EDITORIAL: Gun-ban lawsuit part deux

http://www.reason.com/news/show/127686.html Excuse Me While I Get My Gun Washington, D.C., defies the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling. Jacob Sullum | July 23, 2008

are there no creative people left in this country? Get together as many of your friends as you can. Go across the river to virginia and each buy a ten inch .44 mag revolver and then all go at the same time to register them. that gun can put a hole through a concrete wall and yet it complies with DC law. that might teach them the err in their ways and they'll start begging for 9mm semi-autos to come back.

It's time for the D.C. City Council to start passing laws that prosecute people who stab 12 year old girls and put plastic bags over their heads. To do this they need ask for the citizens help. That's the crime, not in owning a gun.

Some cases Scalia didn't want you to see, like Commonwealth v. Kreps: A pocket revolver or pistol is not included in the term “arms,” as used in Article I, Section 21 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and therefore it was not the intention of the people to reserve the right to carry a pocket revolver or pistol without legislative interference or regulation Why was it OK for Congress to give the President authority to ban all weapons and their usage in Alaska, but not OK for city hall? See: http://federalistblog.us/2008/07/dc_v_heller_was_scalia_honest_with_the_facts.html

If not the people who are rights affirmed to in the Constitution? Which take precedence, Rights or Powers? Are the people of this country so inept and ignorant that they no longer care what Congress or the courts do to their Rights? I’d have to say they are. Good Luck America.

The gun control groups and the people who support them don't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, they believe that the self anointed elite on the left are the only ones who have any rights. They also believe these same self anointed elites are the ones to decide what the rest of us are allowed to do. Since the DC city council and police chief are violiting the civil rights of the citizens of DC why not file a class action lawsuit against them and hit their pocket books?

For those who haven't seen it I recommend reading Ilya Somin piece - Locked Liberties - in the July 28th issue of Legal Times. SEE: http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1202423169218

Makes me laugh whenever I see a liberal complain about Republicans trampling on civil rights when it comes to the war on terror.

The Justice Department should fine D.C.$100,00 a day for noncompliance.

Hey Desperado, The internet and radio transmission are not described in the first amendment and therefore it was not the intention of the people to give the right of free speech without legislative interference or regulation. And by the way, there were pistols back in the days the constitution was written. Kramer

Fenty & Co.'s legislative antics reminds one of "Jim Crow" times with legal contrivances intended to keep blacks from voting. This current batch of eletist phonies have an aversion to allowing DC residents to have an effective means of self defence in their own homes. They do have a legitimate concern though. When the legitimate fear of an armed response brings down the number of home invasions in DC, They'll have some splaining to do.

Desperado, The Constitution uses the term "arms" in order to AVOID limiting the definition of what constitutes a weapon. Why are you, and so many other people, convinced that "arms" only means flintlock muzzle loaders or some other archaic weapon when it doesn't mean anything of the sort? Th term "arms" means ANY tool used as a weapon in which to ARM oneself. This includes, knifes, guns, clubs, rocks, and pointed sticks, as well as hammers, scissors, ropes, fists, etc., etc., etc. The right to keep and bear arms means just that, the right to arm oneself by whatever means are available.

"Why was it OK for Congress to give the President authority to ban all weapons and their usage in Alaska, but not OK for city hall?" Dude, you're talking about a law that was made in the 1850's. Alaska wasn't a STATE until 1955, a hundred years later! Before that it was a federal territory, federal property. It wasn't even a federal district like DC is! The federal government owned all of the Alaskan territory, it was their property. You may not be aware of this, but the federal government has the right to limit access and possessions on their property. This includes possessing a gun. Once Alaska achieved statehood, it was no longer a federal territory, no longer federal property, and the law restricting gun on federal property no longer applied. This is why it is NOT illegal to own and use a gun in Alaska today.

"Dude, you're talking about a law that was made in the 1850's. Alaska wasn't a STATE until 1955, a hundred years later! Before that it was a federal territory, federal property. It wasn't even a federal district like DC is! The federal government owned all of the Alaskan territory, it was their property." OK.... then why was it OK for United States to go house to house and confiscate arms belonging to citizens of Boston but did not disarm citizens who were members of a state militia?

It would be much wiser if the DC City council spent more time taking felons with guns off the street. After much fanfair years ago, they "embraced project exile" the program VA uses to prosecute felons with guns. 5 years, no negotiation, prison time. As one prosecuter in Richomond said, "as easy as picking up pennies off the street." It is why VA has a lower gun crime rate than MD and DC combined. One day I asked several DC officers if they knew what project exile was, none could answer. Also, in the public record, I could not locate a conviction and sentencing under the law. Maybe by making the price for commiting a crime with a gun or possesing one after a conviction a high price, the district might reduce crime by crimminals. This is preferable to making crimminals out of law abiding citizens.