is an avid defender of civil liberties.
    http://www.marycheh.com/marycheh.htm


    Avid defender of civil liberties my a$$.
    Avid defender of civil liberties she likes.

    She would be livid & apoplectic if one were to apply gun control restrictions on free speech. Too many people don't realize that free speech is just as dangerous and powerful as the RKBA. With speech one can accomplish most if not all of what one can with firearms.

    Yet they want to limit firearms and let speech run unfettered. :shock:

    How about they can take away my 2nd Amendment rights when they have to surrender under equal terms THEIR 1st Amendment rights? Somehow, I don't think they would buy into that deal. As such, why should I buy into their deal?

  8. #8
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Post imported post

    I see where it says.....

    “(13)(A) Has completed a firearms training or safety course or class conducted by 8

    a state certified firearms instructor or a certified military firearms instructor that provides, at a 9

    minimum, a total of at least one hour of firing training at a firing range and a total of at least four 10

    hours of classroom instruction.


    First, what "state" is Washington DC in?

    Secondly, does an NRA certified instructor count?

    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    We used to have somewhat similar requirements in MO for handguns but finally got it repealed a few years ago. Now it is so much more convenient to buy a handgun. Gangbangers in St. Louis are still killing gangbangers, the liberals in Columbia, MO still won't buy guns and so have the highest home invasion rate in the state, people in Kansas City are sick of it and started buying a lot of guns and almost 20% of all homicides in the city this year have been ruled justifiable self-defense. We in the rural areas have always had lots of guns and we continue to have them and carry them. There is crime in the more rural areas too, primariliy against young and old women, fellow felons, and hippy men who make it publicly known that they have not the means or will to defend themselves.

    So yeah. I don't think the training or registration is helping much in the real world. It could inhibit survival if someone needs a gun right away because of threats against their person. But I seriously doubt it has saved any lives. People who want to get training and/or practice are going to do so. Those who don't will take only as much away from the required training as they have to and promptly forget it and do whatever the hell they want anyway. Human nature plain and simple. And this from someone who is a very strong supporter and encourager of getting as much training and practice as often as money and time allow.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Uh, big difference there Chief. Your life and liberty can be deprived AFTER you've committed a crime. So you're saying all gun owners are criminals, and therefore it's okay to infringe on their rights? Go ahead, keep digging that hole you're standing in....I'll wait.

    Sarah Brady said:
    And, on a side note, there is a right to life and liberty, but the law can take those away.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gladewater, Texas, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    Avid defender of civil liberties she likes.

    She would be livid & apoplectic if one were to apply gun control restrictions on free speech. Too many people don't realize that free speech is just as dangerous and powerful as the RKBA. With speech one can accomplish most if not all of what one can with firearms.

    Yet they want to limit firearms and let speech run unfettered. :shock:

    They can have my words when they pry them from my cold, dead mouth!

  12. #12
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    DC wants you to be taught by a 'state certified' instructor.

    DC is not a state, although it doesn't say WHAT state.... So presumably you can get a training certificate from any state. They could equally deny it saying that its not 'the' state they wanted.




    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    While I agree with those who are taking the position that licencing and training requirements will never produce the results desired, and it is actually unconstitutional to impose these as a precursor to exercise of a RIGHT. this discussion might be settled by a quick look at the context of these new requirements. That will reveal the actual intent of the progenitors.

    If you will recall, (or perhaps this is new) the DC council and the major all went nuts when the Supremes tipped over the proverbial apple cart by ruling firearms ownership is a protected right. There have been A LOT of speeches and a lot of press conferences where these people have stated very clearly that they do not intend to allow the "gains" in gun control to be lost by this ruling. And they have no intention of being told by a court what they will or won't do.

    So what we actually have here is a training requirement that must be periodically renewed (for a fee) and requires range time in a city that has NO RANGES. Do you actually think DC will recognize training from Virginia? How about transporting firearms into and out of the city for the training? The registrations have to be renewed (for a fee), and you might note, this is just to have the weapon n your house. You are still not allowed to have it on the street. How are you supposed to get the thing to you class if you can't take it out of your house. There is of course the manufacture date sunrise provision designed to dry up the supply of firearms available until there are none. Oh yes and there are no gun shops in DC any more that I am aware of.

