View Full Version : What DC IS going to allow...
Picked this up on LF:
The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:
From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update
Residents,
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.
The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:
a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.
Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.
I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.
Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.
Sncerely,
Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police
Memo Source: WashingtonPost.com
I don't think that passes Scalia's 'in common use' test. ;)
Picked this up on LF:
I don't think that passes Scalia's 'in common use' test. ;)
No doubt about that, but how many years back in the courts to settle it?:mad: I'm sure the Feds aren't going to arrest the DC Chief of Police in order to get them to comply.
No doubt about that, but how many years back in the courts to settle it?:mad: I'm sure the Feds aren't going to arrest the DC Chief of Police in order to get them to comply.
I guess we'll see :p
My knowledge of these things is somewhat limited, but could they NOT hold her in contempt? Or is 'in common use' the same thing as 'pornography'? Depends upon your point of view?
I bet someone is up late working RIGHT NOW on this.
I guess we'll see :p
My knowledge of these things is somewhat limited, but could they NOT hold her in contempt? Or is 'in common use' the same thing as 'pornography'? Depends upon your point of view?
I bet someone is up late working RIGHT NOW on this.The "common use" rule is going to be all over the place IMO. And, isn't the DC ban like 30 years old? I'm sure revolvers make up much of the grandfathered handguns in DC. So it would appear DC could make the argument that autos are not in common use by law abiding residents of DC. Just throwing out some stuff here.;)
We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
Simply substitute automatic pistols for short barreled shotguns.
The "common use" rule is going to be all over the place IMO. And, isn't the DC ban like 30 years old? I'm sure revolvers make up much of the grandfathered handguns in DC. So it would appear DC could make the argument that autos are not in common use by law abiding residents of DC. Just throwing out some stuff here.;)
Simply substitute automatic pistols for short barreled shotguns.
I think it would be hard for DC to argue that the Sig P226 is not in common use simply because they PREVENTED its use to begin with, thru statute.
I think it would be hard for DC to argue that the Sig P226 is not in common use simply because they PREVENTED its use to begin with, thru statute.
I later added a quote from the opinion you may have missed in my above post. As little sense as it makes that seems to be exactly what they are saying.
I wonder if a personal lawsuit against the chief of police for denial of civil rights is an option in DC like it would be in some jurisdictions?
hatt, I dig ya, but I don't think they get to make such a substitution arbitrarily because semiauto pistols are used lawfully by loads of people every day, all over the Country. I damn well use mine in such a manner every day.
Plus they are 'common' and not 'unusually dangerous'.
I think Scalia threw in the common and unusually dangerous thing to demostrate that you can NOT for instance own towed arty or nukes.
It's pretty common for a plaintiff to ask for an injunction suspending the enforcement of the law when filing a lawsuit challenging a law that has an overwhelming chance of being overturned. I would suggest that since the DC Circuit Court ealier struck down the law on its own, ahead of the SCOTUS ruling, that now the Circuit Court would have even more latitude to grant injunctive relief to any plaintiff that challenges the city if they are unable to register their semi-automatic handgun.
Army Chief
06-28-08, 03:31
Predictably, and perhaps understandably, Chief Lanier is attempting to forestall complete chaos while she and her betters come to terms with what constitutes a clear rebuff from the highest court in the land. That said, it would appear that she hasn't quite embraced the reality of this defeat.
To suggest that the most commonly-owned types of handguns in modern America (semi-automatics) should be subject to continued restriction because the wheelgun was more the more common sidearm when the ban was originally enacted ... well, that is just the silliest kind of willful ignorance that I've seen in a long time. I can only wonder how many follow-on memos the department will issue until they actually find themselves in compliance with the law.
Chief
Let's see, what handguns are most commonly in use in DC...hmmm, I think Metro PD, Capitol Police, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshalls, etc... are all using SEMI-AUTO pistols. Thus it would be pretty hard to argue that semi-auto pistols are not in common use in DC.
Let's see, what handguns are most commonly in use in DC...hmmm, I think Metro PD, Capitol Police, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshalls, etc... are all using SEMI-AUTO pistols. Thus it would be pretty hard to argue that semi-auto pistols are not in common use in DC.
Maybe she should take a look and see what her bodyguards are using... I figure she isn't the big gun gal on the block.
Let's see, what handguns are most commonly in use in DC...hmmm, I think Metro PD, Capitol Police, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshalls, etc... are all using SEMI-AUTO pistols. Thus it would be pretty hard to argue that semi-auto pistols are not in common use in DC.
That's certainly a salient point :cool:
Army Chief
06-28-08, 05:28
That's certainly a salient point :cool:
I've got nothing but good things to say about the Doc, but his original post actually sort of struck me as a potential apples and oranges comparison.
As I understood it, the standard of "common use" by the American people at large is not really the same thing as what might constitute "common use" in a governmental or law enforcement setting. I did not get the impression that the ruling supported the position that we should have access to the same kinds of arms that the various alphabet agencies have, for instance, but rather that the people of DC should have access to the same kinds of arms that are commonly available to civilians elsewhere in other parts of the nation. Perhaps I am the one that is missing the point here. If so, my apologies.
Either way, I'm not sure that the framers felt that this was a distinction worth making, but it would seem that SCOTUS did draw something of a line here. They stopped well short of giving us carte blanche for repeal of the NFA and/or private ownership of a select-fire M4, for example. Pity, that. ;)
Chief
I think we need to look at the bigger picture and ask what is in common use throughout the Unites States of America and clearly semi-automatic handguns are. Hopefully, the NRA and others go right back to court and challenge the you can have a "handgun" as long as it is a revolver. I also do not think that she should be interjecting her "opinion" in something like this that is meant for the residents if D.C. This is just a perfect example of what the politicians and certainly many Chiefs of Police are will do to make life difficult for legal gun-owners and make zero impact on the PoS criminals.
Cathy Lanier, like Hillary Clinton, makes me want to use the "C" word. :mad:
Deadcenter45
06-28-08, 06:16
Cathy Lanier, like Hillary Clinton, makes me want to use the "C" word. :mad:
Clearly Unintelligent Numbskulled Tyrant ?
variablebinary
06-28-08, 07:16
I smell civil right violations and damage awards in DC's future if they try and pull this off
Gutshot John
06-28-08, 07:30
A municipality/state government is allowed to interpret "common use" any way it wishes. So long as it doesn't outlaw handguns as a class.
The court decision stated that there was no requirement of parity with law enforcement or military armament. Moreover as Federal agencies they would be exempt from any local gun ordinance.
Now the question is will this survive the inevitable challenge?
Maybe, maybe not, but even if it does there are no civil-rights violations as DC remains firmly within the boundaries of Heller. Moreover they will use Stevens's dissent as a framework.
The problem is that if it does, then it will establish a precedent saying that the only requirement is for revolvers, but otherwise handguns can be restricted/infringed as the government sees fit.
