SCOTUS poised to strike down D.C. gunban.

[Turin]

Why shouldn't cities that have demonstrated absurdly high rates of gun deaths be permitted to make guns (and/or their sale) illegal within their boundaries? This is a pretty clear-cut case of consequential ethics winning out over some abstract legalistic rule.

So your position is the ends justify the means? That’s a dangerous default opinion to have on matters of civil rights.

Of course not, don't be foolish. Consequentialist ethics doesn't mean "ends justify the means." It means "the ends are evaluated by their results." If the means are in-and-of-themselves bad, then that feeds into the results.

Anyway the Washington DC handgun ban has been 100% ineffective at reducing gun murders, in fact DC is top in the nation for gun murders… and law abiding citizens can’t have handguns which are most suited to personal protection. Funny don’t you think?

100% is an awful big claim. Care to back it up? The handgun ban doesn't have to reduce the gun murder rate to 0% to be effective, you know. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof that having access to handguns reduces crime lies with those who want to allow the bulk of the population to have them.

And as far as I know, law-abiding citizens in DC still have access to, say, shotguns, that they can have in their home to defend against the (rare) home invader if they feel like it. I hate to break it to you, but if I have a handgun, it doesn't do shit to protect the kid walking next to me on the sidewalk if two completely unrelated people decide to have a gunfight.

[Paolo]

The Ten Amendments are supposed to be the "unassailable rights" left to individuals-- some, I think Jefferson primarily, did not want the 10 Amendments since he felt that their inclusion would be tacit approval for the government to soak up all other rights not spelled out directly (hence the 10th Amendment leaving "anything not specifically enumerated here is the purview of the States" (paraphrased).

Historical interjection:

That would be Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 84: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted."

Jefferson was one of the leading Anti-Federalist proponents of a Bill of Rights, responding to the Hamiltonian argument: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can. "

James Madison was inclined to agree with at least the Hamiltonian idea that an enumeration of protections was unnecessary, but in the end he was the guy who kicked off the compromise that became the the Bill of Rights.

[Mr Bean]

100% is an awful big claim. Care to back it up? The handgun ban doesn't have to reduce the gun murder rate to 0% to be effective, you know. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof that having access to handguns reduces crime lies with those who want to allow the bulk of the population to have them.

D.C. Murder Capital of the World One can not say with any honesty that the gun ban has been effective. Now DC's not always held that title only once, but it has held the murder capital of America a number of years and has lost it a few times, but it has been in the top ten murder happy cities in America for awhile. The handgun ban is not working in any way shape or form.

And as far as I know, law-abiding citizens in DC still have access to, say, shotguns, that they can have in their home to defend against the (rare) home invader if they feel like it. I hate to break it to you, but if I have a handgun, it doesn't do shit to protect the kid walking next to me on the sidewalk if two completely unrelated people decide to have a gunfight.

You need three things to get a non-handgun weapon in DC(Such as a shotgun)
1. A DC drivers license(Easier said than done, more on that in a minute)
2. You must purchase the gun from a registered and license DC dealer,
OR
otherwise you must bring your gun along with all paperwork to the DC Metro police and present the gun for their approval.
You have 48 hours after bringing the gun in to get approval, and their Approval is conditional, for example when I attempted to get my prefered home defense weapon, a paratrooper version M1A1 Carbine into the DC area, the Metro police denied my request, you see which guns they allow in is their own judgment, but they can deny your application for a varity of reasons if you attempt to bring in a hunting rifle(For obvious reasons the metro police don't like the idea of you bringing in a high powered scoped rifle into DC limits)
3. You must have a gun lock on your gun at all times or have it dissembled, unless you are transporting it to or from a registered firing range, of which I know of only one in DC, the rest are in Maryland/Virigina. Otherwise your "self defense weapon" must be secured with a gun-lock or in a approved gun safe.

[K. A. Pital]

DC is open to gun traffic from other states. There's no way the ban would be effective.

Of course, unless you lockdown DC and then clear out all the houses from handguns (yes, including the south-east and northern ghettoes), making it illegal to possess them.

