DC ban on gun carry rights - unconstitutional

[Zargon]

But it does make them more of a danger and/or more potential.

no more so than anyone with a drivers license

 

[Olikan]

Anti-gun folks have to realize that just because someone owns a firearm doesn't automatically make them a danger to the general public, anymore than someone with HIV is a danger to the public. There shouldn't be a presumption that someone with a firearm will go on a shooting rampage any more than the HIV person will rum around with a syringe of their blood injecting people.

it's not about that... we are talking about a high security place, were beeing paranoid about safety is rational...

Bush knows dangerous a shoes can be

 

[Darwin333]

I'm sure the DC police, Capitol police and Secret Service will just love this. I can just imagine folks walking around with guns around the capital. I guarantee this will not last long.

Because the law abiding gun owners are the ones they should be concerned about...

 

[Darwin333]

it's not about that... we are talking about a high security place, were beeing paranoid about safety is rational...

DC is not a "high security place", there are places in DC that are exceptionally high security but the majority of DC does not fit that label.

 

[alzan]

But it does make them more of a danger and/or more potential.

Well put.

 

[irishScott]

But it does make them more of a danger and/or more potential.

Since anything x 0 is 0, not so much.

Besides, the dangerous people in DC have been carrying guns in spite of the law for decades. You should be about 1000000000000x more worried about them if you're planning a trip.

 

[irishScott]

Well put.

Yes, his statement of irrational fear was quite eloquent.

 

[alzan]

Yes, his statement of irrational fear was quite eloquent.

Irrational fear, not so much.

Logical conclusion +1

 

[Olikan]

DC is not a "high security place", there are places in DC that are exceptionally high security but the majority of DC does not fit that label.

mmm... nevermind then

 

[Jaepheth]

I'd be curious to see what the courts would decide on a law banning any make/model of firearm designed after 1898. (Federal law already does not define pre-1898 Antique and replica guns (caplocks, flintlocks, matchlocks, wheellocks, etc) as "firearms")

The amendment says firearm, indicating burning. Smokeless nitrocellulose powders don't "burn," they explode. The amendment guarantees civilian access to black powder firearms, not explosives

Seems that would meet the framers' definition of "firearm" and thus satisfy the intent of the amendment. But I'm an expert in sophistry, not law.

 

[Pantoot]

I'd be curious to see what the courts would decide on a law banning any make/model of firearm designed after 1898. (Federal law already does not define pre-1898 Antique and replica guns (caplocks, flintlocks, matchlocks, wheellocks, etc) as "firearms")

Seems that would meet the framers' definition of "firearm" and thus satisfy the intent of the amendment. But I'm no expert.

Yeah, that would be cool, and we can take a look at crafting some laws that would regulate speech on the internet and telephone, since clearly the framers weren't thinking of those medium when they used the word "speech". And they probably weren't thinking of our laptops or trunks of our cars when they wrote the fourth amendment...

oh...wait... D:

 

[Venix]

I'd be curious to see what the courts would decide on a law banning any make/model of firearm designed after 1898. (Federal law already does not define pre-1898 Antique and replica guns (caplocks, flintlocks, matchlocks, wheellocks, etc) as "firearms")

The amendment says firearm, indicating burning. Smokeless nitrocellulose powders don't "burn," they explode. The amendment guarantees civilian access to black powder firearms, not explosives

Seems that would meet the framers' definition of "firearm" and thus satisfy the intent of the amendment. But I'm an expert in sophistry, not law.

Amusing, but:

"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."

 

[werepossum]

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ow-legal-in-district-of-columbia-palmer-v-dc/

Fox5 DC reporter Emily Miller reported the non-resident rules slightly differently on her Twitter feed late Sunday night: “STUNNING DEVELOPMENT: DC Police Chief Lanier just told force not to arrest a person who can legally carry a gun in DC or any state.” “More — DC police chief using guidance from AG — grants full reciprocity for all open and concealed carry from others states.” “Only gun arrests now in DC can be DC residents with unregistered guns and non-residents who are prohibited under federal laws.”

Man, that's just incredibly good news.

An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject. Choose which you wish to be.

 

[irishScott]

Irrational fear, not so much.

Logical conclusion +1

He stated that someone carrying a gun is inherently more dangerous than someone not carrying a gun, which is true. However he stated this within the implied context that a person being more generically "dangerous" is bad, which can very well be false depending on the person. It's the context that determines the meaning of the statement, otherwise it's an empty fact and utterly irrelevant.

His "logical conclusion" is either meaningless or born of irrational fear/ignorance. Since people don't often post without meaning, the latter motivation has the best odds.

That, my friend, is a logical conclusion. Sorry if it doesn't gloss over details you'd rather ignore.

 

[alzan]

He stated that someone carrying a gun is inherently more dangerous than someone not carrying a gun, which is true. However he stated this within the implied context that a person being more generically "dangerous" is bad, which can very well be false depending on the person. It's the context that determines the meaning of the statement, otherwise it's an empty fact and utterly irrelevant.