The issue at hand, from a legal standpoint, is that SCOTUS ruled a particular set of legal prohibitions in the District of Columbia were unconstitutional. It did not rule on, or even address, many other prohibitions in the District such as the machine gun and ammunition laws. In Washington DC, any firearm that is capable of being fired 15 times in a row without reloading is a machinegun and all of them are illegal.
While we can all debate whether the Heller decision should invalidate that law, too, it's not unexpected (or even unreasonable, legally) for the District to keep it on the books & enforce it until either the city council or courts take the law off the books.
I can not believe that the Chief of Police, a person who presumably swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution could so openly disregard the 2nd Ammendment despite a Supreme Court decision declaring the D.C. handgun ban largely unconstitutional. Why do people that would fight tooth and nail to defend other Constitutional Ammendments (ie. the 1st and 4th Ammendments) have no problem denying citizens the rights guaranteed to them in the 2nd Ammendment? The ACLU and others go to war to ensure child molesters' 1st Ammendment rights are not infringed and that every vestige of religion is blotted out of the public arena (even though the so-called separation of Church and State is nowhere in the Constitution). However, the public at large barely bats an eye when a new gun law is passed in violation of the 2nd Ammendment. Imagine the outcry if the issue at hand was the 1st Ammendment.....
From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update
Residents,
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's free speech ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.
The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would speak freely. It is important that everyone know that:
a.. First, all speech must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Speech Registration Section before it may be lawfully spoken.
a.. Second, speech that the Government disagrees with generally remains illegal and may not be spoken.
a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to speech in the home and does not entitle anyone to speak freely outside his or her own home.
Lastly, although the Court struck the safe speech provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion free speech in the home should be kept at a minimum or not spoken at all.
I will comply with the Court's reading of the First Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other speech-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of free speech.
Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/speechregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Speech Registration Section at 202-727-9490.
Sncerely,
Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police
Are there restrictions on what kinds of handguns residents will be able to register and possess?
Yes, under District law that the Supreme Court did not disturb, automatic and semi-automatic handguns generally may not be registered. Revolvers in the home will be legal and, as before, residents remain free to register most shotguns and rifles. Those with questions about specific firearms should contact the Firearms Registration Section of the Metropolitan Police Department at (202) 727-9490 or visit the Department’s website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration (http://www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration).
Heller II coming soon.
Does DC also have the 10 round magazine ban? I sure they do so they may as well address that issue as well.
What Happens Now?
The Supreme Court will formally issue its mandate within the next month, possibly as early as July 17, 2008. The U.S. Court of Appeals will then send the case to the U.S. District Court to enter an injunction. The injunction is the court order that will officially prevent the District government from enforcing the handgun ban. That process may take a few months. Within 21 days, the Metropolitan Police Department will promulgate regulations to accommodate the process of registering handguns for lawful possession.
Maybe semi-auto pistols will be address in this.
Todd,
Let me see if I understand this correctly? Any firearms that is capable of firing more than 15 rounds in a row is a machine gun (i.e- Glock 17 with 17 round mag). How is that even possibly when that is completely against thefederal (legal) definition of a machine gun? The more I think about this decision the more I see that it was just a little cog in the machinery wheel. As I stated elsewhere, these people will not attempt everything they can to restrict/ limit legal gun ownership.
The issue at hand, from a legal standpoint, is that SCOTUS ruled a particular set of legal prohibitions in the District of Columbia were unconstitutional. It did not rule on, or even address, many other prohibitions in the District such as the machine gun and ammunition laws. In Washington DC, any firearm that is capable of being fired 15 times in a row without reloading is a machinegun and all of them are illegal.
While we can all debate whether the Heller decision should invalidate that law, too, it's not unexpected (or even unreasonable, legally) for the District to keep it on the books & enforce it until either the city council or courts take the law off the books.
Let me see if I understand this correctly? Any firearms that is capable of firing more than 15 rounds in a row is a machine gun (i.e- Glock 17 with 17 round mag).
It's been more than a decade since I was dealing with this stuff, but my recollection is that even if the gun is simply capable of being fired that many times it's a MG. So a 1911, since there are 15+ round mags manufactured, would be a MG. Someone with more current/detailed knowledge (or the time to check the statute) could verify that or prove it wrong.
How is that even possibly when that is completely against thefederal (legal) definition of a machine gun?
There's nothing at all unusual about different jurisdictions defining words differently. The Fed definition of MG applies to specific fed laws. It's not meant to define the word for the world, or even for all legislation. That's why most statutes have a "definitions" section. You could find one fed statute that defines "vehicle" one way, and another that defines it differently.
I'd humbly suggest that focusing on the vocabulary issue is going down the wrong path. There's nothing wrong with what DC did in that respect. They could have just as easily said "anything capable of firing fifteen or more rounds without reloading is called a kookamonga, and it is a felony to possess a kookamonga within the District." The thing we need to focus on is whether a ban on weapons capable of firing 15+ rounds at a time is violative of the 2A as defined by Heller.
As I stated elsewhere, these people will not attempt everything they can to restrict/ limit legal gun ownership.
As I stated elsewhere, this is going to be just like abortion. Both sides believe they are absolutely right, and both sides are constantly trying to win a few more inches in the tug of war.
It's been more than a decade since I was dealing with this stuff, but my recollection is that even if the gun is simply capable of being fired that many times it's a MG. So a 1911, since there are 15+ round mags manufactured, would be a MG. Someone with more current/detailed knowledge (or the time to check the statute) could verify that or prove it wrong.
So a 38 super, 9mm or 10mm single stack 1911 would be GTG?
FYI, TOS is raising money to buy Heller an 1911.
Mike
Submariner
06-28-08, 09:50
Smith & Wesson will begin marketing a new revolver, the D.C. Special (tm).;)
Smith & Wesson will begin marketing a new revolver, the D.C. Special (tm).;)
Already exists: S&W Model 327 M&P R8 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=51525&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=15714&isFirearm=Y)
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/170292opt_sm.jpg
Gutshot John
06-28-08, 10:12
So a 38 super, 9mm or 10mm single stack 1911 would be GTG?
That's not my understanding. They would not be GTG in DC as they would still be considered semi-auto handguns and therefore still not permittted under DC law/Heller ruling.
I think what he means is that if it's 15+ it's a MG...whole other class of weapon.
Below are a cross sample of the definitions of a machine gun in various states. Though the wording varies it would appear that the common phrase here is "single pull or function of the trigger". Using and amount of common sense one can see that the definition used by D.C is completely illogical by just about any state or federal definition. So it would seem that someone needs to challenge this as well.
California's Definition:
The term machinegun means any weapon that shoots or is designed to shoot more than one shot automatically (without manual reloading) by a single function of the trigger. The term also includes any frame or receiver of a machinegun and any part or combination of parts designed and intended
for use in converting an otherwise legal weapon into a machinegun. The term also includes any weapon deemed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives as readily convertible to a machinegun under Chapter 53 (commencing with section 5801) of Title 26 of the United States Code. (Penal Code § 12200.)
