oh god, I can only hope they quit the belly-aching on this one and look at the part of the 2nd amendment where it says THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The people, folks, NOT the states. Pretty clearly, if it had meant "states," it would have said "states."

Anyway, the SC has decided to hear DC's appeal of the overturning of its handgun ban / criminal enabling law.

Aaaaaaaaannnnnnd....... GO!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/20/scotus.handguns/index.html

Quote :

"By Bill Mears CNN Washington Bureau WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether the District of Columbia's sweeping ban on handgun ownership violates the Constitution's fundamental right to "keep and bear arms." Washington, D.C., leaders asked the high court to intervene in the gun case. The justices accepted the case for review, with oral arguments likely next February or March. A ruling could come by late June, smack in the middle of the 2008 presidential election campaign. At issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or do they bestow a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- making it therefore subject to strict government regulation. City leaders had urged the high court to intervene, saying refusal to do so could prove dire. "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives," wrote attorneys for the city. Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty and other officials held a public rally in September, with the message that more handguns will only mean more serious crime. "I see the results of gun violence every day," said Washington Police Chief Cathy Lanier. "The weakening of the district's gun law will inevitably lead to an increase in injury, and worse, death." Don't Miss A federal appeals court in March ruled the handgun ban to be unconstitutional as well as a provision that rifles and shotguns -- which are legal to own in the city -- be kept in the home unloaded and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled. The rifle regulations are not at issue before the Supreme Court. The city's 31-year-old law has prevented most private citizens from owning and keeping handguns in their homes. Only Chicago, Illinois, and and Washington among major U.S. cities have such sweeping handgun bans. Courts have generally upheld bans in other cities of semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. Several Washingtonians first challenged the law, some saying they wanted to do something about being constant victims of crime. "I want for myself the right to protect my home and my family in the event of a violent attack," plaintiff George Lyon said in March after winning a lower court victory. "The District of Columbia is not what I call the safest jurisdiction in the world." The city reported 137 gun-related murders last year. The March ruling that overturned the ban was the first time a federal appeals court had found a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. The amendment states, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court generally has steered clear of settling the individual versus collective dispute, and it last examined the issue in 1939 without fully resolving the broader conditional questions. The conservative majority has been supportive of local jurisdictions crafting gun-control laws. But the high court in 2003 refused to accept an appeal challenging California's ban on assault rifles. Similar weapon control laws in other cities also could be in jeopardy, and Maryland, Massachusetts, Chicago and San Francisco, California, have filed briefs supporting Washington. The National Rifle Association and other groups support the gun owners, but both sides have privately expressed concern over how the justices will decide the issue, because the legal and political implications could be sweeping in scope. Recent polling finds gun control remains an important political issue with voters. An NRA convention in September attracted seven Republican presidential candidates. In June, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed legislation to strengthen the national system that checks backgrounds of gun buyers. It followed the April shooting at Virginia Tech in which a gunman killed 32 students and faculty on campus. Legal experts said that given the unanswered constitutional questions, it was little surprise the justices decided to tackle the case. advertisement "This issue is so monumental and so sweeping, and such a change from prior rulings on gun control that it was basically on a freight train to the U.S. Supreme Court for the justices to finally decide," said Thomas Goldstein, an appellate lawyer and founder of the popular scotusblog.com Web site. A separate petition by five city residents asked to be included in the case. A federal court earlier had rejected that appeal on standing grounds. "

BTW, I liked how a news report I heard today said that "91% of armed-assaults involved the use of a gun." Well, no shit sherlock! Next thing you know they are gonna tell me that 95% of drowning cases involve water...

11/20/2007 9:42:26 PM

words

11/20/2007 9:43:54 PM

once again. I let intelligent people read. Stupid people like you shouldn't be heard.

[Edited on November 20, 2007 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2007 9:44:19 PM

im hoping they declare the ban unconstitutional

when is the last time that a law stopped a criminal?

11/20/2007 10:02:32 PM

I agree that people should be able to defend themselves. I don't know if increasing the number of handguns is the answer. I do understand that the law disadvantages law abiding gun owners, but a large number of handgun related crimes are committed with stolen weapons. Thus allowing a large influx of handguns will only create an even larger supply of handguns for illegal purposes.