His "logical conclusion" is either meaningless or born of irrational fear/ignorance. Since people don't often post without meaning, the latter motivation has the best odds.

That, my friend, is a logical conclusion. Sorry if it doesn't gloss over details you'd rather ignore.

Hmm, lets see; he was responding to this comment (bolding his):

"I haven't gotten to read the ruling yet, but I'd be surprised if it eliminated all restrictions against open carry. For example, weapons have to be carried in a lockable case or approved holster, safety has to be actuated, no round in the chamber, etc.

Anti-gun folks have to realize that just because someone owns a firearm doesn't automatically make them a danger to the general public, anymore than someone with HIV is a danger to the public. There shouldn't be a presumption that someone with a firearm will go on a shooting rampage any more than the HIV person will rum around with a syringe of their blood injecting people."

...with: "But it does make them more of a danger and/or more potential."


So a gun owner or an AIDS carrier can both potentially be a danger to the general public; they are not necessarily so, but more so than a person who doesn't own a gun or have AIDS. And since the thread is about the gun carry issue in DC a person carrying a gun in DC is potentially as dangerous as an AIDS carrier walking around with a syringe full of their blood.

Since the DC police force, capital police, Secret Service, etc. don't have psychological profiles of the citizenry at their disposal, they would first and foremost concern themselves with the registered gun owners of the district

Doesn't sound ignorant or irrationally fearful.

 

[Nebor]

Since the DC police force, capital police, Secret Service, etc. don't have psychological profiles of the citizenry at their disposal, they would first and foremost concern themselves with the registered gun owners of the district

Concern themselves how? What should they do?

 

[Thebobo]

Man, that's just incredibly good news.

An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject. Choose which you wish to be.

Not so fast there sparky...

I suspect there is a lot of pressure on this judge, who will probably end up regretting he ruled this way regardless of whether or not its a good idea. The SS CP and DCPD dont like shit like this happening in their backyard.

Judge puts D.C. handgun ruling on hold

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...6383f2-1738-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html

By Ann E. Marimow and Peter Hermann July 29 at 7:39 PM
A federal judge on Tuesday delayed a ruling overturning the District’s long-standing ban on carrying handguns in public, once again making it illegal to have firearms on city streets.

Authorities have 90 days to decide whether to rewrite the law to conform with the court ruling. The District could also appeal the judge’s decision. Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) said that officials are still deciding on a strategy but that an announcement would be made “in a matter of days.”

As lawmakers get to work, D.C. police returned to past arrest practices. Ten minutes after the judge granted the reprieve at 1:20 p.m., Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier rescinded orders hurriedly issued Sunday night and told 4,000 officers that “all laws related to firearms regulations and crimes remain in effect.”

 

[QuantumPion]

I'd be curious to see what the courts would decide on a law banning any make/model of firearm designed after 1898. (Federal law already does not define pre-1898 Antique and replica guns (caplocks, flintlocks, matchlocks, wheellocks, etc) as "firearms")

The amendment says firearm, indicating burning. Smokeless nitrocellulose powders don't "burn," they explode. The amendment guarantees civilian access to black powder firearms, not explosives

Seems that would meet the framers' definition of "firearm" and thus satisfy the intent of the amendment. But I'm an expert in sophistry, not law.

Well if you want to violate the spirit of the law and justify what you want to do by twisting the wording of the law into meaning whatever you want it to mean, yeah, you can do whatever you want. But that kind of defeats the purpose of having rule of law to begin with.

 

[Knowing]

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ow-legal-in-district-of-columbia-palmer-v-dc/

Fox5 DC reporter Emily Miller reported the non-resident rules slightly differently on her Twitter feed late Sunday night: “STUNNING DEVELOPMENT: DC Police Chief Lanier just told force not to arrest a person who can legally carry a gun in DC or any state.” “More — DC police chief using guidance from AG — grants full reciprocity for all open and concealed carry from others states.” “Only gun arrests now in DC can be DC residents with unregistered guns and non-residents who are prohibited under federal laws.”

Wow, that was fast. Some very early things I read about this (Saturday) suggested that if they were forced to offer concealed carry like Illinois after Moore v. Madigan the permits would be administered Federally (because it's the district) and so the potential existed for federal reciprocity.

Not so fast there sparky...

Authorities have 90 days to decide whether to rewrite the law to conform with the court ruling. The District could also appeal the judge’s decision. Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) said that officials are still deciding on a strategy but that an announcement would be made “in a matter of days.”

As lawmakers get to work, D.C. police returned to past arrest practices. Ten minutes after the judge granted the reprieve at 1:20 p.m., Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier rescinded orders hurriedly issued Sunday night and told 4,000 officers that “all laws related to firearms regulations and crimes remain in effect.”

Typical. Remember plebs, you can't handle all of this freedom. Friend government is here to protect you from yourself.