    It goes on and on, but the DC city council is not interested in safety, or education or anything else. They are interested in making it impossible or so expensive to comply with the law that nobody will try or they will give up after a few passes through the system.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623

    Post imported post

    "No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University. (excuse me?)
    Then she should shut her first amendment pie hole.
    Revelation 1911 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:

    Sarah Brady said:
    ...there is a right to life and liberty, but the law can take those away.
    The rights to life and liberty are inalienable (click) rights, not legal rights.

    Please note the differences. Thanks.




  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Well, it's for SAFETY, think of the children, for God's Sakes!

    What you are proposing is a nothing more than gun registration. It's a proven historical FACT that gun registration leads to gun confiscation. There are dozens of examples of it.

    I could be mistaken, but I swear I saw where you said you listen to Dr. Paul. Well, you may have heard Dr. Paul speak, but you obviously don't LISTEN to Dr. Paul.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Its called relativism.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    ...SNIP
    I also never said open carry makes anyone an anarchist. I my newest pet catch phrase is "OC extremist" which describes the people on this site that ARE anarchists (whether they admit it or not), and there are quite a few.
    Well I guess I was confused by your repeated mention of people who OC and your connection of them with advocacy of anarchy in most of your more recent posts.

    You correctly zeroed in onyour use of the term "OC extremist" as the reference I am pointing out. It is not extremism to simply exercise a lawful right.Nor is it extremism to advocate for that right in is unfettered form, when that is precisely the way the law says that right should exist. What I have noticed in this discussion is a consistent refusal to take at face value the words "... Shall not be infringed." That is where you and the unfettered carry people part ways.Since you stated that we should look at the world the way it is,I suggest we look at that for a moment.

    Just because the court has said that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on ownership and carry of firearms, does not meant that they are correct in that view of the meaning of those words. The fact is that those words are rather clear and resolute. Because of that people view the court as legislating from the bench in this area. Most people familiar with the correct use of the English language can see this is the case. Depending on your views on firearms and your ability to read, you either agree with the court or you do not.

    The supreme court is suppose to gather the meaning of the law from the words used to draft it in context and rule accordingly. Lower courts are supposed to follow that guidance. If the wording of TSA were something like "... Shall not be infringed except to impose reasonable restrictions on the carrying of arms." Then I and a lot of others here would agree with some of your views on this point. But it does not say that, and to take and holdthe view that it does not and live accordingly is not extremist. It may be activist, but not extremist.

    In the context of this forum references such as "OC extremists"seem rather ad hominem and unnecessarily provocativefor use in intelligent discussion. There is a big difference between noting that someones views share features in common with anarchy, and that they themselves are anarchists. You will find that most here are constitutional constructionists. You seem by your own description to be a relativist. These two views will always conflict as they are almost bipolar opposites.

    Relativists views share a lot of common ground with socialism and communism, but that does not mean that we need to refer to you or them as OC hating communists, or a gun grabbing socialists.

    All I am suggesting is that we ALL, on BOTH sides of the discussion, try to keep things on a little higher plane than name calling.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Springfield, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    By all means, elaborate. Create this world were every single person can be independant or, at the very least, we'd only need tiny groups of people to coordinate. I'd like every possible issue addressed, including infrastructure, law enforcement, law creation, justice systems, mass transit coordination, international relations (very important when you're dealing with 9,000,0000 independant nations), defence, economics (national and international), etc etc etc. I'll sit here and list stuff until your head starts spinning and you realize that the world is the way it is now forgood reason.
    I have no doubt that you'll sit there with nothing of value to add. You'd probably fair better in your postings here if you ever managed to argue with what was actually posted rather than what you would obviously preferred someone had posted.

    We the people have a continuing society because we understood how to coordinate with each other a long time ago. Even the items in the list you posted above don't require a government at any level to either create or coordinate them. I realize that it's probably beyond your ability to comprehend, but if a bunch of people really wanted "mass transit" someone would figure out how to get a bus/boat/airplane/etc from point A to point B without a government around to artifically pick the wrong route.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The Supreme Court agrees with me on common sense restrictions.
    I love the "common sense restrictions" argument. Can you show just one single restriction on firearms which has been shown to reduce violent crime? The Clinton Justice Department couldn't find any, the CDC couldn't find any, can you AWD?

