Federal Court Upholds DC Hand Gun Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fed Court etc . . .

Seems to me I just read something about legislation to give DC residents full rights and recognization of the all the other states, without actually making it a state. Don't know how that would, or could work, but it seems kind of dumb to grant these residents all the federal rights but when it's convenient to say so, deny them any other rights granted solely to the states. I wonder if they have a National Guard to protect them from a potentially tyrannical Federal Government. Huh?? BOR is a Federal guarentee by the Feds to the States, but NOT to the residents of DC cause it"s not a state??. Here we go loopty loo!!! But, ARE they really Americans?? Makes you wonder. We are all residents of the United STATES of America, which by their own admission does not include DC, and I think I'm getting a headache!!
 
In context Halbrook was saying that as far as he was concerned registration was okay .... Once again, in context Halbrook argues that he is fine with registration.
Click to expand...
Publica, :)

I don't want to get into a did-too-did-not exchange with you, but even in the quote you provide, Halbrook did not say registration is OK. He said simply, "We are here wanting to register handguns." You assume he meant, "We are here wanting to register handguns because we are fine with registration." You are ascribing a reason to his statement that is supported by neither the context of Halbrook's stated strategy (attack registration later) nor the extensive body of his legal writing and courtroom arguments.

Given the broad context that you ignore, is is more likely that he meant, "We are here wanting to register handguns even though we think registration is wrong."
Halbrook did not tell the judge that they weren't going to press registration at this time.
Click to expand...
No he didn't, but that doesn't mean you can add "because we are fine with registration" and ignore the context of his stated strategy as well as his extensive legal writing and courtroom arguments.
So if you have faith in Halbrook's "strategy" that's one thing.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't know whether it will work or not. But it is inaccurate to state that Halbrook said he thinks registration is OK.

He never said that. You are ascribing thoughts that are not there. :)
 
On or about october 17, 2003, the esteemed THR forum began running around this precise tree discussing the DC case.

One of the forum members grew some smarts and email Halbrook and queried him on a variety of issue pertaining to the case.

His comments should lay to rest some of the comments on this thread.


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45229&highlight=halbrook
 
It has always been a mystery to me how the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments infer individual rights, but the 2nd is a collective right reserved for "Well Regulated Militia". Also, what, or better yet who, is going to regulate the Militia if not an armed citizenry. Seems as though that is the only true guarantee that Government can be constrained. A prime example, Germany in the 30s, following the disarming of the populace.
 
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20040114-112126-4507r.htm


Federal ruling backs D.C. gun-control law


By Marty Niland
ASSOCIATED PRESS



A federal judge upheld the District's 28-year-old gun-control law yesterday, rejecting a legal challenge from a group of citizens backed by the National Rifle Association.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs had contended that the law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that other arms, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
In a 64-page opinion, Judge Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.
"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Judge Walton wrote.
He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.
He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District because it was intended to protect state citizens and the District is not a state.
A gun-control advocate called the ruling intelligent and well-reasoned.
"It's a big victory for those who overwhelmingly believe that we need fewer guns on our streets, not more," said Matt Nosanchuk, a spokesman for the Violence Policy Center.
Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, said the group's lawyers had not seen the ruling last night, but noted that other courts have taken the opposite position.
 
Judge Reggie B. Walton's General Information

Chambers of Judge Reggie B. Walton's contact information:
Telephone Number: 202-354-3290
Fax Number: 202-354-3292

Address:
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

While these judges-for-life apparently make their decisions without regard to the Constitution and with contempt for our natural liberties, and that any actions I take will have zero effect, I still intend to write him an even-keeled and well-supported letter.

Yeah, that'll teach him! :cuss:
 
Ive read the decsion (well written I may add), and I suggest that instead of screaming in a crescendo of doom and gloom, and instead of locking and loading, that some of you read also it and analyze it for not only what it says, but what it doesn it say and for what it holds.

If I was representing the Plaintiffs, I would not be upset with this decsion. I bet Halbrook isnt.

But then again, to quote one of the people here, Im just a smug nerd. I only practiced law for almost 20 years, I be way too dumb to understand whats going on.

