Assault Weapons Ban Upheld in D.C.

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by JoinOrDieSaidBenFranklin, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. Here is from the NY Times Editorial page. Comment urged...


    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last week persuasively ruled that the Constitution allows the District to ban possession of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines of bullets and to require citizens to meet sensible standards for registering guns.


    This ruling underscores a principle set forth in the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep handguns at home for self-defense. The Supreme Court said in that case that the right is “not unlimited” and doesn’t protect guns “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” And it specifically suggested that jurisdictions could ban the possession of the military’s M-16 rifle because it is “dangerous and unusual.”

    The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.

    It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person. The appeals court’s ruling is careful and convincing on this heated topic.
     
  2. BenLuby

    BenLuby New Member

    2,178
    0
    0
    Ah. Another 'cosmetic ban'. Just because it looks like an 'assault weapon' doesn't make it one.
    That's like putting a Lamborghini body on a Yugo. It's still a Yugo. These judges are either legally stupid or pushing their agenda and hoping the rest of the country is just that stupid.
    (I'm not going to get into the magazine issue.)
     

  3. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,127
    108
    63
    i'm not surprised that anti-gun federal judges voted against the Second Amendment. The SCOTUS decision was not a ringing endorsement of our Second Amendment rights either. That decision laid the ground work for a wide intrepretation by the federal appeals courts. Those varying decisions by the appeals courts will have to be worked out by SCOTUS.
     
  4. fmj

    fmj New Member

    3,459
    0
    0
    and now that the SCOTUS is tipped the other way (liberal, anti gun zealots pushing their agenda)....
     
  5. BenLuby

    BenLuby New Member

    2,178
    0
    0
    it's not tipped yet. The Obamanites haven't yet managed to take control of all of it.
     
  6. fmj

    fmj New Member

    3,459
    0
    0
    it was a fine balance to begin with, all it took was the two he appointed to flip it IMHO.

    Chief Roberts, Scalia and Alito are the only really truly solid friends we have...Kennedy and Thomas are crap shoots which way they will swing half the time and we KNOW where Sotomayor and Kegan are firmly rooted
     
  7. BenLuby

    BenLuby New Member

    2,178
    0
    0
    Kennedy and Thomas, when you analyze the majority of their votes, try very hard to follow the constitution, regardless of what and who appointed them.
    If we're lucky the retard will be out shortly. (If the right can find a sane candidate).
     
  8. fmj

    fmj New Member

    3,459
    0
    0
    As much as i try to look at it as the beer bottle being half full, i dont hold out much hope. I doubt the GOP, Libertarian, or Tea Party will find anything worth voting for so i will end up voting AGAINST the idiot.

    And i really fear the idiot is gonna get a second term...there are just too many stupid people in this country that simply DO NOT get it!
     
  9. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,127
    108
    63
    Yep, Carter was a failure as president. However, Carter did not bring you any new gun control laws or ban any guns from import.
     
  10. fmj

    fmj New Member

    3,459
    0
    0
  11. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    So...we have a candidate who religiously sticks to the constitution, has always done so, has a 30 year (or so) voting record to back that up and we don't know who to vote for?

    The problem isn't that the right candidate isn't making an effort. The problem is the electorate is terminally ignorant. (Not you guys...just voters as a group in general.)
     
  12. fmj

    fmj New Member

    3,459
    0
    0
    OH I have my candidate...and i am doing my best to spread the word.

    BUT

    your last paragraph supports my last paragraph.

    Our idiot in chief will get a second shot at "fundementely transforming the US" or in terms we understand, complete and total annihilation of the constitution.
     
  13. fmj

    fmj New Member

    3,459
    0
    0
    Does it seem weird to anyone else that the last time i voted for the best guy for the job ( or so i thought) his initials were also RP?? :confused:
     
  14. Why so few give Ralph Nader a chance is beyond me. :mad:
     
  15. If you are mad at Obama for fundamentally changing the way things are supposed to work in this country, you must be really pissed at George W. Bush. He was the most radical politician we've had as president!
     
  16. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    We already have a commie in the White House.
     
  17. BenLuby

    BenLuby New Member

    2,178
    0
    0
    He didn't change anything!! All he's done is decided he has the right to bomb the he11 out of anyone he wants WITHOUT congressional approval.
    That, and he wants all our money.
     
  18. fmj

    fmj New Member

    3,459
    0
    0
    I agree, up until this clown we have in town now!

    As i have stated many times previous, i am LESS than happy with the leadership we have had in my lifetime. Only Daddy Bush was decent.
     
  19. Papa_Woody

    Papa_Woody New Member

    294
    0
    0
    I think, if you want to really get down to it, the biggest offense here is that one man (or group) is determining what another man must consider to be 'reasonable'. I can determine on my own what I, a law abiding citizen, finds sufficient for myself. No one NEEDS a Lamborghini, but we don't force everyone to drive a Sedan. No one NEEDS an AR ( obviously exclusive to non LE citizens), but damnit what if I just WANT one? This WAS America ya know...
     
  20. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,221
    240
    63
    Sorry about RP, cause he sure as hell ain't getting the Republican nomination, unless Romney politically explodes. (not likely)

    The man can't go a week without a "self-inflicted wound". I somehow don't think he is all that bright. Besides, who wants another Texas governor?

    The election is going to be close and it is going to be decided by conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans. (the ones closest to the center) All of the hard right and left voters are already decided and split close to 50/50.

    The Republicans best chance to take the Whitehouse is Romney. Like him or hate him, he is the only shot. If someone like RP or Palin or a combo of the two. (She is still running for VP) The progressives will come out of the woodwork to defeat them, and the folks in the middle will either vote for Obama, or just stay home. Better to give them a candidate that does not "inspire" the progressives; or it will be 4 more years.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2011