We NEED this unconstitutional, biased, unjust restriction of firearm ownership repealed. The fact that the murder rate has increased 200% should send a message to even the most thick-headed liberty theives that banning guns only empowers criminals, not law abiding citizens practicing their rights as American citizens!

A 200% murder increase rate since guns were outlawed in D.C. Any questions?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330737,00.html

Washington, D.C. — When the Washington, D.C. City Council enacted the toughest gun-control law in the nation in 1976, the city fathers — according to what they said at the time — believed they were making our nation’s capital a safer place. The measure failed miserably.

Since passage, the murder rate in the District has skyrocketed by more than 200 percent. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to both make our capital safer — and ensure that the Second Amendment to our Constitution is enshrined as an individual right for every law-abiding American.

No matter how well intentioned, the D.C. firearms statute has been unfathomable from the start. On its face, the law bans handguns and requires rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded and either locked or disassembled. While it allows business owners to use a firearm to protect their cash registers at their stores, they cannot use that same firearm to protect themselves and their families in their homes. Individuals who protect federal officials and property in the District with firearms are not permitted to provide similar protection for themselves and their families in their own domiciles.

In fact, the case that the Supreme Court will hear, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought by Mr. Dick Heller, a security guard. In carrying out his duties, Mr. Heller carries a handgun on Federal property. However, when he sought to register the same weapon to safeguard his home, he was denied. Mr. Heller says the D.C. law has it backwards. "I can protect [federal workers], but at the end of the day they say, 'turn in your gun, you can't protect your home.'" Mr. Heller maintains that disassembled rifles and shotguns are no substitute for handguns, "any more than the government could prohibit books because it permits newspapers and considers them an 'adequate substitute.'"

Last March, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, 2-1, that the District’s prohibition was not only unreasonable, it was clearly unconstitutional. Attorneys for the District of Columbia promptly appealed the decision. That is why on March 18, for the first time since 1939, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether such a gun ban for law-abiding citizens is constitutional. Their verdict, expected later this year, will have profound implications for all Americans.

The case has generated a flurry of unprecedented action in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. On January 11, the Department of Justice (DOJ), filed an egregiously weak amicus — friend of the court — brief in the case. The argument, submitted by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, essentially urges the Supremes to waffle on the issue and send the case back to the lower courts.

The DOJ softball didn’t sit well with U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). On February 8, she filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Heller and the exercise of his individual rights under the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In her lucid and detailed exposition, Sen. Hutchison accurately points out that the Framers never intended that the word "militia" meant that the right to keep and bear arms was some kind of "collective" right that applied only to a particular group. If that had been their purpose, they would have been satisfied with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that gives Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

To ensure that that firearms possession was recognized by posterity as an "individual right," the Framers included it as part of the Bill of Rights — an enumeration of every citizen’s personal entitlements: free speech, freedom of religion and a fair trial. The precise location of those famous words — “the right to keep and bear arms” — provides strong evidence for the Founders’ vision.

To foreclose any doubt where Congress comes down on the issue, Sen. Hutchison has introduced a bill to repeal the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns; repeal registration requirements; and restore the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep a loaded, operable firearm in their homes. Doing less denies the meaning of the words "shall not be abridged."

Her argument was so persuasive that 54 additional senators and 250 members of the House of Representatives — including 68 Democrats — signed on. Vice President Dick Cheney — apparently at odds with the administration’s DOJ did so as well. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree with these enlightened members of Congress — and Abraham Lincoln who said, "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."

How can the high murder rate can be blamed solely on gun control when NYC (which is only 200 miles away) and has even more restrictive than DC which according to the FBI crime statistics enjoys the lowest crime rate of any major US City 3 years running and is continuing to drop. The evidence in NYC proves exactly the opposite.

BTW anybody who thinks solving crime that adding guns in a fast-moving, high-stress, major city like (DC, LA, NYC etc) is a good idea has never lived in one.
I lived in NYC for 28 years I remember the 1980s when guns were legal (and there were 2500 murders a year) and I for one and glad they are gone. During the Koch-Dinkins era I witnessed 2 shootings before I was 18. The PD used to make regular trips to the local HS next to mine for someone shooting someone. After Guliani took charge and banned all handguns crime dropped like a stone. Its murder rate is the lowest in the country.

