Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Supreme Court

outerlimits

By outerlimits
in What I Like

 Share

Recommended Posts

Carlos Finally read the FAQs

Carlos

Posted
Posted (edited)
But what about this statement ...for private use in their homes?

The wording of 2nd Amendment does not restrict the places where a gun can be carried.

This is in reference to the law being challenged.

I think you are correct. If you look at the 3 code sections that are challenged, these code sections are limited to the home. Specifically, they only address/prohibit D.C. residents' firearms rights as to their homes. Since those were the only 3 code-sections that were challenged below, the S.Ct.'s formulation of the question stays within the bounds of the laws at issue (note that the S.Ct can go, and sometimes has gone, beyond the bounds of the question below to address an issue of national importance or for other limited reasons).

<trivia section> But what about concealed carry and defense outside the home? Surprisingly, D.C. supposedly still has some sort of concealed handgun carry permit scheme on its books (I have not checked the statute). But, since there have been no new handgun ownership permits issued since (I believe) 1976, and D.C.'s population has a high rate of turn over, there are virtually no concealed carry permits in existance as far as I know (might be an interesting FOIA project). I am going from memory here, but I thought there was a "re-registration" in 1978 due to some problem, and at that time there were only 70,000 firearms of all types registered for a city of about 500,000 people (the population here is relativelty steady due to a ban on any building taller than the capitol or Washington monument). Of the 70,000 registered in 1978, I would guess that few of them were handguns and fewer still remain in D.C. as the owners likely moved on during the past 29 years.

Edited by Carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 481
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

XRe Sees Sights Lift

XRe

Posted
Posted
David Barton wrote a book, or pamplet (http://www.wallbuilders.com/store/product13.html) called The Second Amendment.

Adams' 2nd Amendment Primer is another great, well researched little book... ;) FWIW.... It was written by a gent who was as anti-gun as you can get, and who set out to prove that the 2nd Amendment was not an individual right. Funnily enough, as he did the research, he had no choice but to reach the conclusion that the Founders meant for it to be an individual right, and he provides all of the research to support his new found position. Good stuff ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carlos Finally read the FAQs

Carlos

Posted
Posted (edited)

A correction - I think I was slightly off in saying that all 3 provisions are limited to the home. Rather, I located to following:

(here again is the question as the S.Ct. chose to formulate it:)

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating."

So actually, only the 3rd D.C. code section is specifically limited to the home.

I looked up DC Code section 22-4504(a) (the second code section in the S.Ct.s question) regarding carrying a handgun in D.C. and D.C.'s "may issue" concealed carry permit section. This is good news, since it appears that D.C.'s CCW law is on the table when the S.Ct addresses the case. It reads:

§ 22-4504. Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of crime of violence; penalty.

(a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, except that:

(1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

(2) If the violation of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

Edited by Carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigDave Calls Shots

BigDave

Posted
Posted
Came across this blog post where Kennedy sounds off about the 2nd ammendment.

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001047

"I don't lose sleep at night thinking about how to protect the Second Amendment."

:ph34r:

Perhaps he means that he doesn't loose sleep because he feels it is pretty solid? It is an easy quote to take out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chuckbradley Looks for Target

chuckbradley

Posted
Posted
Came across this blog post where Kennedy sounds off about the 2nd ammendment.

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001047

"I don't lose sleep at night thinking about how to protect the Second Amendment."

:ph34r:

Perhaps he means that he doesn't loose sleep because he feels it is pretty solid? It is an easy quote to take out of context.

I am afraid the way I read it is that he doesnt think protecting the 2nd amendment is near as important as protecting the right not to self incriminate. Doesnt mean he will go against us though. It could mean he sees self incrimination in more danger than the 2nd amendment. If anybody finds a clarification from him or any of the Justices as to how they stand please post it.

Regardless I think this will the biggest event for the issue in my lifetime. Undoubtedly we will all be watching, both sides, very closely.

Carlos, great post. We are privileged to have your insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EZ Bagger Looks for Match

EZ Bagger

Posted
Posted

Well, I'm not pay $80 to read the rest of it, but the first paragraph sounds good. :cheers:

Basically what the remainder of the article says is that the court would be making a mockery of the Constitution if they are constantly willing to create rights that are not listed in the Constitution and then turn around and declare that a right specifically enumerated is determined NOT to be a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rtr Calls Shots

rtr

Posted
Posted

I think the BEST we can hope for is that the court rules that it is an individual right, but that "reasonable" (or some other equally vague term) restrictions are ok. Thus creating some victory against outright banning of all weapons, but allowing ridiculous gun control laws like waiting periods and the types of restrictions that exist in places like CA which effectively ban many firearms.

I hope that something better comes out of this, but I don't think it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan Meek Sees Sights

Alan Meek

Posted
Posted
I think the BEST we can hope for is that the court rules that it is an individual right, but that "reasonable" (or some other equally vague term) restrictions are ok. Thus creating some victory against outright banning of all weapons, but allowing ridiculous gun control laws like waiting periods and the types of restrictions that exist in places like CA which effectively ban many firearms.

I hope that something better comes out of this, but I don't think it will.

In reading the questions as formed by the Justices;

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

(highlights added)

It appears to me the Justices already feel the 2nd amendment is an individual right, and are going to determine if DC's "ban" is a violation of those individual rights. And remember DC's law is not a "ban" as you could have registered handguns that were owned prior to 1976.

Alan

(Not a lawyer, but stayed in a Holiday inn Express recently)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JThompson Calls Shots

JThompson

Posted
Posted
There is some thing skewing the USAToday poll. If 96% agree that gun ownership is an individual right. Then, the 4 % that do not agree live in California…

Or the reporting of how CA, and the rest of the country feels, has been skewed all along. :surprise:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
warpspeed Calls Shots

warpspeed

Posted
Posted
There is some thing skewing the USAToday poll. If 96% agree that gun ownership is an individual right. Then, the 4 % that do not agree live in California…

Or the reporting of how CA, and the rest of the country feels, has been skewed all along. :surprise:

Ouch ! you guys are killing me here :lol: Just remember that CA ranks #1 in USPSA members. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...