Washington State Definition:
"Machine gun" means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired there from at the rate of five or more shots per second
Arizonas' Definition:
(c) Firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
Colorado Definition:
"Machine gun" means any firearm, whatever its size and usual designation, that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
Texas:
(9) "Machine gun" means any firearm that is capable of
shooting more than two shots automatically, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
Georgia:
C. A machine gun means any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than six shots, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
Oregon:
(5) "Machine gun" means a weapon of any description by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, which is designed or modified to allow two or more shots to be fired by a single pressure on the trigger device
I could call my cat a machine gun. It doesn't make him one.
I'm not explaining it well, sorry.
It isn't illegal because it's a machinegun. It's illegal because it's a class of weapon that is outlawed in Washington DC. What they chose to call it means nothing except to the media. If the law was challenged on the basis that they defined "machine gun" improperly, the response would simply be to change the statute so it covers "high capacity capable weapons" or whatever.
You're right, it's a ridiculous way to define a machine gun. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional. As I said, the question is whether the law (rather than the title) is unconstitutional.
When the SCOTUS decision was announced the mayor of D.C. came out and said that he could not believe it. He also talked of how many lives were saved because of all the guns that were removed off the streets and how many criminals were arrested. I have to wonder how many of those "criminals" that were arrested were in reality good, hard working citizens that were not out robbing or murdering or any other crime . Just something that I would like to know
I think it would be hard for DC to argue that the Sig P226 is not in common use simply because they PREVENTED its use to begin with, thru statute.
What do the D.C. police use? Could one not make the argument, if the police use it then it is common place?
Let's see, what handguns are most commonly in use in DC...hmmm, I think Metro PD, Capitol Police, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshalls, etc... are all using SEMI-AUTO pistols. Thus it would be pretty hard to argue that semi-auto pistols are not in common use in DC.
Damn I was too slow. Guess I should read all posts before I put up my own
"I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence."
This is a bald faced lie. To comply with the constitution and the court's ruling, they would have to:
1) Remove all purchase("keep")
2) Remove all ownership restrictions("keep")
3) Remove all restrictions on carrying("bear")
The city should be held responsible for all loss of life and property since 1976 since they woefully violated these people's civil rights for 32 years and left these people in harm's way. Yes, I am suggesting a class action lawsuit against the city where not the city, but all of it's current and former lawmakers are held financially responsible for their actions and inactions. If we hold the city responsible, you and I pay for the failed policies of DC's government. I would suggest that the Chief of police be drawn into this, but that is probably too much since they only enforce laws.
Following up on some previous comments I made:
After a little research, it seems my recollection was incorrect. A machinegun in DC is not defined as any weapon capable of firing 15 or more rounds without a reload.
It is defined as any semiautomatic weapon was can fire, or be converted to fire, 12 rounds (or more) without a reload.
Which still seems contrary to every other "common sense" definition.
Following up on some previous comments I made:
After a little research, it seems my recollection was incorrect. A machinegun in DC is not defined as any weapon capable of firing 15 or more rounds without a reload.
It is defined as any semiautomatic weapon was can fire, or be converted to fire, 12 rounds (or more) without a reload.
decodeddiesel
06-28-08, 17:06
Wow, just wow :rolleyes: Someone is going to be held in contempt with the Supreme Court's decision.
lot's of snakes in a bag over in DC. my guess is that the locals will find a way to go around the decision. like ban ammo??:cool:
I went to the DC "Nanny Gun Patrol" website and read the registration rules and definitions, which included the one you just posted. I'm stunned. Those people might decide to call a cat a machine gun just because they can. It would make about as much sense as anything else they've done related to firearms.
I also do not think that she should be interjecting her "opinion" in something like this that is meant for the residents if D.C.
Exactly! Her "opinion" has no bearing on the application of the law whatsoever. Her job is to enforce the law as interpreted by the court, not to enforce it as she interprets it. Makes no difference what she thinks. She can "encourage" the residents to do whatever she wants, but all the encouragement in the world doesn't change the facts.
I'm no lawyer, but I would think the residents of D.C. could file suit against her and the dept. if she tries to follow through with her threats in this letter. Heck, I think they should file suit as a response to this letter. It is a form of intimidation.
She knows she has no choice but to comply with the SCOTUS ruling. She's just trying to intimidate any D.C. residents, that aren't savvy enough to know what their rights are, into compliance with the old law. She knows exactly what she is doing and is betting that most D.C. residents are too ignorant to know otherwise.
Despicable!:mad:
I bet this is being litigated like...RIGHT NOW ;)
Todd,
Scalia seemed to established a 'is it in common use test' as it were.
I'd humbly suggest that focusing on the vocabulary issue is going down the wrong path. There's nothing wrong with what DC did in that respect. They could have just as easily said "anything capable of firing fifteen or more rounds without reloading is called a kookamonga, and it is a felony to possess a kookamonga within the District." The thing we need to focus on is whether a ban on weapons capable of firing 15+ rounds at a time is violative of the 2A as defined by Heller.
Now, if they can constantly (they being DC) can constantly change what is acceptable to them under statute, isn't that 'arbitrary and capricious'?
Perhaps my logic is totally faulty. I was hoping you could flesh it out for me, since you are well versed in these things :D
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
Can they arbitrarily say that a Glock 17 is 'not in common' use and is 'dangerous and unusual?' that's what I want to know I guess.
So if everyone goes out and buys a semi auto, then are they "NOT IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME"?:D
I just found some salient commentary from David Kopel:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-discussion-board-miller-colt-45s-and-natural-law/
The speculation about the post-Heller scope of permissible gun controls is interesting, and both sides of the debate will use the same words of the majority’s language to argue for or against bans on various classes of guns, such as small handguns, big .50 caliber rifles, and so on. Whatever the results of those arguments, it does seem clear at least one type of gun ban is going to have a very tough time passing judicial review.
D.C. outlaws any self-loading rifle or handgun for which there exists a magazine holding more than 12 rounds. For example, the Colt .45 handgun has been, since its invention in 1911, one of the most common American handguns. The Colt .45 comes with a standard 7-round ammunition magazine. It’s possible, if you search long enough, to buy a 15 or 20 round magazine for the Colt. Except as a novelty, these magazines have no use on a Colt .45. They make the handgun much too large to carry, and they extend so far below the grip that they make the gun awkward to handle.
In the District of Columbia (but nowhere else in the United States), the Colt .45 is banned. Not just banned if you have a 20 round magazine for the gun, but banned even if you only have the standard 7 round magazine. Preposterously, the D.C. ordinance classifies the 7-round Colt as a “machine gun,” and outlaws civilian possession of these so-called “machine guns.”