In that case I could see it having an effect, but the way it is now... not much.

[Mr Bean]

Lets review, as it stands right now in order to get a gun in DC you must have a drivers license from DC, you must have either purchased your gun from a DC dealer(Of which there are about three and they inflate their prices to hell) or you must get the gun past the Metro police(Who can approve or deny it at will)

And you must keep your gun secured at all times, oh and I forgot the gun lock must be of a particular type, the ring type are not allowed, it must be a physical key, even if it's a hex or an octagon key, the microchip locks are not approved, it must be a physical locking device.

[Mr Bean]

DC is open to gun traffic from other states. There's no way the ban would be effective.

Of course, unless you lockdown DC and then clear out all the houses from handguns (yes, including the south-east and northern ghettoes), making it illegal to possess them.

In that case I could see it having an effect, but the way it is now... not much.

As noted Stas, you have 48 hours to declare your gun to the Metro police, or you are committing a crime. Not that it matters as you noted, people who want to legally own a gun don't traffic guns to DC to begin with.

[Broomstick]

[1. Rogue 9 mentioned that the Militia Act was amended in 1958, so I assumed it was possible. Your righteous outrage is completely unwarranted, especially since the comment is tongue in cheek with a smiley.

I think (although to be honest I speak mostly for myself) that YOUR knee-jerk reaction of "amend to say National Guard only" may have rubbed some folks the wrong way. As pointed out, that would mean anyone not qualifying to join the NG would have no right to bear arms no matter how responsible. For example - neither my husband or I have ever been able to pass such a physical. People who had been in the Guard for decades would lose the right to bear arms as soon as they leave - what, they somehow because irresponsible and untrustworthy overnight?

Arguably, it is those people who are least able - the ones in wheelchairs, the ones who physically can't run, etc - who are most in need of the ability to defend themselves with weapons. And keep in mind that while guns attract the most attention this concerns weapons of any sort - so what's to stop a complete ban on things like pepper spray and tasers as well as firearms? If the 2nd is determined to mean only state militias there would be nothing to prevent that.

The DC case originated with a security guard who was required to carry a gun at work but was forbidden to have one in his home. To Americans, on a certain level that makes about as much sense as saying a plumber isn't allowed to park his van full of tools in his own driveway (I realize the rest of the world has different views on the subject)

The point of a Supreme Court is not to issue final rulings on controversal issues.

Yeah, actually that IS one of the roles of the SC. When there is dispute about the law they make the final decision.

If the country (be that Congress, the Executive Branch, the States, or the collective People) doesn't like the ruling the have the option to change the Constitution by amendment, which has been done a couple dozen times.

Then there is the 2000 Presidential Election....

I particularly dislike your use of the word "final" because it seems in complete, utter contradiction with your idea that there's interaction.

But their rulings ARE considered final! There is no appeal above them.

A one-way decree is not interaction.

If the "decree" is not acceptable then there is the option to change the Constitution.

[Broomstick]

Deleted: nevermind, someone else already answered.

[brianeyci]

Yeah, actually that IS one of the roles of the SC. When there is dispute about the law they make the final decision.

What Sea Skimmer, Master of Ossus and so on mean by final decision is not what I mean by final decision. What they mean is final decisions on what I call minutiae, small irrelevant details like whether banning shotguns or banning automatic weapons is unconstitutional. Skimmer goes further saying he wishes there was a way to force the court to issue timely rulings.

So basically it comes down to how final is final. Ossus brings up Roe vs Wade as if it kills my argument, but Roe vs Wade actually does not satisfy either side of the political spectrum, pro-life or pro-abortion. As far as I understand the pro-life movement in America, they would want the right to have an abortion regardless of the trimester, and at the very least in the second trimester. There are pro-life who say that Roe vs Wade is not enough, that it is just one justice away from being overturned.

Ideally science should be the arbiter of these issues, but we all know the court decided based on constitutional grounds and more importantly because a significant portion of the population supported abortion. I don't believe the crap that judges are completely insulated from the population after they're on the bench and can issue rulings immune from the opinion of the masses. They may be practically, but emotionally they're still human beings and have to deal with the fallout with friends and family. No doubt you can bring up Alito, but Alito actually represents the opinions of a significant portion of Americans. Unfortunately, O'Connor does not, angering a great many Americans when she dared mention international precedent.