So at there very least, it proves that the evidence is inconclusive.

Frankly if the citizens of DC don't wish to allow guns their wishes should be respected. Nobody is forcing people who want to carry to live there, and those who are pushing to lift gun control laws are usually those who don't actually live in the area in question.

And BTW, I like shoot too...in a rifle range in the countryside. Guns have their places, but big cities isn't one of them, I speak from personal experience. Imagine you get into a very minor fender bender (a slight bump, no damage) with a pickup and when you get out to check it out and talk to the fat Redneck in the Pickup the very first thing he does is to point a revolver at you. It happened to me and my Dad 15 years ago in Downtown DC., next to the Mall.

The NRA's motto of "Law abiding gun owners" is a load of crap...

Originally Posted by mmarsh

How can the high murder rate can be blamed solely on gun control when NYC (which is only 200 miles away) and has even more restrictive than DC which according to the FBI crime statistics enjoys the lowest crime rate of any major US City 3 years running and is continuing to drop. The evidence in NYC proves exactly the opposite.

NYC does not have the same restriction as Washington DC. In DC it is illegal to own a pistol since 1976. You must keep all firearms locked and taken apart. If you want to move a firearm from one room to another you must get permission from the PD.

In NYC you can own firearms including pistols. Both the State of New York and NYC issue conceal carry permits. Such people like Howard Stern and Donald Trump have CCW Permits. New York has an assault weapons ban and is a "may issue" state. That means that you must prove that you need a permit.

NY Pistol Permit information by County

DC is worse then NYC both in crime and gun rights.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

.

Frankly if the citizens of DC don't wish to allow guns their wishes should be respected. Nobody is forcing people who want to carry to live there, and those who are pushing to lift gun control laws are usually those who don't actually live in the area in question.

This case was brought up by eight residents of Washington DC. Not outsiders. On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling. The Mayor of Washington DC (Adrian Fenty) subsequently applied for a rehearing en banc, which was denied, and is appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

.
And BTW, I like shoot too...in a rifle range in the countryside. Guns have their places, but big cities isn't one of them, I speak from personal experience. Imagine you get into a very minor fender bender (a slight bump, no damage) with a pickup and when you get out to check it out and talk to the fat Redneck in the Pickup the very first thing he does is to point a revolver at you. It happened to me and my Dad 15 years ago in Downtown DC., next to the Mall.

If that happened then by your logic Mr. Bad Redneck shouldn't of had that revolver. It has been against the law in DC since 1976 for any person to own firearms including pistols and revolvers. Since the law was in place he shouldn't of had it but it proves my point.

CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS!

Which is why eight residents of Washington DC took this to the Federal District Court. Criminals have guns... Law Abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves against the criminals with the same use of force that criminals use when they attack Law Abiding Citizens in their own homes.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

How can the high murder rate can be blamed solely on gun control when NYC (which is only 200 miles away) and has even more restrictive than DC which according to the FBI crime statistics enjoys the lowest crime rate of any major US City 3 years running and is continuing to drop. The evidence in NYC proves exactly the opposite.

BTW anybody who thinks solving crime that adding guns in a fast-moving, high-stress, major city like (DC, LA, NYC etc) is a good idea has never lived in one.
I lived in NYC for 28 years I remember the 1980s when guns were legal (and there were 2500 murders a year) and I for one and glad they are gone. During the Koch-Dinkins era I witnessed 2 shootings before I was 18. The PD used to make regular trips to the local HS next to mine for someone shooting someone. After Guliani took charge and banned all handguns crime dropped like a stone. Its murder rate is the lowest in the country.

So at there very least, it proves that the evidence is inconclusive.

Frankly if the citizens of DC don't wish to allow guns their wishes should be respected. Nobody is forcing people who want to carry to live there, and those who are pushing to lift gun control laws are usually those who don't actually live in the area in question.

And BTW, I like shoot too...in a rifle range in the countryside. Guns have their places, but big cities isn't one of them, I speak from personal experience. Imagine you get into a very minor fender bender (a slight bump, no damage) with a pickup and when you get out to check it out and talk to the fat Redneck in the Pickup the very first thing he does is to point a revolver at you. It happened to me and my Dad 15 years ago in Downtown DC., next to the Mall.