Heller says that there may not be bans on guns “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” This surely encompasses the Colt .45, and the thousands of other models banned by D.C.’s overbroad “machine gun” law. The D.C. ordinance prohibts over half of the handguns made in the U.S. in a typical year, and a very large fraction of rifles, including low-powered .22 caliber rifles from venerable companies like Winchester.
The D.C. City Council would do well to re-write its machine gun ban so that it applies only to real machine guns. If not, it will be close contest to see whether the ordinance is removed first by Congress or by the courts.
One aspect of the Heller majority opinion that has not yet attracted the attention of commentariat, but may be greatly important of the long run, is the presence of natural law.
Heller reaffirms a point made in the 1876 Cruikshank case. The right to arms (unlike, say, the right to grand jury indictment) is not a right which is granted by the Constitution. It is a pre-existing natural right which is recognized and protected by the Constitution:
“it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ’shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…”
Wasn't the handgun that Heller tried to register in the first place a Glock? I think that is what I read somewhere. So, basically DC is saying he still can't have his Glock at home. I think I smell another lawsuit.
decodeddiesel
06-29-08, 11:26
This whole letter is a knee jerk reaction by the liberals holding said positions in order to save face. I would be will to bet that within a few months the laws there will have to be re-written and the whole "machinegun - kookamonga" thing will be revised to specify weapon which fall under the ATF's definition of a machinegun. I believe if they continue down the road in such a presumptuous and brazen manor with such disregard for the SCOTUS decision then they will probably be losing their jobs.
"handgun" is a revolver, semi-auto, etc. Whatever the Federal definition is. That is what it is. DC does not get to redefine what it means. If they did, they could just say anything with more than a capacity of 1 round is not a handgun, but a machine gun, and is banned, and they would have effectively circumvented the ruling.
SCOTUS is going to issue its mandate for 30 days or so, and HELLER should try to register whatever handgun Chief Lanier carries (assuming it is a semi-auto). When SCOTUS sees he is denied to register a handgun in spite of their ruling, they are going to be very unhappy.
Even better would be if one of the Supremes tries to register one and gets denied.
"handgun" is a revolver, semi-auto, etc. Whatever the Federal definition is. That is what it is. DC does not get to redefine what it means.
Sure they can. How do you think we got here? Perverse interpretation of the law to accomplish ones own agenda is rampant in this country.
Sure they can. How do you think we got here? Perverse interpretation of the law to accomplish ones own agenda is rampant in this country.
Not gonna get away with it anymore.
Not gonna get away with it anymore.
What makes you think that? I wish I had your optimism.
What makes you think that? I wish I had your optimism.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Scalia hath spoken. If "his" handgun is a Glock 17, it is getting registered and licensed, and DC's "machine gun ban" just got struck down too. They better re-write it RSN to prevent that from happening.
If they (the leftist sissy DC govt) were smart they would just tap out and go with moderately restrictive gun laws. Instead they are opening themselves to another lawsuit and their fantasy world could get eaten up one piece at a time.
If I was a DC resident, I would score an old S&W model 10 and practice like crazy.
Media wise the next 500 shootings will be blamed on this ruling. However I think crime will go down over the next decade. These people elected marion barry twice, so they might not be the best test bed.
KintlaLake
06-29-08, 17:41
On the MPDC (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/site/default.asp) home page is a link to the memo that's been appearing in the press: MPD Offers Gun Registration Information Following Heller Decision (http://mpdc.dev.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,565463.asp). That link has been dead since I first tried it around 7am yesterday. Thinking that might be due to a typo in the url, I searched the MPDC sites (mpdc.dc.gov and mpdc.dev.dc.gov) for key phrases in the published memo -- nothing.
(If someone else with better search fu can uncover the original, I'm all ears. Or all eyes. Or something. ;))
In any case, DC government's response to Heller appears on the front page of the current MPDC newsletter (http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/mpdc/section/8/release/14174/year/2008) (pdf) and in a District government news release (http://dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1325&mon=200806). The contention that Heller still allows the District's ban of semi-autos appears in the MPDC FAQ (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view.asp?a=1237&q=547431&pm=1).
No one should've expected Chief Lanier, Mayor Fenty, et al to go away quietly after Heller came down. Actually, I'm getting a perverse sort of satisfaction out of watching DC government heave on a short stick for a change. :)
I think it's important to acknowledge that Heller is foundational, not (by itself) constructive -- it forms a crucial basis for battles we've wanted to fight for decades, but it doesn't declare all those victories immediately and automatically. The resistance we're seeing from DC will be played out, to a greater or lesser degree, in every upcoming challenge. We'd best get used to it.
On the MPDC (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/site/default.asp) home page is a link to the memo that's been appearing in the press: MPD Offers Gun Registration Information Following Heller Decision (http://mpdc.dev.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,565463.asp). That link has been dead since I first tried it around 7am yesterday. Thinking that might be due to a typo in the url, I searched the MPDC sites (mpdc.dc.gov and mpdc.dev.dc.gov) for key phrases in the published memo -- nothing.
(If someone else with better search fu can uncover the original, I'm all ears. Or all eyes. Or something. ;))
http://google.dc.gov/search?q=cache:M7CT6WuJLnoJ:www.mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,547431.asp+firearm+registration&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&site=default_collection&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&oe=ISO-8859-1
same as this link: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view.asp?a=1237&q=547431&pm=1
whatever handgun Chief Lanier carries
I bet she doesn't carry, and relies upon the goodwill of her fellow citizens :cool:
KintlaLake
06-29-08, 19:01
http://google.dc.gov/search?q=cache:M7CT6WuJLnoJ:www.mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,547431.asp+firearm+registration&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&site=default_collection&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&oe=ISO-8859-1
same as this link: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view.asp?a=1237&q=547431&pm=1
Yup, that's takes us to a page I referred to as the MPDC FAQ, and it definitely reflects Chief Lanier's memo to residents. I was looking for the memo itself, as quoted in the OP.
I do find it curious that an MPDC home-page link to the memo appears to be dead.
JeffLester
06-29-08, 19:13
Interesting... read item 8 on page 8.
Firearms Registration -- D.C. Metro PD (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/firearms_registraton_req.pdf)
8. No firearm shall be discharged in the District of Columbia without first obtaining a
special written permit from the Chief of Police authorizing the discharge.
Could make self defense a little difficult...:rolleyes:
Interesting... read item 8 on page 8.
Firearms Registration -- D.C. Metro PD (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/firearms_registraton_req.pdf)
Could make self defense a little difficult...:rolleyes:
That's funny. What's more funny is I'm sure this will come up at some point.
Does anyone indeed know if Heller wanted to register a Glock?
Interesting... read item 8 on page 8.
Firearms Registration -- D.C. Metro PD (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/firearms_registraton_req.pdf)
Could make self defense a little difficult...:rolleyes:
Take a look at item 9. Seems like grievous bodily harm ( gang rape for example ) is no justification for a lethal force defense.