In short, disputes in interpretation of the law are not sufficient for a Supreme Court ruling, since they would be swamped by every semantic whoring son of a bitch this side of the Mississippi. Disputes may warrant a ruling, but not necessarily a Supreme Court ruling. There has to be some kind of national interest or national perogative for a speedy ruling. The Civil Rights era was a national issue, and so was abortion where 50% of the population is female. Gun control isn't even remotely on the national agenda, no matter what gun nuts with a persecution complex want you to think, and the assault weapons ban has expired.

[Simplicius]

None of the rights given under the Bill of Rights are really absolute. We restrict most of them under exceptional circumstances of one sort or another. Many of these circumstances are good reasons -- we eliminate the right against search & seizure for persons getting on airplanes, for example. Why shouldn't cities that have demonstrated absurdly high rates of gun deaths be permitted to make guns (and/or their sale) illegal within their boundaries? This is a pretty clear-cut case of consequential ethics winning out over some abstract legalistic rule. One could argue (although I wouldn't) that the anti-gun law in question won't actually reduce gun crime, but that's not the argument being made here as far as I can tell.

Actually, state governments could issue outright bans on any and all weapons, if they could pass the measures. The Second Amendment has not been incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment, which means it only applies to the federal government.

Of course, state governments are composed of legislators who would presumably like to keep their jobs, so total bans are not at all likely.

[Coyote]

Let's not forget, there are other social factors concerned with crime in the US (crime, which 'gun control' is supposed to address). There are European countries with guns available to people; we all know the Swiss system, and I believe other states like Finland and (IIRC) the Netherlands allows gun ownership. And Israel, while non-European, also has lots of guns. But rampage shootings and gun crime is rare despite this.

These states also have something else the US doesn't-- a social safety net and medical system that does something to help alleviate crime, and the national health care can identify and medicate the nutters before they go out and do something stupid.

But then, since becoming a convert to the idea of national health care, I may just be rationalizing..

[Master of Ossus]

Yeah, actually that IS one of the roles of the SC. When there is dispute about the law they make the final decision.

What Sea Skimmer, Master of Ossus and so on mean by final decision is not what I mean by final decision. What they mean is final decisions on what I call minutiae, small irrelevant details like whether banning shotguns or banning automatic weapons is unconstitutional. Skimmer goes further saying he wishes there was a way to force the court to issue timely rulings.

So basically it comes down to how final is final. Ossus brings up Roe vs Wade as if it kills my argument, but Roe vs Wade actually does not satisfy either side of the political spectrum, pro-life or pro-abortion. As far as I understand the pro-life movement in America, they would want the right to have an abortion regardless of the trimester, and at the very least in the second trimester. There are pro-life who say that Roe vs Wade is not enough, that it is just one justice away from being overturned.

Ummm... SCOTUS decisions are the final statement of what the law is. That's not "minutiae." In order to overrule them on an issue of this magnitude, a constitutional amendment is required. And moreover, who cares that SOME people aren't happy with the ruling? Roe v. Wade has been followed in the United States ever since the decision was handed down, including by many people who weren't happy about the ruling. The same thing can be said about, perhaps, the biggest political conflict in recent memory to go before the Supreme Court: Bush v. Gore--Gore clearly did not agree with the ruling. There were LOTS AND LOTS of other people who didn't agree with the ruling (including four justices), but Gore did not win the presidency. That's not a "final" decision, to you? Or does determining who won a critical swing state in 2000 and therefore won the presidency qualify as "minutiae?"

Ideally science should be the arbiter of these issues, but we all know the court decided based on constitutional grounds and more importantly because a significant portion of the population supported abortion. I don't believe the crap that judges are completely insulated from the population after they're on the bench and can issue rulings immune from the opinion of the masses. They may be practically, but emotionally they're still human beings and have to deal with the fallout with friends and family. No doubt you can bring up Alito, but Alito actually represents the opinions of a significant portion of Americans. Unfortunately, O'Connor does not, angering a great many Americans when she dared mention international precedent.