    To most people, common sense dictates that any law which does nothing to reduce crime, puts people in danger, and costs much in scarce resources, is stupid. When you look at the stats, the only thing gun control laws accomplish is to weaken the law abiding citizen and embolden the criminal who will ignore this law like they ignore all others.

    The Supreme Court has been known to make a ruling based more on political expediency than on law. If you doubt this, look at some of the rulings on imminent domain and freedom of speech in regards to the Campaign Finance Reform Act. One of the more outlandish cases was that of Dred Scott, not one of the greater moments in our history.
    You forgot to answer my question AWD. This should be easy to answer, much easier than settling the debate over what exactly constitutes anarchy orlibertarianism.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    les_aker wrote:
    ...SNIP
    We the people have a continuing society because we understood how to coordinate with each other a long time ago. Even the items in the list you posted above don't require a government at any level to either create or coordinate them. I realize that it's probably beyond your ability to comprehend, but if a bunch of people really wanted "mass transit" someone would figure out how to get a bus/boat/airplane/etc from point A to point B without a government around to artifically pick the wrong route.

    Actually in the real world "AWD" has asked us all to use for the discussion, you are very correct. The Government is actually not responsible for any of the infrastructure issues discussed so far. The government actually produces nothing in the real world, and in many ways is restrictive of private sectorefforts. While in communist societies the government either owns or directly controls the means of production, that is not the case here. Everything the government does that is not an inherently governmental function is done by the private sector, and only paid for by the government. Paid for by the way with money taken from the people under threat of imprisonment. Not a very benign relationship to start with.

    While seemly a small detail, this is actually the overarching issue. In this country the government produces nothing. While it is an enabler, and may even provide a planning infrastructure, when the work needs to be done the private sector actually does the work. moreover, those private sector entities actually do the coordination of the work for the project. The space program is a perfect example, so are major road projects. All built and coordinated by private sector entities.

    Now on the other side of the argument the government does frequently define what should be done in very general terms. Things like "lets go to the moon", or "we need a highway between these two cities". The government also provides the power to take property and other things that can only be achieved by a sovereign. But that is all they do.

    The only real area where large national government is actually required, is for common defense of the people. This might include law enforcement, but typically law enforcement is a local matter.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  22. #22
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    You call it "legislating from the bench," but, in reality, what they're doing is what they were intended to do, interpret the law.
    While this is absolutely true, that does not mean that our Justices are infallible and do not let personal leanings, religous values,and politics of the day determine how they vote and how they base their arguments, rather than interpret from the constitution, which is what they are required to do. To not understand that it to not understand human nature.

    You, in yourinfinite and mind numbingly overwhelming legal knowledge,simply don't like what they come up with so you cry about it. And you base your cries on... nothing. Nothing that matters.
    So, we have the boy wonder kidwho describes to me how much legal knowledge I have without knowing anything about me whatsoever. However, I do not have infinite knowledge of any topic. You are comical, but unfortunately, I don't think you intended to be so..

    You disagree with them based on YOUR (that's Flintlock from the internet, a nobody with no law degree and no legal experience) opinion.
    Oh, really? What if I did have that law degree? Then what would your argument be about? You sound very sure of yourself and your poor arguments. The fact isthat for some reason you feel that we should all have a law degree to question the Supreme Court decisions or the decisions of our legislators.That isappalling and disturbing and shows an utter lack of constitutional understanding and what our country is all about, particularly our founding.

    I'll say this... It is absolutely apparent that you have been totally indocrinated by whatevermedia, political, and educational forces that have shaped your supposed ideals and they aren't anything I'd be proud of outside of the most leftist states in our Union.

    No one would pay any mind to a 5 year old giving marriage advice and I would take a doctor's opinion on my health over a cheerleader's. So tell me again why your opinion matters?
    I am just a poster on an internet forum. That doesn't require "qualification" as you seem to thnk we should all have. By that logic, it wouldn't suprise me in the least if you actually not only believe in, but support, a handgun permit process and registration.