I hope , and believe , that the court system will eat the DC government alive , one bite at a time . It will be a long and painful process ( IMO ) spread over a few years . IIRC , the city has 21 days to implement a new law that complies with the SCOTUS ruling. After that they vunerable to various actions , which DC can appeal.
Heller took , what, around 6 years ?
Seems like the start of phase II of liberating DC could be just over 2 weeks away.
The DC boss is volunteering to be the example of what happens to a mayor who plays games with SCOTUS.
Take a look at item 9. Seems like grievous bodily harm ( gang rape for example ) is no justification for a lethal force defense.
Yeah, but if someone is in your swimming pool, go ahead and open up with your unregistered gun.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEED61539F936A2575BC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
On the second page it list the steps needed to be completed.
“1. Take the Firearms Application to a licensed gun dealer.”
Now how in the hell is one going to do that when there are no gun dealers in D.C.?
Though I understand the significance of DC v. Heller, what I do not understand is how the District of Columbia can make up their own definitions for firearms. Obviously we have hit on the absurd machine gun definition, but how about this.
Firearms ineligible for registration include:
1. Sawed-off shotguns (barrel less than 20 inches). (D.C. Code 7-2501.01 (15) (2007 Ed.)
Can anyone tell me another jurisdiction that classifies a sawed off shotgun as one with a barrel length less than 20 inches? Especially since there is a federal definition and I remember some ridiculous argument that D.C isn't state and therefore the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply. So one would think that the federal definition would be the accepted one??? Am I missing something?
Will there now have to be another lawsuit to challenge this ridiculous shit as well? It would seem as if the ruling was "symbolic" rather than real.
Though I understand the significance of DC v. Heller, what I do not understand is how the District of Columbia can make up their own definitions for firearms. Obviously we have hit on the absurd machine gun definition, but how about this.
Firearms ineligible for registration include:
1. Sawed-off shotguns (barrel less than 20 inches). (D.C. Code 7-2501.01 (15) (2007 Ed.)
Can anyone tell me another jurisdiction that classifies a sawed off shotgun as one with a barrel length less than 20 inches? Especially since there is a federal definition and I remember some ridiculous argument that D.C isn't state and therefore the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply. So one would think that the federal definition would be the accepted one??? Am I missing something?
Will there now have to be another lawsuit to challenge this ridiculous shit as well? It would seem as if the ruling was "symbolic" rather than real.
I'm waiting until a DC official sees the 8 shot S&W revolvers and declares them "high-capacity revolvers" and adds them to the list of banned materials.
Will there now have to be another lawsuit to challenge this ridiculous shit as well? It would seem as if the ruling was "symbolic" rather than real.
There may be a lawsuit over whether <20" shotguns are protected by 2A.
What DC chooses to call them (just like with the machine gun statute) is completely irrelevant. I don't know why you've got it in your head that a "machine gun" can only be regulated if it meets a certain definition. As I said earlier, if by some weird circumstance the city was told its definitions were improper they'd just change the term. Instead of "sawed off shotgun" it would be "short barreled shotgun" and instead of "machine gun" it would be "high capacity firearm." What they call it does not matter.
DC could pass a law that says it's illegal to ride a motorcycle on the sidewalk, and then define "motorcycle" as any vehicle with two wheels. Confusing? Yes. Unconstitutional? Not in any way whatsoever.
DC could pass a law that says it's illegal to ride a motorcycle on the sidewalk, and then define "motorcycle" as any vehicle with two wheels. Confusing? Yes. Unconstitutional? Not in any way whatsoever.
Todd my friend, running low on coffee today so bear with me. If such things are done to circumvent the ruling in Heller, how does that fly? Example calling a Glock 17 a machinegun, and hence its illegal per Statute, even thou Scalia seemed to establish a 'in common use for lawful purposes' test so to speak.
Must have.....MORE.....COFFEE!...........!!!
Submariner
07-02-08, 15:10
Will there now have to be another lawsuit to challenge this ridiculous shit as well? It would seem as if the ruling was "symbolic" rather than real.
How else do you think "this ridiculous shit" will be changed? Are you independently wealthy? Do you want to pay for the lawyers to institute such a case? If so, brandish an 18" shotgun in the District and you will have standing.
Do you think the government officials who don't want you owning firearms are going to back off just because of one court case?:eek:
Registration is now OK. We lost the registration battle and didn't know it was being fought.
Registration is now OK. We lost the registration battle and didn't know it was being fought.
This is the type of unintended consequences I was concerned with....
We will have to see but I am gravely concerned.
JeffLester
07-02-08, 16:03
I'm waiting until a DC official sees the 8 shot S&W revolvers and declares them "high-capacity revolvers" and adds them to the list of banned materials.
Now ya done it... Opened up that can of worms. The next thing ya know, DC will cite the YouTube video of Miculek, saying it "sounds like" a machine gun... therefore it is!!! :eek:
Charles Daly
07-02-08, 16:38
.... It would seem as if Heller left more questions open than it resolved.....
Indeed it did and I think that was Scalia's and the majority's intention. They could not possibly rule on every aspect of gun control in one decision. However, by first establishing that the 2A means what it says, i.e. an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, they have set the bar for all gun control laws to meet.
Some (naieve) people actually thought that Heller would be the end of all this nonsense, but in reality, it is just the beginning.
Law schools will be gearing up to train specialists in 2A law and we will be litigating gun control statutes all over the country for the next 25 (or more) years. Just pray that nothing gets up to the Supreme Court again if there happens to be a liberal majority on the court.
The good thing about Heller and the "common use" clause is that it may halt future AWB type legislation from the Feds.
KintlaLake
07-02-08, 17:11
Some (naieve) people actually thought that Heller would be the end of all this nonsense, but in reality, it is just the beginning.
Word. :)
Much of the RKBA crowd has been breathing its own fumes for way too long -- and the stunningly unrealistic expectations of the Heller ruling is just the latest example.
Their pathetic attempt at mislabeling everything allows them to have material with which to put out in the media to influence the sheep against the OH ...so evil "machine gun's" We know it ain't right, but now have to spend time, money and effort convincing the sheep instead of explaining to him the truth about the 2A and it's true effects past/present/and future on society. Once again, slowing down our return to a sane state of affairs.
How else do you think "this ridiculous shit" will be changed? Are you independently wealthy? Do you want to pay for the lawyers to institute such a case? If so, brandish an 18" shotgun in the District and you will have standing.
Do you think the government officials who don't want you owning firearms are going to back off just because of one court case?:eek:
Registration is now OK. We lost the registration battle and didn't know it was being fought.
Paul, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion since Mr. Heller didn't argue against registering his gun. It wasn't an issue at trial.
As others have said this is just the beginning and guys like Alan Gura are of the belief that they are now in the position to tackle the other issues we all seem to have. You have start somewhere.