Justices are insulated from the political process. They are capable of representing minority views, or even their own views, on the bench. I also love how you place virtually no weight on the constitution even though the constitution is the source of the Supreme Court's authority in the United States.

In short, disputes in interpretation of the law are not sufficient for a Supreme Court ruling, since they would be swamped by every semantic whoring son of a bitch this side of the Mississippi. Disputes may warrant a ruling, but not necessarily a Supreme Court ruling. There has to be some kind of national interest or national perogative for a speedy ruling. The Civil Rights era was a national issue, and so was abortion where 50% of the population is female. Gun control isn't even remotely on the national agenda, no matter what gun nuts with a persecution complex want you to think, and the assault weapons ban has expired.

Yet whether or not a citizen is allowed to have a firearm is an issue of constitutional interpretation, just as the ability of a student to wear a potentially offensive t-shirt to high school is an issue of constitutional interpretation. In fact, it's an issue that the Circuit Courts may disagree on. The very fact that the issue is a constitutional one is actually a reason for many grants of certiorari, and you fail to acknowledge that the Supreme Court hasn't JUST issued decisions on Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board (what you may call "the important decisions"). They also handle a TON of cases involving things like the application of the various legal rules to various groups of people.

[brianeyci]

Ummm... SCOTUS decisions are the final statement of what the law is. That's not "minutiae." In order to overrule them on an issue of this magnitude, a constitutional amendment is required. And moreover, who cares that SOME people aren't happy with the ruling? Roe v. Wade has been followed in the United States ever since the decision was handed down, including by many people who weren't happy about the ruling. The same thing can be said about, perhaps, the biggest political conflict in recent memory to go before the Supreme Court: Bush v. Gore--Gore clearly did not agree with the ruling. There were LOTS AND LOTS of other people who didn't agree with the ruling (including four justices), but Gore did not win the presidency. That's not a "final" decision, to you? Or does determining who won a critical swing state in 2000 and therefore won the presidency qualify as "minutiae?"

You forget the whole theory of codification of law, which is that the common man should be able to read it and understand it. If they cannot, then the law should either be rewritten or stricken down. This is at odds with the idea that the law needs semantic whoring interpretations as its highest body. Ideally the highest body simply strikes down unconstitutional laws, not interprets them. Practically I agree it is not possible to rewrite the constitution, but at least one other person an American in this thread says the ambiguity should ideally be dealt with. If I offended you with my "change the Militia Act hur hur" then I'm sorry, since I'm not trying to make light of a serious problem.

I have no problem with you saying the Supreme Court should render relatively final decisions -- only that I don't understand what you meant by final in the context of your interaction point, and more importantly in the context of what I said since you were replying to me. Get this: the Court can still refuse to hear certain cases, yet with the cases they do hear can still be final enough. My original point was I didn't want them to be forced to hear cases. I didn't even mention final in my first post: it is the thing you inserted in, so obviously I'm going to think you want final rulings on:

1. Automatic weapons

2. Shotguns

3. Other minutiae.

Justices are insulated from the political process. They are capable of representing minority views, or even their own views, on the bench. I also love how you place virtually no weight on the constitution even though the constitution is the source of the Supreme Court's authority in the United States.

Well too bad: the constitution can be semantic whored to mean many things, which is the profession of lawyers. That is the nature of the English language. Much was said about how Judge Alito, about how he would shed his conservative garb and become more free to interpret the constitution properly. Meanwhile after he got in, he struck down consumer protection laws and the Supreme Court is right now a conservative junket, destroying your line of reasoning.

Justices will interpret the constitution how they wish it, which is why it's important to put intelligent liberals on the bench. You will bring up that the Justices support liberal precedents like Roe vs. Wade, but only because it's a precedent, history, tradition, and they don't want to destroy their own system. You can bet your fucking balls certain justices on that bench think that Roe vs. Wade violates the constitution.