WildinterestingcaseAlaska
 
...to quote one of the people here,Im just a smug nerd. I only practiced law for almost 20 years, I be way too dumb to understand whats going on.
Click to expand...

Well then, giving a brief summary of your conclusions for those who haven't read the case; rather than bragging on your background, and using it as a backhanded slap at other members, might help to improve that perception.
;)
 
My hat goes off to all these superior intellect game players who think all of this is some grand strategy to get us where we need to be. Hope you're right.

However, I don't think I'm the only one who has had enough of the "it depends on what your definition of is, is" from both sides of the aisle.
If I had tried that stunt with my father, he would have hit me so hard that I would have landed in another time zone!

Not a chess guy here-more like checkers! All this feiting and ducking and trying to guess what they are really up to just makes me itch in the wrong place.

No wonder we're losing our rights to these smooth talkers-trying to out fox the foxes will net you fewer eggs! I pray every night for someone decent who can speak the truth and not need a pack of interpreters to figure out what they just said:(
 
and FWIW, a lawyer friend of mine, who is 6 for 6 in front of SCOTUS, tells me that most judges seek the bench because they are too stupid to be lawyers:D
 
Fed Court ...Gun Ban

Delmar, I think you be talking the "Peter Principle":

In any given organization, any given employee will rise to their highest level of incompetence.

As long as the job you are doing is at least "competent", you will be promoted, until you rech the level at which you are no longer competent, and there you will stay. You will not be demoted back to a level of competence, but neither will you be able to rise any further, and therefore, in any organization, all positions will be filled with incompetent people.

And, you are right, again Delmar. I did try that with my old man, and he told me not to be a smart @$$ so I asked him if he preferred I be a dumb @$$. He showed me that, No, but a recently beaten @$$ would be just fine!

Just remember, Tricky Dick was not a crook, There's nothing wrong with Ronni'e mind, and Slick Willy did not have sex with that girl!
 
IMHO, the current make up of the Supreme Court would rule 5-4 that the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right. The campaign finance ruling, trashing 1st Amendment Rights, proved their disdain for the Bill of Rights. Bush could have vetoed it! Bush's appointment of this guy to the DC District Court proves we aren't likely to get any help in the future. Things look bleak for the 2nd Amendment. I have gone from a strong Bush supporter, to a guy that feels I've been betrayed on many issues.
 
Oh Happy Day!

This one is grating on me the more and more I think about it.

Quoting the 14th ammendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Well, since DC isn't a state I GUESS that doesn't apply to them.

I guess it's perfectly legal for DC to keep the black population from voting then. Hey, it's not a STATE so they don't have to abide by that rule!

How screwed up is it that our nation's capital has the most draconian policies? I'm going to go rant in my blog for a while on this one.
 
Gigabust, since DC isnt a state and the constitution et. al. doesnt apply, then therefore everyone in DC is a subject and has no rights. Technically, if they wanted no one could breathe, muchless vote.:scrutiny:

Remember the part of "right to life, liberty, etc.?" Well it doesnt apply in DC. So stop breathing in DC. Do it for the Government.
 
It was their strategy to lose at this point?

To give yet another precedent to our opponents?

Is that how to win a war? Figure to lose a few battles then come back? Kinda like the way Rocky Balboa took a few hits from Appalling Greed then came back and decked him? How dramatic. How cheerworthy.

How stupid.

No, that may be their justification to the "NRA can do no wrong" crowd, but what happened was pretty obvious.

"We agree with registering guns. We want to register other guns."

"So you agree that the legislature had a legitimate interest in restricting people's actions, and want me to change that legislative act? no."

Kinda predictable. You might recall, or even search, that a bunch of us predicted that as the obvious outcome. Wish I'd taken a bet on it, but I hate to win money by being right.

Halbrook couldn't even quote the relevant section of Title 10, USC as it relates to the militia. Some expert. REAL experts have that memorized.

You NEVER offer a compromise at the beginning. You compromise at the END.

"We demand our clients be allowed to own nukes!"

"NUKES? We don't even let them own handguns!"

"Give us handguns and we'll go away." (until next time)

"Done."

"We demand nukes!"

"Nukes? We barely let you own handguns!"