1st and 4th amendment jurisprudence wasn't established overnight either.
Word. :)
Much of the RKBA crowd has been breathing its own fumes for way too long -- and the stunningly unrealistic expectations of the Heller ruling is just the latest example.
Sometimes due process seems like an insufferable PITA.
But , generally speaking , usually , more often than not , it's a useful thing to have in the toolbox. FWIW
IMO
YMMV
Todd my friend, running low on coffee today so bear with me. If such things are done to circumvent the ruling in Heller, how does that fly?
OK, I think I see where I've been unclear. You and Iraqgunz tell me if this makes more sense:
Think of it just like the "Assault Weapon Ban" that didn't really involve assault weapons.
The label DC uses for a given type of weapon is meaningless in terms of Heller. So DC can call a gun a "machine gun" and say "machine guns" are illegal, but if some of those guns are deemed protected under Heller then to that extent, regardless of what DC labels them, they're protected.
DC calls them "machineguns" and "sawed off shotguns" because it sounds cool to the media and their constituents. The LABEL is completely meaningless and has no legal importance. Only the DEFINITION is important. They could just as easily call them automobiles, and pass a law that says "Automobiles are illegal in the District. An automobiles is defined as any automatic or semi-automatic firearms capable of firing or being modified to fire 12 rounds without reloading." It would be ridiculous but it would be perfectly legal. And it wouldn't have any impact on what you can or can't drive on the street.
It seems as if this is nothing more than an attempt to not comply with the courts.
The DC statutes all existed long before Heller. They're not an attempt to get around any court case. They're just inflammatory labels.
Indeed it did and I think that was Scalia's and the majority's intention.
It's also worth keeping in mind that the limited scope of the decision may have been necessary to get Kennedy on board ...
Submariner
07-02-08, 22:36
Paul, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion since Mr. Heller didn't argue against registering his gun. It wasn't an issue at trial.
As others have said this is just the beginning and guys like Alan Gura are of the belief that they are now in the position to tackle the other issues we all seem to have. You have start somewhere.
1st and 4th amendment jurisprudence wasn't established overnight either.
The slippery slope to their evisceration began with one case.
He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the cityfrom enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
Register and license to carry at home. What is a gun, an antique car to be kept in a garage? Mr. Gura has no problem with registration; otherwise, he would have argued it. Neither does this Court have a problem; it ordered registration. It would really look bad to order something that later is decided to be unconstitutional. How will registration be argued against now? How about this: If a woman has a privacy right to take the life of her as yet born child, shouldn't I be able to keep from the government the number of AR's or handguns I own as well as their serial numbers? Right to privacy, eh? That's the ticket.
BTW, who will fund all these cases?
The label DC uses for a given type of weapon is meaningless in terms of Heller. So DC can call a gun a "machine gun" and say "machine guns" are illegal, but if some of those guns are deemed protected under Heller then to that extent, regardless of what DC labels them, they're protected.
Yes, we're on the same page, I thought so :cool: They could call it a "Nuclear Powered Firebreathing Godzilla" and it would make no difference, its either protected or its not. My read on what Scalia said is that a Glock 17 SHOULD be protected, since its commonly used by law abiding citizens and isn't unusually dangerous (I suspect the uncommon and unusually dangerous thing was put in there so morons like Chris Matthews from MSNBC couldn't pull out the whole 'well does it protect your right to own a nuclear weapon?' canard).
I wasn't so much at issue with what they call things, I just happen to think they are barring people from owning stuff that should be protected under Heller. I hope it gets litigated, or the Court just smacks their pee pee over it, sans litigation.
Paul,
insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license
Well yes, it would appear they did not argue against licensing. You would have to ask Mr. Heller and Mr. Gura why they didn't do that. Since Scalia isn't an activist judge, its not surprising that the license provision wasn't struck down I guess? I don't think that's the same thing as saying that licensing is permissible thou. If the issue wasn't at bar, its an open question. Nowhere did Scalia say that licensing is Constitutional. Nor do I think he believes that. Nor do I think Alan Gura believes that. From a tactical perspective, IF the license ban had been brought up, I bet Kennedy would have flipped and then where would we be? Just because they did NOT say that licensing was NOT permissible, doesn't make it OK. Scalia can't argue their case for them. Heller asked for the relief he asked for and he got it.
This isn't directed at you by any means, but its interesting how some will decry judicial activism (and rightly so) but when such activism would further THEIR particular cause, they are unhappy with the lack of activism on the part of the Court. I for one prefer to remain intellectually consistent, and argue that ANY activism is bad. There should be NO legislation from the bench.
I guess Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter didn't get my memo :cool:
ETA: GET YOUR SCALIA ON HERE: http://c-span.org/search.aspx?For=scalia
Submariner
07-04-08, 09:27
This isn't directed at you by any means, but its interesting how some will decry judicial activism (and rightly so) but when such activism would further THEIR particular cause, they are unhappy with the lack of activism on the part of the Court. I for one prefer to remain intellectually consistent, and argue that ANY activism is bad. There should be NO legislation from the bench.
I like consistency, too.
Tench Coxe saw no need for a Bill of Rights, given the federal government had strictly enumerated powers. This view, however, gives the best understanding of the meaning of the right that inheres in the people, Second Amendment or no. From Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788:
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. [82] The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. [83]
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm
Somehow Mr. Justice Scalia neglected him. Could it be that Coxe noted, correctly, that there are several commonwealths instead one single, omnipotent federal government and Scalia is loathe to admit it? Nah. Note, too, Congress "have" (as in, States in Congress, plural) vs. Congress "has" (in use today.) Just like the United States "are" (pre-1861) vs. the United States "is" (post-1865.) We have two classes of justices: liberal statists and conservative statists.
Judicial activism? Look at The Legal Tender Cases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases) GOP President Grant does not like a decision that debts for gold dollars cannot be discharged by greenbacks. Nor do the banksters supporting him. So he packs the Court and, lo and behold, the Constitution is changed by the black-robed Delphi. Unredeemable paper does equal gold. There is something wrong with this picture.
And for fear of Obama, we must vote for McCain?
Gutshot John
07-04-08, 09:39
Activism as a concept should be clarified as liberals love to misinterpret it.
Activism is finding rights/laws in the Constitution that were not (sometimes deliberately) written into it.
Heller does not qualify as activism (no matter what liberal pundits gnash their teeth about) as it was affirming an EXPLICIT right, not creating one out of thin air.
Liberals whine about conservative "activism" thinking that it's bad, but they have no understanding of what judicial activism is. Originalism as embraced by the Reinquist/Roberts courts is antithetical to activism.
Submariner
07-04-08, 09:46
Activism is finding rights/laws in the Constitution that were not (sometimes deliberately) written into it.
Heller does not qualify as activism (no matter what liberal pundits gnash their teeth about) as it was affirming an EXPLICIT right, not creating one out of thin air.