Yet whether or not a citizen is allowed to have a firearm is an issue of constitutional interpretation, just as the ability of a student to wear a potentially offensive t-shirt to high school is an issue of constitutional interpretation. In fact, it's an issue that the Circuit Courts may disagree on. The very fact that the issue is a constitutional one is actually a reason for many grants of certiorari, and you fail to acknowledge that the Supreme Court hasn't JUST issued decisions on Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board (what you may call "the important decisions"). They also handle a TON of cases involving things like the application of the various legal rules to various groups of people.

Only because the law is so convoluted as to have bad comma breaks (Coyote is right, it all comes down to the commas -- it should not) and is too difficult for the common man to understand by reading it. And this interpretation can change over time, which is why I have an issue with your wording final. You seem to ignore my point that the less important rulings can be dealt with in lesser courts, and the ones that leak through are few and far between. How many appeals to the Supreme Court are competely rejected, yet would be what you call constitutional interpretation? Exactly.

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: The whole idea of laws needing interpretation to be understood reeks donkey shit. It reminds me completely of the religious mindset that members of a church require Ministers and Pastors in order to "interpret" The Bible for them.

It may be that highly technical, specific and specialist legislation should require interpretation, but something as simple as am I allowed to carry weapons yes or no according to the constitution (the answer could be: the constitution doesn't say shit about that so locals you are on your own) should not be up for debate.

[dragon]

DC is open to gun traffic from other states. There's no way the ban would be effective.

Of course, unless you lockdown DC and then clear out all the houses from handguns (yes, including the south-east and northern ghettoes), making it illegal to possess them.

In that case I could see it having an effect, but the way it is now... not much.

As noted Stas, you have 48 hours to declare your gun to the Metro police, or you are committing a crime. Not that it matters as you noted, people who want to legally own a gun don't traffic guns to DC to begin with.

Question. One of my friends has a pistol and lives in the DC areadue to the nature of his job. Are there any other exceptions to it say a federal gun permit, which my dad in Montana has and is supposed to be allowed to carry it any where, is he allowed to carry it in DC?

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit 2: I'm sorry for the double edit Ossus, but a thought just occured to me that might save us some time.

You seem to compound several points at once, which is the source of our disagreement.

1. You say that the Justices should issue final rulings. I say that the Justices should not be forced to issue final rulings. Somehow, you conclude that final and unlimited rulings are one and the same, when one can issue limited numbers of rulings which are final.

2. You say that the Justices respect the constitution. I say that it is more important how the individual Justices interpret the law than exactly what is written. You seem to conclude that the Justices cannot interpret the law how they wish it. I contend person is more important than the law and you seem to dislike that.

[Simplicius]

ghetto edit: The whole idea of laws needing interpretation to be understood reeks donkey shit. It reminds me completely of the religious mindset that members of a church require Ministers and Pastors in order to "interpret" The Bible for them.

It may be that highly technical, specific and specialist legislation should require interpretation, but something as simple as am I allowed to carry weapons yes or no according to the constitution (the answer could be: the constitution doesn't say shit about that so locals you are on your own) should not be up for debate.

You've got it the wrong way around, though. Technical and specific legislation needs less interpretation, because it clearly spells out the conditions under which the law applies. The Constitution is vague on many, many points, which judicial decisions clarify. Without that authoritative clarification, it would be difficult to apply the Constitution consistently if at all. "Something as simple as am I allowed to carry weapons yes or no" is not at all simple when the law doesn't say specifically say yes or no on the matter.

You forget as well that the high courts don't sit to deliver pronouncements on what the law is and is not; their job is to resolve legal disputes the same as the lower courts. The reasoning they use in the resolution becomes the standard by which the law is understood, until future cases change that. The vary fact that legal disputes arise over laws - even very specific ones - indicates that judicial interpretation is necessary, otherwise how would the laws be usefully applied? The courts are not panels of high priests handing down pronouncements whenever they feel like it, or even when legislators ask them to.

[Turin]

100% is an awful big claim. Care to back it up? The handgun ban doesn't have to reduce the gun murder rate to 0% to be effective, you know. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof that having access to handguns reduces crime lies with those who want to allow the bulk of the population to have them.

