Mayor of DC to appeal gun ruling; SCOTUS may address 2nd Amendment

[Stokes Pennwalt]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

A central question the D.C. case poses is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's rights to bear arms. Experts say that gun-rights advocates have never had a better chance for a major Second Amendment victory, because a significant number of justices on the Supreme Court have indicated a preference for the individual-rights interpretation.

This past March, the US Court of Appeals for Washington DC struck down the 1975 handgun ban as unconstitutional WRT the 2nd Amendment in Parker v. DC. Link to US court of appeals opinion. As of right now, DC residents can begin registering handguns on August 7th.

As most of us know, the 2nd Amendment's protection of a collective or individual right has been something of much debate for decades. One of the larger reasons why it is so contentious that the SCOTUS has not addressed a 2nd Amendment case since 1930, leaving many questions about the true present-day interpretation of the text unanswered. Even more confusing is the lack of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment, unlike so many others we hold dear. If the SCOTUS does decide to hear this case, their ruling will have dramatic ramifications. If they rule in favor of the individual right, it would open the door to a wave of gun legislation reform. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the collective interpretation would be disastrous for gun owners.

I would expect this case to be of interest to more than just gun owners, as it deals with a deeper philosophical issue near and dear to the hearts of people from all quadrants of the political spectrum. Thus its presence in the Symposium.

[brian_igo]

There's less here than meets the eye regarding a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. The entire point of Parker's case is that prior court rulings on the Second which allow states and local governments to restrict personal firearm ownership do not apply to the district because it is a federal district, and under the control of the federal government. Unless the Supremes go outside the case, their ruling will only apply to DC because it is the only local government that is not part of a state.

SCOTUS has addressed Second Amendment cases since 1930, Stokes. The most famous case was Morton Grove in the 70's, but it is not alone.

[frazzledspice]

This is my main feeling about gun rights.

I hate guns. Just hate 'em. Can't stand 'em.

I think that the single-issue of extremism of the NRA rivals even the single-issue extremism of the religious right.

But, since single-issue extremism has saddled us with the worst President in American history for 8 years, I would rather see the NRA win this battle so that it doesn't become a deal-breaker in the 2008 election and we can start moving our country in the right direction again.

I live 1,000 miles away from Washington, D.C. And even though I live in a very red state, I follow the don't ask/don't tell policy. If my neighbors own guns, I'd rather not know it and have restful sleep.

I am encouraged by an article I read in South Dakota, years ago, that said that gun owners are afraid the parental bonding of hunting together will end now that we are becoming a nation of suburbs (yay!) They even built a museum in Sioux Falls, because they see that kids aren't growing up with guns anymore (yay for the latter!)

So if urban and rural flight to the suburbs will greatly decrease gun ownership, I will just have to be grateful, and grateful that I don't live in the city or country.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

brian_igo said

There's less here than meets the eye regarding a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. The entire point of Parker's case is that prior court rulings on the Second which allow states and local governments to restrict personal firearm ownership do not apply to the district because it is a federal district, and under the control of the federal government. Unless the Supremes go outside the case, their ruling will only apply to DC because it is the only local government that is not part of a state.

I figured that. However, as the article states, an unambiguous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is intrinsic to their decision. The resultant definition would have an impact around the country in subsequent legal arguments, in any case.

SCOTUS has addressed Second Amendment cases since 1930, Stokes. The most famous case was Morton Grove in the 70's, but it is not alone.

Er, no. Quilici v. Morton Grove was never heard by the SCOTUS. Do you know of any others?

frazzledspice said

This is my main feeling about gun rights...

A decision in this case would make a good deal of difference to a good many people other than gun owners.

[rmthunter]

I haven't been following this particular case, but I do have some thoughts on gun control.

Full disclosure: on one side of the family I come from a long line of gun owners and users. My relatives went hunting in the fall in order to have meat through the winter. We also had guns in the house (safely put away) and my dad made sure I knew how to use them and care for them. I owned a rifle myself. I'm not about to condemn gun ownership across the board.

(As to the parental bonding of hunting, my own feeling is that we have vanishingly few manhood rites in this society, and most of them are fairly negative, on the order of going out and getting hammered on your 21st birthday. I'm against sport hunting and don't see why the weapon of choice in such an adventure can't be a camera, if we can wean our young men away from the idea that killing something proves you're a man. [Been there, done that -- not among the brighter moments of my life.] I'd rather have a bunch of pictures of a bear or elk that I took myself than a dusty head on the wall. Ads for the parental bonding aspect, my dad and I used to go camping together and never shot anything. It was a wonderful experience for me.)

I see no reason why some suburbanite -- or any other private citizen, for that matter -- has to own and use assault rifles and the like. Those are military weapons and should be limited to the military. If you want to collect them, disable them.

Handguns are iffy. Banning handguns is not going to stop criminals from owning them. It will only curtail the activities of recreational marksmen (markspersons?), and I think that's a legitimate form of recreation. I've done some recreational shooting myself, and it's a pretty demanding skill. Gun clubs are notorious for emphasizing gun safety and proper handling, and I think enrollment in such an organization is a good requirement for owning handguns.

"Protecting the home" is also pretty iffy. It's an unfortunate truth, if statistics are to be believed at all (not always a sure thing), that availability of guns makes it too easy to kill or maim someone in the heat of the moment. (See above about membership in a gun club.) On the other hand, if someone is determined to do in her abusive husband, she'll find a way, gun or no gun. As for concealed carry permits and the like, that's not adressing the problem which is crime on the streets. That needs a very different approach.

At least, that's what I think at this point.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

I have never been game hunting. I did used to go varmint hunting a lot, which served the dual purposes of intermediate-range (usually 200-500m) marksmanship practice and control of invasive species, like the red fox or opossum of southern California. I haven't discharged a weapon at a living target in five years. I continue to shoot recreationally.

My main reason for being interested in gun politics has grown more principled than selfish. It used to be mostly because I disliked watching a hobby I enjoyed become more expensive and difficult or impossible to pursue. These days, it is just as much that, but even moreso because I don't enjoy being insulted by the arguments of idealogues exploiting tragedies and appealing to popular fears to advance their agenda. It is the same feeling I get when somebody decides some other facet of our personal freedoms needs to be culled, like with censorship or the whole gay marriage thing. Being called stupid or irresponsible in such a condescending manner pisses me off. I don't have a problem with people who happen not to like guns or be comfortable around them; that describes most of my family. I do have a problem with anyone who is so sheltered and intolerant that they presume to have the latitude to legislate their personal bias onto the rest of us. People can debate all kinds of other things, too, but the core arguments are much more fundamental than that. They require no statistics or legal documents to support.

The thing about "assault weapons" is that they are not military weapons at all. That is one of the lies frequently peddled the anti-gun movement. They look the same, but their actions are semiauto only (one bullet at a time). More here. Fully-auto weapons have been tightly regulated since 1934 and any fully-auto firearm manufactured after 1986 cannot be privately owned, period. While the M4A1 carbine will always hold a special place in my heart, the civilianized "assault weapons" are still pretty cool. They are durable, accurate, reliable, light, well-balanced, and ergonomic. Intermediate cartridges like the 5.56 NATO and 5.45 Soviet fly fast and flat like a full-sized rifle cartridge but have a more manageable recoil. As such, many shooters - especially novices and smaller-framed people - find them easier to use than a full-sized rifle. Military caliber ammo is cheap and readily available in large quantities. Large magazines mean you can get tucked in position and shoot for a while without having to break concentration and change magazines every 5-10 rounds, and the magazines themselves are easy to change and refill. The weapons are easy to strip and clean. Repair parts are dirt cheap and abundant. Any half-decent gunsmith can work on one, if not the owner themselves. There is a large aftermarket for most platforms, so if you want to fire a .22LR or 7.62x39 round from your AR-15, a new upper (barrel and action group) can be had for a few hundred dollars and swapped in a couple of minutes without any tools. Anyway, those are the common reasons for their popularity amongst enthusiasts.

[rmthunter]

Stokes Pennwalt said

The thing about "assault weapons" is that they are not military weapons at all. That is one of the lies frequently peddled the anti-gun movement. They look the same, but their actions are semiauto only (one bullet at a time). More here. Fully-auto weapons have been tightly regulated since 1934 and any fully-auto firearm manufactured after 1986 cannot be privately owned, period.

I hadn't known that. I'm not an enthusiast and wasn't aware of the distinctions. I do wonder about the use of semi-automatics for target practice and recreational shooting though -- don't "normal" weapons have these features?

[frazzledspice]

There was evidence that we are a completely looney nation on the Today Show this morning.

A representative from a stun gun manufacturer was there to talk about the new "personal stun guns" or tasers.

Matt Lauer and the rep were not allowed to touch the stun gun, because it was illegal in New York. A police detective stood right next to them with HIS taser to make sure that they didn't go crazy on the air and touch it...

They are apparently illegal in seven states--even though the manufacturer won't sell them to anyone without criminal background checks and waiting periods.

What kind of nutty country do we live in, anyway, where armed vigilantes can roam the streets exercising their Second Amendment rights with lethal weapons while tasers are illegal in seven states?

I don't have any interest in owning a taser, either, but if I were ever in a situation where I felt I needed protection I would rather have a taser than a gun.

God has the power over life and death, not me.....or armed vigilantes with lethal weapons.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

rmthunter said

I hadn't known that. I'm not an enthusiast and wasn't aware of the distinctions. I do wonder about the use of semi-automatics for target practice and recreational shooting though -- don't "normal" weapons have these features?

Not exactly; the combination of features that makes civilianized assault rifles appealing was more or less the same criteria used by the old federal ban, and by all the current state-level bans.