Activism might also extend to limiting an explicit right, particularly one which "shall not be infringed." When do we get an "original meaning" analysis of "shall not be infringed?" It could have been done in Heller. We got "keep," "bear" and "arms."
I ask again, who will pay for all the cases necessary to roll back gun control?
Business_Casual
07-04-08, 11:24
Congress "have" (as in, States in Congress, plural) vs. Congress "has" (in use today.)
I wouldn't put too much into that - I think you've discounted Daniel Webster. His "standardization" of American English is the culprit there. For instance, dropping the "u" from armor and color, referring to bodies as singular versus plural, using the "z" instead of an "s" in certain words, etc. A Brit would use the plural to refer to a corporation today, as in "Xerox have" not as we would say "Xerox has." Americans would have used the old style for a generation after Webster's standard was introduced.
M_P
Gutshot John
07-04-08, 12:39
Activism might also extend to limiting an explicit right, particularly one which "shall not be infringed." When do we get an "original meaning" analysis of "shall not be infringed?" It could have been done in Heller. We got "keep," "bear" and "arms."
I agree but again I wasn't thrilled with the Heller decision. It's not that it was an activist decision, but it laid the groundwork for future anti-gun activism.
I ask again, who will pay for all the cases necessary to roll back gun control?
Good question.
I'd have thought this is what my NRA dues and contrbutions to ILA went to.
Thank God we have men such as this!
Two Cato Institute scholars announced today that they have filed a civil lawsuit in a Washington, D.C. federal court on behalf of six plaintiffs to vindicate the right of D.C. residents to defend themselves in their home. Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies, and Gene Healy, senior editor, joined by two other D.C.-based attorneys, argue in their complaint that "the Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a handgun ... within the home." But D.C. officials "enforce a set of laws [that] deprive individuals, including the plaintiffs, of this important right."
http://www.dcwatch.com/issues/gun030210.htm
As for who "paid" I am not sure.
I am a fan of the Cato Institute! http://www.cato.org/
Submariner
07-04-08, 13:09
I wouldn't put too much into that - I think you've discounted Daniel Webster. His "standardization" of American English is the culprit there.
M_P
I quite understand; however, it lends credence to the notion "[t]he militia of these free commonwealths" refers to separate states with plenary power wh each ceded certain enumerated powers to a federal government of limited powers.
Submariner
07-05-08, 08:42
M_P- here's more:
America's Forgotten Declaration
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at 03:49 PM
The Declaration of Independence, in which the American colonists declared their secession from the British empire, was "reinterpreted" for Americans, beginning with Lincoln, as an anti-secession document. The main ruse has always been to focus exclusively on the "all men are created equal" phrase (which Lincoln did not believe in, of course) at the exclusion of the rest of the Declaration.
The last paragraph of the Declaration is arguably the most important. It speaks of "the united States of America" with a small "u" in "united," clearly signifying that the signatories of the document considered themselves to be citizens of thirteen free, independent, and sovereign states that were united in the cause of seceding from the British empire. Then there is this:
"That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved, and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."
Virginia, Massachusetts, and the other colonies were considered to be independent countries with their own governments, just like the British state or the French state. As such, they were considered to be SOVEREIGN, which is why they were later able to delegate a few of their powers, mostly for foreign affairs, to a central government that was in theory supposed to serve as their agent and in their interest.
When the King of England signed a peace treaty he named all of the individual states. That's who he waged war against, not something called "the United States government." In the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, the phrase "united states" is everywhere in the plural, further signifying this truth.
Not exactly what was taught to us in public school.
Business_Casual
07-05-08, 09:13
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I don't disagree with you - I just don't put on the tinfoil quite as tight when it comes to English in pre-1945 America. A small "u" a big "U" whatever. 90% of the population were illiterate and the 10% that weren't learned from reading flawed publications. That's all.
M_P
Submariner
07-05-08, 12:28
90% of the population were illiterate and the 10% that weren't learned from reading flawed publications. That's all.
M_P
The words have meaning and are are all we have, lest we be forced to arms to vindicate our rights. I respectfully disagree with this statement. At the founding of our nation, the NEA had not yet affected the literacy rate.
A Highly Literate Populace
The results of colonial America’s free market system of education were impressive indeed. Almost no tax money was spent on education, yet education was available to almost anyone who wanted it, including the poor. No government subsidies were given, and inefficient institutions either improved or went out of business. Competition guaranteed that scarce educational resources would be allocated properly. The educational institutions that prospered produced a generation of articulate Americans who could grapple with the complex problems of self-government. The Federalist Papers, which are seldom read or understood today, even in our universities, were written for and read by the common man. Literacy rates were as high or higher than they are today.[36] A study conducted in 1800 by DuPont de Nemours revealed that only four in a thousand Americans were unable to read and write legibly.[37] Various accounts from colonial America support these statistics. In 1772, Jacob Duche, the Chaplain of Congress, later turned Tory, wrote:[38]
The poorest labourer upon the shore of Delaware thinks himself entitled to deliver his sentiments in matters of religion or politics with as much freedom as the gentleman or scholar . . . . Such is the prevailing taste for books of every kind, that almost every man is a reader; and by pronouncing sentence, right or wrong, upon the various publications that come in his way, puts himself upon a level, in point of knowledge, with their several authors.
Franklin, too, testified to the efficiency of the colonial educational system. According to Franklin, the North American libraries alone “have improved the general conversation of Americans, made the common tradesmen and farmers as intelligent as most gentlemen from other countries, and perhaps have contributed in some degree to the stand so generally made throughout the colonies in defense of their privileges.”[39]
The experience of colonial America clearly supports the idea that the market, if allowed to operate freely, could meet the educational needs of modern-day America. In the nineteenth century, the Duke of Wellington remarked that “the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton and Cambridge.” Today, the battle between freedom and statism is being fought in America’s schools. Those of us who believe in Constitutional government would do well to promote the principle of competition, pluralism, and government non-intervention in education. Years ago, Abraham Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the classroom will be the philosophy of the government in the next generation.”
http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=1130&print_view=true
Business_Casual
07-05-08, 17:38
He he he... You do know Franklin's job was essentially a super Chamber of Commerce for the new nation, right?
M_P
Let's see now. If all the bad guys in D.C. are using semi-autos, would they not be in common use? Sounds like the police chief doesn't want any homeowners killing any of the bad guys in her city, or cleaning up the city for her.
TurretGunner
07-06-08, 13:04
Let's see, what handguns are most commonly in use in DC...hmmm, I think Metro PD, Capitol Police, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshalls, etc... are all using SEMI-AUTO pistols. Thus it would be pretty hard to argue that semi-auto pistols are not in common use in DC.
Perhaps the DC LEO's and the federal agencies within D.C.'s borders should all go back to cap and ball pistols. Since those semi-automatics are so dangerous.
The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:
From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update
Residents,
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.