The NRA's motto of "Law abiding gun owners" is a load of crap...

mmarsh,

Thanks for your input!

The question here isn't whether or not the citizens of Washington, D.C. wish to have handguns banned or not. The benchmark precedence is whether or not it is unconstitutional (illegal) for any city to ban them in the first place. If you read the article, you'll see that the Supreme Court did, in fact, rule it unconstitutional, and it was sent to the Court of Appeals.

Rednecks in Washington, D.C.? Dude, can I get a toke off that pipe?

The issue isn't Washington, D.C. in and of itself. If some podunk town wanted to outlaw guns, I'll ship the criminals there for easy prey.

No, the issue is that gun grabbers take another inch for the mile they want with every victory. The right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and I'm a legal, law-abiding gun owner that's never killed anyone with any of my guns. So who is anyone to tell me I haven't a right to keep and carry a firearm? If you don't want to carry, then fine, be at the mercy of criminals and never be prepared to stop a shooting or a rape or whatever, call the police, and watch another 17 kids die. I cannot do that. I was born a protector, and I need to be prepared, 24/7, to help anyone in need of help.

And if you wish to cite NY, allow me to cite Chicago, eh? Worse crime rate in the entire world - strict gun laws.

You're taking a city 5 times larger than DC and saying they have worse crime. Well, yeah! Phoenix, AZ, my home town, where open carry is legal and pretty much every one carries a gun, has a worse crime rate than Ft Myers, FL, too.

In the end, my friend, it comes down to this: Mutual respect. I don't force you to carry a gun, so why force me not to? Don't trump MY rights simply because your rights are deemed more important, and don't take my guns because a criminal sect uses guns. People drive drunk - alcohol is legal. Knives are legal, but there are FAR more stabbings than shootings.

Think about it, bro.



EDIT: Who is adding guns? They have been legal since day one the United States came into existance. We're not ADDING - they were taken. We just want the same rights we've always had back. Don't muddy the situation with improper terminology.

Let's discuss this.

thanks for the article............

AZ Infantry

I'll see your Chicago with a New Orleans and raise you a Miami Florida (both have open guns laws, and are very dangerous cities).

No right is 100% absolute. If the US government can limit provisions on the 1st Amendment and most recently the 5th, you can be damn sure the 2nd is no different. After his retirement Chief Justice Berger said in a interview that the right to own a gun is not necessarily a guerentee, specifically that the amendment was written when the US had no standing Army, all military units were from militias. That no longer applies now as we DO having a standing military. One thing is sure, what ever the court decides will be 5-4 in either way. I suspect they will rule in unconstitutional, because its a conservative court, but who knows?

You see its not just guns thats at stake here, but also how the constitution itself is interpreted. Is it a "living document" as most scholars belief it is (a document that can be intrepreted by modern times), or is it to be interpreted literally, as someone like Scalia had suggested. Frankly I think the idea that you can live in the 21st century by relying on the literal intrepretations of a document that in the 18th century to be crazy.

Rednecks in DC? Oh yes, with Virginia plates too. I wish there had been a cop near by that would have busted his a**. Its irresponsible people like that make gun owners lives more difficult. I don't know if he was a criminal, but he WAS breaking the law. But thats just it, some gunowners don't believe in following laws they disagree with. Remember I mentioned the upstate? Our neighbor was the county sheriff (very handy to have a cop next door) There was a character the town he warned us about that felt that his right to deer hunt superseded peoples right to property and privacy (i.e. no hunting), and would threaten people with his rifle on their land if they told him to stop trespassing. There have been many incidents like this, including one which ended in a triple homicide near Chicago a few years back.

Some People think the 2nd Amendment is an inalienable right -it isn't, and you don't have to be a criminal.

These gun-grabbers you mention...who elects them? The people do. They wouldn't have any power if they didn't have voters behind them. Therefore its the people in these communities that are making the laws, they aren't just being hatched out of the liberal woodwork.

You mention mutual respect, but that has to work BOTH ways. If residents of Phoenix want to carry guns thats fine, I don't live there, I don't care. If guns bothered me I would move. But likewise, -if the residents of DC or NYC don't want them then they too should have the right to keep them out. Outsiders telling DC or NYC residents that they must allow guns into their city is not mutual respect. The point is: let the communities decide, not the pro or anti gun lobbies. And respect their decisions, as I said nobody is forcing you to live in NYC.