D.C. Murder Capital of the World One can not say with any honesty that the gun ban has been effective.

The nation, but keep up the hyperbole, it amuses me.

I can't put my fingers on the original study, but the NEJM did a study (mentioned in the article here) that demonstrated a decrease in gun-related homicides following the ban. I now predict you'll bring up the tired argument that the study stopped right before the crack epidemic, wherein the rate skyrocketed once again... as if I or anyone else is making an argument that gun control is the sole factor involved in the problem. Obviously we have to look at the other factors as well -- the economic situation in a given city being of course the primary factor.

You need three things to get a non-handgun weapon in DC(Such as a shotgun)
1. A DC drivers license(Easier said than done, more on that in a minute)
2. You must purchase the gun from a registered and license DC dealer,
OR
otherwise you must bring your gun along with all paperwork to the DC Metro police and present the gun for their approval.
You have 48 hours after bringing the gun in to get approval, and their Approval is conditional, for example when I attempted to get my prefered home defense weapon, a paratrooper version M1A1 Carbine into the DC area, the Metro police denied my request, you see which guns they allow in is their own judgment, but they can deny your application for a varity of reasons if you attempt to bring in a hunting rifle(For obvious reasons the metro police don't like the idea of you bringing in a high powered scoped rifle into DC limits)
3. You must have a gun lock on your gun at all times or have it dissembled, unless you are transporting it to or from a registered firing range, of which I know of only one in DC, the rest are in Maryland/Virigina. Otherwise your "self defense weapon" must be secured with a gun-lock or in a approved gun safe.

I'm sorry, but you're not seriously arguing that the DC gun laws are bad because they make it inconvenient for you to own a firearm, are you? You can't possibly be so dense as to not understand why it should be more difficult to own and operate a tool specifically designed to kill than, say, an automobile, right? Especially within an area where such killing tools are frequently used to perform homicides?

[brianeyci]

You've got it the wrong way around, though. Technical and specific legislation needs less interpretation, because it clearly spells out the conditions under which the law applies. The Constitution is vague on many, many points, which judicial decisions clarify. Without that authoritative clarification, it would be difficult to apply the Constitution consistently if at all. "Something as simple as am I allowed to carry weapons yes or no" is not at all simple when the law doesn't say specifically say yes or no on the matter.

If the Constitution doesn't say shit, then it shouldn't even get to the Supreme Court. They can refuse. So, local jurisdictions can make their own laws.

What is wrong with that line of reasoning? Especially since there's been loathing by the justices to even hear these types of cases, indicating they have the same reservations.

You forget as well that the high courts don't sit to deliver pronouncements on what the law is and is not; their job is to resolve legal disputes the same as the lower courts. The reasoning they use in the resolution becomes the standard by which the law is understood, until future cases change that. The vary fact that legal disputes arise over laws - even very specific ones - indicates that judicial interpretation is necessary, otherwise how would the laws be usefully applied? The courts are not panels of high priests handing down pronouncements whenever they feel like it, or even when legislators ask them to.

So how do you explain the Supreme Court's refusal to hear certain cases? The fact that judicial intepretation is necessary is not in dispute: only interpretation by the highest court of the land. The fact that some cases leak through and make it in doesn't change what their ideal job is: dealing with national crisis.

[Coyote]

I'm sorry, but you're not seriously arguing that the DC gun laws are bad because they make it inconvenient for you to own a firearm, are you? You can't possibly be so dense as to not understand why it should be more difficult to own and operate a tool specifically designed to kill than, say, an automobile, right? Especially within an area where such killing tools are frequently used to perform homicides?

The problem is that the DC gun ban was enacted to address the problem of the high rate of murders being committed. The objective was to lower gun crime.

The opposite effect has happened: gun crimes either stayed the same, or increased. What this showed was:
1- criminals are not deterred by laws (kinda obvious, really)
2- the police are/were unable to adapt to this

On the other hand, the law did make it more difficult ("inconvenient") for law-abiding individuals to get guns to protect themselves.

