Judge upholds limits on DC gun ownership - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Judge upholds limits on DC gun ownership

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-28-2010, 03:44 PM   #11
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpd8488 View Post
there is no precedent for determining what kind of requirements (backround checks, fingerprints, etc) cross the line of infringing on the right.
How about paying a fee to process those background checks and scan those fingerprints? How much of a fee is too much? Who gets to decide?

How about paying a tax to acquire arms? Our Class III tax exists for no other reason than as a deterrent.

Doesn't this set the precedent that we must pay money to the government in order to exercise our natural rights? Do you agree with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpd8488 View Post
D.C. says that any firearm not on their list is dangerous or unusual. The judge is bound by this law as it is not his job to overturn it, merely interpret it. I think Heller knew this going into the courtroom.

These questions are where the appeals courts come into play. They will begin to make case law determining what contstitues a dangerous or unusual weapon and what constitutes an "undue burden" (to cite a term used in other cases) on the exercise of the right.
As with most problematic laws, the issue pertains to subjective ruling. What is "dangerous" or "unusual"? By whose standards? Who gets to decide? Who gets to challenge the definitions?

For anyone worried about a violent felon getting out of prison and immediately procuring several full-auto's for his next gig, consider that the problem is not a ban on arms but a fatal flaw in our judicial system. Violent felons should be put to death.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2010, 06:20 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mpd8488's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 245
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
How about paying a fee to process those background checks and scan those fingerprints? How much of a fee is too much? Who gets to decide?

How about paying a tax to acquire arms? Our Class III tax exists for no other reason than as a deterrent.

Doesn't this set the precedent that we must pay money to the government in order to exercise our natural rights? Do you agree with that?


As with most problematic laws, the issue pertains to subjective ruling. What is "dangerous" or "unusual"? By whose standards? Who gets to decide? Who gets to challenge the definitions?

For anyone worried about a violent felon getting out of prison and immediately procuring several full-auto's for his next gig, consider that the problem is not a ban on arms but a fatal flaw in our judicial system. Violent felons should be put to death.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Personally, I believe that there should be no requirements for buying small arms of any kind, it is fundamental right after all.

However from a legal standpoint, district court judges don't determine constitutionality. For all we know the judge agrees with Heller, but he was not in a position to set such precedents because he was bound by D.C. law. That law is unconstitutional as far as I and anyone else with any sense is concerned, but it is binding until an appeals court or the Supreme Court throws it out.

I'm talking about the process of our legal system, not what's right and wrong. You can't simply break the rules to get what you want.
__________________
mpd8488 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2010, 09:28 AM   #13
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpd8488 View Post
However from a legal standpoint, district court judges don't determine constitutionality.
Sorry about the misunderstanding. If this guys job was only to determine whether or not an action or ruling was sound only in the context of local laws, fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpd8488 View Post
I'm talking about the process of our legal system, not what's right and wrong. You can't simply break the rules to get what you want.
Agreed.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2010, 11:01 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,900
Liked 2057 Times on 827 Posts
Likes Given: 2706

Default

The Second Amendment has no restrictions where small arms stand. It was not until the 20th Century that the restrictions on Felons owning or possessing firearms came into play.

Nowhere in the history before the 20th century was there a restriction on anyone but slaves and former slaves owning firearms. In some prisons once a person was released they were given a horse with saddle, a $10 gold piece, and a pistol. It was always held that once a person serves their time they were now considered as full rights and privileges.

With the liberal anti-gunners we have seen hysteria of anyone having guns and the advention of restrictions on rights. It is not nor has been a universal belief of restricted rights until the 20th century and even most of the first half of the 20th century was some what the same as the 18th and 19th century where gun rights were the issue.

During the 19th century a few towns restricted temporarily the display and carry of guns in town to help stem the lawlessness and bring some form of law back to the wild streets and once things calmed down they removed the restrictions, but at no time was any law or action made or enforced to restrict the ownership of guns.

Before the emancipation of the slaves they had no rights sense even the courts said they were not citizens of this country and could not enjoy the same rights and all other citizens. Then after the civil War sense the former slaves were full citizens with full rights we saw the very first anti gun restrictions come into play with the Jim Crow laws forbidden former slaves from owning any guns. Anti-gun laws are the embodiment of racism that has and still are mostly racist in nature.

The saying today of, for our own good, or for the common good of all, or a law we can live with, or what ever one wants to say is just anti gunners saying you have no rights that we don’t want you to have.

So even the Supreme Court ruled incompetently with the Heller case to begin with, it is not a right of any governing body nor do they have any authority to restrict the Second Amendment. I do not support any restrictions on owning, buying, selling, or the baring of arms by anyone who is law abiding, this includes former felons and I say former, because once they serve their time then all debts are paid, and they should be restored full rights is was intended to start with.

I do support due process of law where rights are removed temporally while incarcerated as is given by judicial law.


opaww

__________________

Last edited by opaww; 03-29-2010 at 11:32 AM.
opaww is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier jeffxc Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 35 01-09-2010 08:41 PM
Limits on what caliber/ammo type a gun can fire? generic Ammunition & Reloading 23 01-03-2010 02:27 PM
Great reason for term limits funnyrunner Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 11-07-2009 06:57 AM
HR 45 - Criminalizing Gun Ownership HunterMarksman338 Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 06-27-2009 06:46 PM