Secondly Phoenix is a nice city, but its not NYC. Its smaller, there are much less people, less stress, less traffic, more room to breathe...you get the picture. Perhaps its perfectly OK for residents of Phoenix to carry concealed, but what is true in Phoenix is not true in other areas, remember that. There is no cure-all solution to this issue. Whats good for the goose is NOT good for the gander.

And frankly, your crime problem sounds more like a lack of a decent Police Department than anything. If you had a descent PD you might not need to carry a gun. The very first thing Guiliani did as NYC mayor was to hire more cops and reorganize the NYPD.

Correction, I was taking about Crime rate per person. Despite having 8 million habitants, the number of crimes reported per 100000 people is less than that of a smaller city. This is the FBI own figures.

Hey mmarsh, I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years, and I definitely got into some places where it would've been nice to have a pistol on my person. I saw tons of people with unregistered handguns, and I'm pretty sure the Latin Kings don't get their weapons from the local gun shop.

Since the weapons are already there regardless of legality, I'd like to be able to shoot in my defense if I have to.

Originally Posted by major liability

Hey mmarsh, I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years, and I definitely got into some places where it would've been nice to have a pistol on my person. I saw tons of people with unregistered handguns, and I'm pretty sure the Latin Kings don't get their weapons from the local gun shop.

Since the weapons are already there regardless of legality, I'd like to be able to shoot in my defense if I have to.

Heres the thing:

Thats why the Latin Kings are a CRIMINAL GANG. BTW the Kings are nowhere near as powerful or dangerous as they once were, their powers were culled through Criminal Prosecution. When you do hear about a shooting its almost always gang-related. Its rare that a civilian is involved. Only talking about NYC of course, cannot speak for the rest of the country.

Everybody says they want to have a gun for self defense, but how many are actually used that way? Not that many. Incidents of people 'defending' themselves is relatively rare. More common are episodes of people pulling LEGAL purchased guns to settle arguments (often domestic), prove that they are some sort of bigshot , or some other bulls***.

Which is why I don't like guns in Big Cities or places of high stress (schools, work). You put a gun in someone's hands whose is under boiling point pressure and he will eventually use it.


A SIDE NOTE

I am not anti-gun by any means, but I do believe that it a responsibility. There are many people who legally purchased guns who in my opinion do not deserve to have one. A gun is a weapon, they are just certain types of people that shouldn't have access to them and those are NOT just the criminal element. I am talking about people under a stressful environment, people with mental/emotional disorders, and certain jackasses who no respect for either the gun or the people around them. They are a dangerous to themselves and more importantly to others.

Here's my opinion on the Second Amendement.

The Bill of Rights was written almost exclusively to protect the rights of the people, with the exception of the Tenth which was to protect the rights of the States. (Which of course the Federal Government tramples on left and right these days) In my mind, the idea that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of the people to own and possess firearms is laughable, it may not be the best written amendment, but it still seems readable to me. I believe it means that the people are allowed to own guns and the States are allowed to organize their own militias, to serve as a defense from a foreign aggressor or even a Federal Government that is overstepping its bounds. South Dakota just passed a law allowing guns on campus for students with CCW and allows the storage of firearms on campus, that was an unconstitutional law banning them in the first place, but that's hardly the point I am getting at here. The point is that now any student can store a weapon in their dorm room and anybody with a CCW permit (which can only be acquired after certification anyways so not like every drunk bastard from West River is going to be carrying around a pistol) and this is a right protected by the Constitution. I don't particularly agree with the Second Amendment whole-heartedly and in a world where the Air Force plays such a huge role on the battlefield I doubt our ability to "overthrow" the government without the support of at least two branches of the military is feasible. However, whether I think it should be a protected right or not is irrelevant, the Constitution says we can own firearms and until a new amendment is passed nullifying the Second Amendment we will continue to have the right to own firearms. The Second Amendment won't be overturned in the Supreme Court, it has to be overturned by a new amendment to the Constitution.

That's my "Self-righteous rant, while being a hypocrite to boot" for this topic.

I'm sticking with the Founders on this subject of bearing arms:

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.

JAMES MADISON
"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."
SAMUEL ADAMS
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

RICHARD HENRY LEE
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."

GEORGE WASHINGTON
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."