It should be noted that Heller asked for a permit to own a gun at home, but was refused. The refusal is arbitrary beause Heller is otherwise a security guard during his regular job hours. In other woirds, the "inconvenience" was, indeed, considered to be "unreasonable".

So the Court has to examine this from all sides-- is the ban arbitrary; is the request "unreasonable"; is Heller's argument couched in an accurate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, etc.

That's the thing about law-- everything is written and codified in that obnoxious longhand for a reason: because if it isn't spelled out, exactly and accurately, so that there cannot be a reasonable doubt as to what is meant, someone will search for, find, and use a loophole.

[Glocksman]

If the Constitution doesn't say shit, then it shouldn't even get to the Supreme Court. They can refuse. So, local jurisdictions can make their own laws.

Can I quote you on that if SCOTUS revokes Roe v. Wade?
After all, the constitution doesn't say one word about abortion.

Seriously though, SCOTUS took this case in order to resolve conflicting rulings coming from the Circuit Courts (some saying that there is a right and others saying that there's not), and that's one of their modern day primary functions.

Federal law and the interpretation of it isn't simple as it is.
Can you imagine the confusion from having a law (especially one with major constitutional implications such as this one or Roe), interpreted one way in the 9th Circuit, but the opposite way in the 5th Circuit?

[Glocksman]

None of the rights given under the Bill of Rights are really absolute. We restrict most of them under exceptional circumstances of one sort or another. Many of these circumstances are good reasons -- we eliminate the right against search & seizure for persons getting on airplanes, for example. Why shouldn't cities that have demonstrated absurdly high rates of gun deaths be permitted to make guns (and/or their sale) illegal within their boundaries? This is a pretty clear-cut case of consequential ethics winning out over some abstract legalistic rule. One could argue (although I wouldn't) that the anti-gun law in question won't actually reduce gun crime, but that's not the argument being made here as far as I can tell.

Actually, state governments could issue outright bans on any and all weapons, if they could pass the measures. The Second Amendment has not been incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment, which means it only applies to the federal government.

Of course, state governments are composed of legislators who would presumably like to keep their jobs, so total bans are not at all likely.

IANAL, but if they strike down DC's law, wouldn't it be considered a de facto incorporation or would DC's unique status prevent the precedent from being set?
On the other hand, if Heller was from Chicago and the court struck down Chicago's handgun ban, would that be considered to incorporate the 2nd?

As far as states enacting their own bans, some have no state level bars (other than the obvious political ones) to doing so, but a lot of states have RKBA provisions in their own constitutions.

My own state supreme court has ruled that RKBA is both a liberty right and a property right under the Indiana Constitution.

[Mr Bean]

The nation, but keep up the hyperbole, it amuses me.

Dumbshit, 1991 per the number of people living in DC, DC had the highest murder rate per-citizen of both the entire US and the world. By actual numbers as in physical number of people dead then yes you can argue it's only number three for that year. Excuse me, the 3rd place runner up in the total number of people dead in 1991, that of course makes it so much better!

But don't take my word for it, you can find the offical numbers here and run them against the global records at your own pleasure.

I can't put my fingers on the original study, but the NEJM did a study (mentioned in the article here) that demonstrated a decrease in gun-related homicides following the ban. I now predict you'll bring up the tired argument that the study stopped right before the crack epidemic, wherein the rate skyrocketed once again..

The physical numbers can easily be looked at the above link, there are a greater number of people dead post ban than pre-ban. In fact it can directly be compared, in 1976 VS 1978 when the ban went into effect more people died post ban than pre, in fact the numbers were almost identical.

as if I or anyone else is making an argument that gun control is the sole factor involved in the problem. Obviously we have to look at the other factors as well -- the economic situation in a given city being of course the primary factor.

No one here is making that argument why bring it up?
One can argue about economic indicators, general welfare of the city and such-like, but considering such a sweeping ban was passed you would expect that crime the following years would go DOWN not up. If you follow the Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants you can see with the exception of 1985 both the murder rate, the violent crime rate, robbery rate were higher in every single year post ban.