    Additionally,why should we all listen to your diatribes about philosophy, politics, OC, constitutional issues, or anything for that matter. You are a kid with zero experience. You are not special and you do notknow better than everyone else. Your apparent attempted tutelage of us allmakes me laugh.
    Seven+years inpost highschool schoolingand a lifetime of experience as a justice? Pshhhh.... what's that matter? I have wikipedia and the drudge report. I'm as qualified as anyone. :quirky


    You can use whatever sources you want, but I would recommend that you drop the "qualification" attitude as this is a public forum and you are not an authority on anything other than what you can spew on your computer. A computer that isprobably located from a room in your parents house.

    I typed my last post because you vomitedthe same rhetoric to another poster that you did to me in a thread a fewweeks ago. You really need to get over yourself, you are not the save-all, end-all of the forum, nor an authrority on discussion topics. You remain focused on my qualifications to post here and have opinions, but what about yourself? You must believe that you are the most experienced, intelligent, well-rounded 22 year old on the planet.



    Edit: Spelling
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    les_aker wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    By all means, elaborate.* Create this world were every single person can be independant or, at the very least, we'd only need tiny groups of people to coordinate.* I'd like every possible issue addressed, including infrastructure, law enforcement, law creation, justice systems, mass transit coordination, international relations (very important when you're dealing with 9,000,0000 independant nations), defence, economics (national and international), etc etc etc.* I'll sit here and list stuff until your head starts spinning and you realize that the world is the way it is now for*good reason.
    We the people have a continuing society because we understood how to coordinate with each other a long time ago.* Even the items in the list you posted above don't require a government at any level to either create or coordinate them.* I realize that it's probably beyond your ability to comprehend, but if a bunch of people really wanted "mass transit" someone would figure out how to get a bus/boat/airplane/etc from point A to point B without a government around to artifically pick the wrong route.*
    Exactly right.

    AWD, you still are giving the government credit for things for which it bears no responsibility. Anything you can point to as a function of the government in our society was originally served by private interests, and was at some point usurped by a monopoly (at gunpoint by a governmental monopoly, to be precise).

    And I thought you didn't like big business? :P

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The Supreme Court agrees with me on common sense restrictions.
    What that means is that your opinion represents the current state of the law of the land. It does NOT mean you or the court are actually correct.

    I'll remind you that at various times the SCOTUS has ruled that blacks (or anyone with any measurable African American blood in his veins) was not a citizen/person and that separate but equal complied with the requirements of the 14th amendment.

    At other times, and with no changes to the constitution in the intervening period. the court has ALSO ruled that separate is not equal, that forced busing is permissible, that quotas on affirmative action are (and then are not) permissible, and so on.

    The court is no more infallible than any other branch of government, nor any other human institution for that matter.

    And I don't think it takes any kind of anarchist to reasonably suggest that current precedence from the court supporting "reasonable restrictions" are as offensive to the 2nd amendment as was Plessy v. Ferguson and government imposed segregation to the 14th amendment.

    Finally, I note that the courts do NOT properly "interpret" the constitution or other laws. Being written in English, there is no need to interpret them. What courts should do properly is to APPLY the constitution and laws to the case at hand, to determine how the laws apply to the specific facts of the case at hand.

    There is a subtle but importance difference between "interpret" and "apply." Conceding the court can or should "interpret" the constitution leads to the kind of activist comments as made my Justice O'Conner in which she suggested that maybe in a few more years the language of the constitution could no longer be interpreted to allow quotas on affirmative action, but that at the current time such an interpretation was supported. Applying the constitution would prevent such nonsense. An interpreted constitution is no constitution at all as the document means no more or less than 5 Justiced today want it to mean. Honestly applying the constitution requires deference to original intent and binds Justices to avoid personal desires or agendas.

    Charles

    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie are you going blind or did you just not see the post above yours?
    AWD, your post wasn't there when I started to write my post. Note the time, only 3 minutes separate the posts. This may seem like a lot, but with 3 kids under 6 in my house, it's barely noticeable.
    No, I don't know of any and that's also completely irrelevant to the topic because my original post stated that I wanted required TRAINING. What that has to do with gun control reducing violent crime is beyond me.

    I just wanted to know what made sense about laws which have no effect on violent crime (the reason most anti's use to impose more restrictions is violent crime). You can show me no case where any restriction on guns has been shown to reduce violent crime. So why do you want to impose restrictions on my rights?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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