"Give us rifles and we'll go away." (until next time)

"Done."

THAT is how our opponents win their fights, and THAT is how we must win ours. They demand a total ban on guns, settle for a "reasonable" addition to the waiting periods, licenses, regulations, then come back and demand another ban. And every time, the NRA tries to be "Reasonable" and helps them draft legislation that "protects most rights."

You "Compromise" by both sides giving up something and getting something. Giving your enemy half your land every time isn't "compromise," it's "slow surrender."

Is the NRA French?

Let's look at two obvious facts and take it from there:

FACT 1: There is no right to own a weapon in this nation. The courts have said so.

FACT 2: Fact 1 justifies armed rebellion, and we aren't. So clearly, we don't feel we really need guns anyway. Our current government is more restrictive than the Brits were in 1776, and we tolerate it. (Hey, I'm one of those tolerating it. You don't see me shooting politicians.)

So, let's enjoy our guns while we can, give a few $$ to the NRA, whine about it being unfair and accept the new status quo. I have 3 pre-bans. How about you?

In 25 years, my kids can enjoy their guns, give a few $$ to the NRA, whine about it being unfair and accept the status quo. They can impress people with their hi-capacity 5 round .22s and 3 round shotguns (pre-ban).

In 50 years, my grandkids can enjoy their guns, give a few $$ to the NRA, whine about it being unfair and accept the status quo. They can impress people with their pre-ban Airsoft replicas that "might put out an eye."


In 75 years, my grandkids can enjoy their guns, give a few $$ to the NRA, whine about it being unfair and accept the status quo. They can impress people with their pre-ban photos and schematics (pre-ban) that "might be used to build a real weapon if we get attacked/if they go nuts."

And in 100 years my great grandkids can take about their loony ancestors, who were loonier than some liberal's ancestors, because "my ancestors had lots of guns! Three, I think!"

Tell me I'm wrong.
 
madmike, is there some compelling reason you have for reviving every thread on this subject?

Was there something unsatisfying about the one you had already pulled back from the dead?
 
The threads are not "dead" until the mods make them dead. Until then, they are all up for grabs. In fact, I am going to bring back one right now that I have been wondering about the outcome and no answers were ever given.

Watch for it on this forum soon.
 
We men make crass jokes about women who seem to get "testy" once a month. We don't have a hormonal clock to goad us into action like they do. Instead, we tend to worry about things, to think about them and, eventually, to try to do something about whatever it is that is bothering us. Some of us rant, a few of us grab a gun and go shoot... usually a paper target but sometimes a politician.

Madmike is ranting about something that has been bothering him for quite awhile. Politicians far and wide are thankful he has taken this approach. The rest of us will just have to wait and see if they (the pols) are taking hints these days.

Frankly I'm glad to see him resurrect this subject. While I am a member of the NRA, I have no misconceptions about them. I know that if we were to win a supreme court case and ALL gun laws were declared unconstitutional, null and void, the NRA as we know it today would die. Wayne and Kayne wouldn't have a job anymore and that new headquarters building would have to be renovated to accomodate Sarah Brady and Her Million Morons Pleasure Palace.

By the way Madmike, La Pierre IS a French name...
 
Oldfart,
Maybe it would be nice if the NRA did not exist as we know it today. Maybe if we could get the government to realize the BOR in general and the 2nd amendment specifically is hands off, the NRA could be doing things like promoting safe weapons handling in schools, promoting more competition shoots of all kinds and doing the things they were originally chartered to do-make this nation a nation of riflemen.

Yeah, I know I'm dreaming, but its a nice dream still, and not such a bad goal to aspire to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
DC wronged by Bush judge
Replies
4
Views
791
foghornl
F
W
  • Locked
Saf Alert
Replies
1
Views
485
Standing Wolf
S
U
  • Locked
Judge Uphold's DC's post-Supreme Court Gun Laws
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
joeyl
J
U
  • Locked
Maryland Federal Judge upholds Assault Weapon and Magazine Ban
Replies
17
Views
2K
breakingcontact
B
2
  • Locked
Federal Court Upholds Calif. Gun Show Ban
Replies
2
Views
771
Zak Smith
Zak Smith
Back
Top