High court to rule on D.C. handgun ban

Law, the Constitution, national events, etc.

High court to rule on D.C. handgun ban

Postby Thomas » Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:53 pm

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether handguns can be banned in the nation's capital, a case that could produce its first ruling in nearly 70 years on the right of Americans to bear arms.

The nation's highest court agreed to hear an appeal by officials from the District of Columbia government arguing that the city's 31-year-old law banning private possession of handguns should be upheld as constitutional.

The justices said they would review a precedent-setting ruling by a U.S. appeals court that broadly interpreted an individual's constitutional right under the Second Amendment to bear arms and struck down the city's law for violating those rights.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case most likely in late February or in March, with a ruling expected by the end of June. The decision could be a factor in the political debate in the 2008 elections.


Supporters and opponents of the law, one of the strictest in the nation, agreed the case could have important legal and political significance.

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."

City lawyers argued the amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms only in connection with service in a state-regulated militia, like today's National Guard, and not for individuals.

But the appeals court adopted the position that the Bush administration has advocated previously -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

The justices, in their decision to take the case, rephrased the issue as whether provisions of the Washington handgun ban violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals "who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment since a 1939 decision when it upheld a federal gun control law but did not definitively resolve the constitutional issue."


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-11-20T182523Z_01_WAT008478_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GUNS-COURT.xml
"You teach best what you most need to learn." ~ Richard Bach
User avatar
Thomas
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Fletcher, NC

Postby Yellow_Dog » Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:24 pm

And I would ask the supporters to prove through statistics that the ban has done anything to eliminate or reduce gun crimes, but in fact only makes criminals of honest people.
Yellow_Dog
 
Posts: 804
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Economic wasteland of Bush's follies

Postby 4tees » Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:58 am

I doubt the ban does/did any good. To my recollection D.C. has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. As far as guns go the cat has been out of the bag for far too long in our gun happy nation.

However, I have always found it fascinating that in western nations where gun ownership has always been restricted, the violent crime rate is far lower than ours. Is it due to their lack of gun ownership? Or is attributable to something different (better) about their attitude towards violence and a greater tolerance toward others?

Perhaps it is that those societies take better care of those who struggle to meet their minimum needs instead of leaving them to mostly fend for themselves as we do?
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby Thomas » Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:40 am

4tees wrote:I doubt the ban does/did any good. To my recollection D.C. has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. As far as guns go the cat has been out of the bag for far too long in our gun happy nation.

However, I have always found it fascinating that in western nations where gun ownership has always been restricted, the violent crime rate is far lower than ours. Is it due to their lack of gun ownership? Or is attributable to something different (better) about their attitude towards violence and a greater tolerance toward others?

Perhaps it is that those societies take better care of those who struggle to meet their minimum needs instead of leaving them to mostly fend for themselves as we do?


Had an idea that it's due to our more heterogeneous population and, perhaps, a larger "underclass". Desperation crimes used to be a factor and maybe still are. A lot of the young delinquents I taught were in it for the money and taking care of mom or siblings by dealing drugs etc.

Then too, there is some debate about our movies and TV shows so many of which are violent not to mention video games. Don't know how these figure into it. I'm sure there are studies.
"You teach best what you most need to learn." ~ Richard Bach
User avatar
Thomas
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Fletcher, NC

Postby etowah » Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:34 pm

A 31 year ban on guns, and a crime rate that is one of the highest in
the nation.

Res Ipsa Loquitur.
He who keeps on dropping the ball doesn't
want to be in the game.
etowah
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Florida

Postby Thomas » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:22 am

etowah wrote:A 31 year ban on guns, and a crime rate that is one of the highest in
the nation.

Res Ipsa Loquitur.


Interesting, but what's your point? Guns have never been, nor never will be a requirement for the commission of criminal acts. Do you happen to know any statistics in regards to gun violence in particular?
"You teach best what you most need to learn." ~ Richard Bach
User avatar
Thomas
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Fletcher, NC


Return to National Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron