City of Columbia Enacts Temporary Ban On Weapons

[ClickClickD'oh]

[QUOTE="wojownik]... decision in Bateman v. Perdue[/QUOTE]


I don't think Bateman v. Perdue is applicable in this case since that was based on a far more wide reaching law that even went as far as to prohibit the purchase or sale of ammunition, the transportation of weapons or ammunition from site to site and even hunting in rural areas.

That was as narrowly tailored as an atom bomb, especially considering NCs tendency to declare state wide emergencies for cloudy skies. A law like that, which is clearly just a catch all, has no chance of surviving scrutiny by the courts.

A better set of cases to look at would be how courts have handled Free Speach Zones.

 

[wojownik]

I don't think Bateman v. Perdue is applicable in this case since that was based on a far more wide reaching law that even went as far as to prohibit the purchase or sale of ammunition, the transportation of weapons or ammunition from site to site and even hunting in rural areas.

That was as narrowly tailored as an atom bomb, especially considering NCs tendency to declare state wide emergencies for cloudy skies. A law like that, which is clearly just a catch all, has no chance of surviving scrutiny by the courts.

The reason I referenced Bateman was in regard to the assertion that a precedent is being set that could "gut" the Second Amendment. Hardly, and even if a jurisdiction tried to engage in broad-brushed "gutting," the NC law was handily spanked by the court as unconstitutional.

The Columbia ordinance, on the other hand is narrow in scope, relatively brief in effective duration, and relates to a specific public safety exigency. (The issues I have right now are with the chief of police's backpeddling in saying there was not "specific" threat, and the city council's suggestion that the ordinance could be extended again if needed. The two positions are contradictory).

The concept of protective zones (whether 1A or 2A related) have been upheld in numerous court decisions - while also finding that the government's powers to restrict certain activities are not absolute or limitless. It's always a delicate balancing act between civil liberties and public safety.

The NC state-wide ban was not delicate. It was absurd. The Columbia protective zone is a much more limited affair.

 

[Snyper]

I think a lot of people are over reacting.
They are doing this simply because the Klan is coming to town.

It's been done in the past in other places and it hasn't lead to widespread restrictions.

A month from now it will be over, and 2 weeks from now most will have forgotten about it altogether.

How many of those complaining have been within 250 ft of the SC Capital grounds?

If it's not part of your daily routine it won't affect you.

 

[Plan2Live]

I think a lot of people are over reacting.
They are doing this simply because the Klan is coming to town.

It's been done in the past in other places and it hasn't lead to widespread restrictions.

A month from now it will be over, and 2 weeks from now most will have forgotten about it altogether.

How many of those complaining have been within 250 ft of the SC Capital grounds?

If it's not part of your daily routine it won't affect you.

I live in Columbia and do go within the ban zone on occasion. But putting that aside my primary carry gun has less than a 10 round capacity but I still don't support limitations on magazine capacity. I don't live in Seattle but I am opposed to their proposed ammunition and gun sales tax. I could go on but I think my point is made. You don't have to be personally affected by something to be justified in speaking out against it. Especially if it is wrong.

 

[wojownik]

You don't have to be personally affected by something to be justified in speaking out against it. Especially if it is wrong.

On this point I completely agree. Well stated.

 

[TRX]

> groups which are identified as “hate groups” by
> the Southern Poverty Law Center

Any legislation which is based on SPLC "facts" is broken before it's even signed.

 

[orionengnr]

I'm not going to get upset about a 250' ban with a definite (near) end date for a specific reason. That is under a 1 block radius, less space than a school reserves. This event was triggered by violence and the subject has a long history of violence.

Ah, yes. More "common sense" legislation.
That always works out well.

Whoever believes that criminals follow any laws, temporary or permanent, is...how do we say it?

An idiot. Yes, thank you, le mot juste.

 

[AKElroy]

"We have been hearing some chatter that you folks might be in danger; the best course of action is for you to be forcefully rendered defenseless. This is for your own safety."

Makes perfect sense.

 

[AKElroy]

I just wrote at least a dozen posts defending Wataburger banning OC in their shops, since a burger joint IMO is not the best place for OC advocacy, and it is a private business. The State House, however, is PRECISELY the right place for it. Read Walter Williams article that was just posted in the General forum.

 

[Plan2Live]

Update

A citizen has filed a lawsuit challenging this ban. While he doesn't sound like a typical conservative I welcome his action on this matter. Here is a link to our local newpaper's article on the suit.I'm posting this from my phone so I hope I've got the link inserted properly. http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article27449098.html

 

[Plan2Live]

Attorney General Says Ban is Unconstitutional!

This will be my final update on this topic. Justice has prevailed! Our Attorney General has ruled the ban is unconstitutional and would not stand up in court. Thankfully the rule of law came down in our favor this time and a dangerous precedent has not been set. Thank you all for your interest in this post.

Here is a link to a news story regarding the AG's opinion. http://www.wltx.com/story/news/2015/07/21/columbia-temporary-gun-ban/30464013/

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Thankfully the rule of law came down in our favor...

The rule of law has come down in no ones favor. An AG opinion statement is not the rule of law.

Ergo: "While Wilson said he believes the measure isn't legal, he said the courts must ultimately decide if on its constitutional status."

 

[MErl]

Whoever believes that criminals follow any laws, temporary or permanent, is...how do we say it?

Did you read the rest of that post beyond what was quoted?

Go ahead, get upset about it. File a suit to get it repealed. Write letters & make phone calls. By the time anything might happen 30 days will have passed and it will have expired. We're half way there already.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Getting this law quashed is not the goal. It is demonstrating that ALL such unconstitutional laws are null and void and preventing such attempts in the future.

The concept is "deterrence" to thosse who would unlawfully do such stuff. Nor unlike showing criminals that crime does not pay, we need to show gun grabbers that these crimes against reason do not pay.

Lost Sheep

 

[Plan2Live]

ClickClickD'oh said:

The rule of law has come down in no ones favor. An AG opinion statement is not the rule of law.

Ergo: "While Wilson said he believes the measure isn't legal, he said the courts must ultimately decide if on its constitutional status."

And in other articles posted online regarding the AG's opinion, http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article27974692.htmlthe writer explained "An attorney general’s opinion does not have the force of law, but courts can potentially give it considerable weight in reaching a decision."

While it is technically, to the letter, accurate that the rule of law has not been officially decided on this issue, it is also extremely clear that if tested the court would rule this ban is/was unconstitutional. The lawsuit filed by Walid Hakim is moving forward and the dominos are falling in his direction so we will eventually get a court ruling on this but for the moment it is apparent that the rule of law will come down on the side of gun owners. I won't bother posting that final opinion but it will happen.

Whether this determination is made during the term of the ban or after is immaterial. Wrong is wrong and once this is ban is proven to be wrong the City won't try that again and that is the point.

We can argue all day long that the concept of level is merely an illusion and is limited in scope due to the curvature of the earth but carpenters still strive to achieve this goal when building houses.

Wow, this is getting tedious and tiring.