The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:
a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.
Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.
I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.
Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.
Sncerely,
Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police
Memo Source: WashingtonPost.com
Here is an earlier draft:
From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update
Residents,
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.
<snip>
I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of their Second Amendment so-called "right" to keep and bear arms.
<snip>
Snidely,
Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police
Memo Source: WashingtonPost.com
I wonder if a personal lawsuit against the chief of police for denial of civil rights is an option in DC like it would be in some jurisdictions?
Deprivation of [civil] rights under color of authority?
Nice. :D
revolvers only huh? that sucks...
Predictably, and perhaps understandably, Chief Lanier is attempting to forestall complete chaos while she and her betters come to terms with what constitutes a clear rebuff from the highest court in the land. That said, it would appear that she hasn't quite embraced the reality of this defeat.
To suggest that the most commonly-owned types of handguns in modern America (semi-automatics) should be subject to continued restriction because the wheelgun was more the more common sidearm when the ban was originally enacted ... well, that is just the silliest kind of willful ignorance that I've seen in a long time. I can only wonder how many follow-on memos the department will issue until they actually find themselves in compliance with the law.
Chief
Is that *really* [functionally] any different from the anti-gun lobby's tired argument:
"When the Second Amendment was ratified, black powder rifles were considered the cutting edge of firearms technology. The Founders never could have imagined the destructive power of some of the weapons of mass destruction sold in gunstores today."
It takes a *huge* leap of logic, suspension of disbelief, and mucho mental gymnastics for guys like you or me to even consider an argument this ridiculous.
But for people who have been intellectually dishonest their entire lives, is it really so hard to believe?
There may be a lawsuit over whether <20" shotguns are protected by 2A.
<snip>
Awesome. With "length of shotguns protected by the 2A" being the issue, maybe we can finally correct one of the bigger travesties from Miller:
the one which held that whether SBS actually had a "militia purpose" was not within judicial notice. :cool:
Activism as a concept should be clarified as liberals love to misinterpret it.
Activism is finding rights/laws in the Constitution that were not (sometimes deliberately) written into it.
This is where I ideologically part ways with conservatives, whom I almost always end up voting alongside.
I, for one, am actually a big fan of the Ninth Amendment.
I'm a big fan of just about *anything* that carves out real estate upon which the government (Federal or state) cannot intrude.
Heller does not qualify as activism (no matter what liberal pundits gnash their teeth about) as it was affirming an EXPLICIT right, not creating one out of thin air.
IMO, Heller can be seen as both activist and foundationalist.
I am a member of a local "conservative" group, and went to a dinner put on by it several months ago.
While talking with one gentleman at my table, I attempted to explain my political theory. Without getting too far into it here, I told him that for ease of understanding, he could think of me as a "conservative liberal" because my goal in life is to conserve the liberalism of the Founders.
He still didn't "get it," to my satisfaction (or his), but at least he went home and thought about it....... ;)
Liberals whine about conservative "activism" thinking that it's bad, but they have no understanding of what judicial activism is. Originalism as embraced by the Reinquist/Roberts courts is antithetical to activism.
I'm actually more of a Thomas fan than I am a Rehnquist/Roberts fan.
I'm also not at all opposed to activism, when it's in the right direction.
An explanation can be found here:
"Why I Am Not A Conservative," by Friedrich von Hayek (http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_article&article_id=246)
Let's see, what handguns are most commonly in use in DC...hmmm, I think Metro PD, Capitol Police, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshalls, etc... are all using SEMI-AUTO pistols. Thus it would be pretty hard to argue that semi-auto pistols are not in common use in DC.
hell, by that logic, shouldn't they legalize P90's and those suitcase MP5's the SS guy are so fond of :D
Shooter, the Founders were LIBERTARIAN, not liberal.
Shooter, the Founders were LIBERTARIAN, not liberal.
Actually, by modern definitions they are called Classical Liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism), at the time they lived in they were considered Liberals. I didn't believe at first, but after reading a bit it is the truth.
For more information please check out the wiki about it, as it does a good job explaining it.
Actually, by modern definitions they are called Classical Liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism), at the time they lived in they were considered Liberals. I didn't believe at first, but after reading a bit it is the truth.
For more information please check out the wiki about it, as it does a good job explaining it.
Indeed they were. There was a time before its corruption that the word liberal meant something different.
hell, by that logic, shouldn't they legalize P90's and those suitcase MP5's the SS guy are so fond of :D
I'm still looking for a quote I've saved, somewhere, about when the gov't can do things the people can't........
Indeed, you are correct. But, as I detest what the word "liberal" has come to mean, also look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
Indeed, you are correct. But, as I detest what the word "liberal" has come to mean, also look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
Well while you folks are throwing Wikipedia links around, this is the best [I]part of one thrown out earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Disputes_over_whether_modern_liberalism_is_derived_from_classical_liberalism
(IOW, if you read nothing else, read this short section)
I also don't like what the word has become, but I have resolved to "rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Just like what happened with so-called "assault weapons" from 1994-2004, I refuse to let these traitorous progressivists define my terms for me.
I work/teach at a so-called "conservative" university (which is, of course, chock full of faculty who self-describe as "liberal").
It's a long, hard road, but I have managed to convince a number of my friends and colleagues that it is *I* who is the liberal, and not them.
(unfortunately, i don't have near the reach that television does, so this reclamation is limited to my sphere of influence)
I am profusely sorry for throwing about Wikipedia links. Keep up the good fight.
JLM, I am also sorry for your post becoming detached from your original intent.
I am profusely sorry for throwing about Wikipedia links.
Oh, hell no. That wasn't at all the point I was trying to make, and I apologize if that seemed the case.
I was only saying that since we had a sort of de facto agreement Wikipedia links were OK, everyone should take a look at that part of one, which was excellent.
I'm in academia and I like Wikipedia for what it is: Something we can *all* access.
I could cite an article or two, and it would mean nothing if you didn't have access to the same subscription databases that I do.
ETA: Yes, I am sorry to JLM also. :)
IF the license ban had been brought up, I bet Kennedy would have flipped and then where would we be?
I would argue that the direct implication of that statement is that when registration and licensing are brought before the SCOTUS to determine their constitutionality, they will be found constitutional.
I'd say it's all but a foregone conclusion that licensing and registration would be found constitutional. There are plenty of precedents for other constitutional rights. You can be required to get a permit to hold a political rally. In many states, you need to register your political affiliation with the government in order to take part in primaries/caucuses.
I understand and am completely sympathetic to the argument that registration is just one step away from banning. However, from SCOTUS's standpoint their job is to draw the line at violation of the right, not at things that threaten to violate the right down the road some day.
It would certainly be well within the scope of Congress's Interstate Trade power, as currently defined, to require registration and tracking of all firearms since they're already following them from manufacturer/importer to FFL. That's a battle that would have to be fought in the political arena, not the judicial one.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.