This is not to say pre-ban did not have some bad years(And there were a few) but the simple fact is per the numbers the handgun ban had no measurable effect at all.

I'm sorry, but you're not seriously arguing that the DC gun laws are bad because they make it inconvenient for you to own a firearm, are you? You can't possibly be so dense as to not understand why it should be more difficult to own and operate a tool specifically designed to kill than, say, an automobile, right? Especially within an area where such killing tools are frequently used to perform homicides?

Two things
1. You totally missed the point where I mentioned the DC Metro Police have the final say on your ownership of any particular gun and can deny you the ability to bring a gun anywhere into DC at will? If they think you are in any way shape or form "off" or whatever variable they chose to describe you with, your ownership of a gun can be denied with no chance of appeal except via changing the law since all DC lawsuits have been sided with the city.

2. A gun that must be dissembled or locked in a safe is useless for home defense unless your burgler, rapist or murder is kind enough to phone ahead.

These are the type of gun locks, full trigger locks

Simple trigger stoppers or barrel blocks are not allowed, DC law requires the trigger not to be able to engage when the lock is on. As well microchip or ring type locks are not allowed.

While these types of locks have their use, on home defense weapons is not that use. In short DC laws both give the police the ability to deny you the right to own a gun(Independent of background checks and the like) and the gun locks required on all guns make there usefulness as home defense questionable at best.

You miss the point again Turin, there already exists a system for purchasing a gun designed to weed out those with violent pasts, mental problems and the like. In DC the police have the ability, even if you've passed Federal checks to deny you gun-ownership at will.

[Simplicius]

If the Constitution doesn't say shit, then it shouldn't even get to the Supreme Court. They can refuse. So, local jurisdictions can make their own laws.

What is wrong with that line of reasoning? Especially since there's been loathing by the justices to even hear these types of cases, indicating they have the same reservations.

Except the Constitution does "say shit." It just says it vaguely enough that disputes arise and are taken to court.

So how do you explain the Supreme Court's refusal to hear certain cases? The fact that judicial intepretation is necessary is not in dispute: only interpretation by the highest court of the land. The fact that some cases leak through and make it in doesn't change what their ideal job is: dealing with national crisis.

What do you mean by 'leak through'? Are you seriously saying the the Supreme Court should turn down any case on any issue that doesn't threaten to precipitate a political crisis?

The Court's job isn't to deal with national crisis, for crying out loud. It's job is to serve as a court of final appeal. They can turn down cases for a plentitude of reasons, and do, but they do so at their own discretion - and accept them on their discretion too.

IANAL, but if they strike down DC's law, wouldn't it be considered a de facto incorporation or would DC's unique status prevent the precedent from being set?
On the other hand, if Heller was from Chicago and the court struck down Chicago's handgun ban, would that be considered to incorporate the 2nd?

I'm not sure, as all of the incorporation cases I've covered have stated the incorporation explicitly. I guess it all comes down to obiter dicta.

As far as states enacting their own bans, some have no state level bars (other than the obvious political ones) to doing so, but a lot of states have RKBA provisions in their own constitutions.

My own state supreme court has ruled that RKBA is both a liberty right and a property right under the Indiana Constitution.

That is of course the prerogative of the states when unbound by federal amendments. As long as the Second remains unincorporated, that is open to change depending on the state's public will and its amendment processes.

[RedImperator]

I'm not going to enter either of the existing debates (I think I've made my position clear on gun rights and gun control before), but I will say that if SCOTUS does overturn the ban on second amendment grounds, it will kick the legs out from under the NRA's primary rationale for opposing virtually all gun control legislation: namely, that any move towards restricting gun rights at all, no matter how small, is merely a ploy by gun control advocates to outlaw all firearms (or handgun) ownership step by step (the gun control lobby has helped feed this paranoia by actually doing this in places like New York City). If gun owners know the Second Amendment actually has teeth, they may well lower their resistance to measures like limiting per-month gun purchases.

This could be, ironically, a boon for people who honestly wish to place reasonable restrictions on gun rights in order to reduce crime. Tough titties for the Brady Campaign and their ilk, but fuck them anyhow.