Plus, a large number people who live in DC work for the US government or for firms that interact with federal agencies.... where handguns would not be allowed, concealed permit or not.

11/20/2007 10:14:38 PM

Quote :

"Thus allowing a large influx of handguns will only create an even larger supply of handguns for illegal purposes."

how

you think that gang bangers are just going to walk into a gun shop and pick one up

just because they are allowed doesnt mean that the checks are going to disappear

i have never understood the logic that if you allow hand guns to law abiding citizens, criminals are going to get more handguns

they are going to get them regardless

11/20/2007 10:16:40 PM

Quote :

"you think that gang bangers are just going to walk into a gun shop and pick one up"

nah, probably steal them from someones house/car

I'm just trying to see what this will accomplish. I don't think it will reduce crime. I think it will increase accidental deaths, suicides and will introduce more guns into the overall system. If most people in DC cant carry weapons to work or in clubs/restaurants, then I don't see what real practical use this case would have. You can have rifles and shotguns in your home to protect yourself.

11/20/2007 10:28:16 PM

Quote :

"* The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that in 1993 57% of all murders were committed with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown."

Most murders (by far) are committed with handguns

Quote :

"* Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns."

Handguns are disproportionately used in violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, assault)

Quote :

"Victims report to the Victim Survey that in 53% of the thefts of guns, handguns were stolen. The FBI's stolen gun file's 2 million reports include information on-- 1.26 million handguns (almost 60%) 470,000 rifles (22%) 356,000 shotguns (17%)."

Handguns are disproportionately stolen

Quote :

"* From a sample of juvenile inmates in four States, Sheley and Wright found that more than 50% had stolen a gun at least once in their lives and 24% had stolen their most recently obtained handgun. They concluded that theft and burglary were the original, not always the proximate, source of many guns acquired by the juveniles. "

Over half of juvenile offenders have stolen guns, most of them handguns if matched with data above

Quote :

"Research by Wright and Rossi in the 1980's found that most criminals prefer guns that are easily concealable, large caliber, and well made. Their studies also found that the handguns used by the felons interviewed were similar to the handguns available to the general public except that the criminals preferred larger caliber guns."

Criminals prefer concealable weapons (handguns)


American Society of Criminology/Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences at Northern Illinois University
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gunsused.txt

[Edited on November 20, 2007 at 10:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2007 10:45:09 PM

im going to have to give you a big fat duh

it is obvious that criminals are going to prefer something that they can conceal and easy to steal

there is a burden on handgun owners to prevent this...i wont argue that

however, i will argue that some potential crimes wont happen if they (criminals) feel that they may face equal force

11/20/2007 11:45:19 PM

I just don't know if this would achieve the intended goal of reducing crime or would reduce the availability of handguns to criminals. If anything, it will drive criminals to shoot someone they would probably not otherwise shoot, just in case they did have a handgun (particularly during robberies). This would create the unintended effect of creating a problem worse than the one they were hoping to solve. I think gentrification will do more for lowering DC's crime rate than legalizing handguns (but in doing so displace the problem to Maryland)

11/21/2007 12:12:24 AM

DC already has the highest murder rate, I don't see how making it legal for law abiding citizens to own guns can make it much worse

11/21/2007 12:24:33 AM

Quote :

"Three decades ago, at the dawn of municipal self-government in the District, the city's first elected mayor and council enacted one of the country's toughest gun-control measures, a ban on handgun ownership that opponents have long said violates the Second Amendment. All these years later, with the constitutionality of the ban now probably headed for a U.S. Supreme Court review, a much-debated practical question remains unsettled: Has a law aimed at reducing the number of handguns in the District made city streets safer? Although studies through the decades have reached conflicting conclusions, this much is clear: The ban, passed with strong public support in 1976, has not accomplished everything that the mayor and council of that era wanted it to. Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818.html?hpid=topnews

11/21/2007 12:28:37 AM

Hey if it works I would be all for it, I just remain skeptical. If it made things worse, it would be nearly impossible to repeal.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 12:38 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 12:37:29 AM

11/21/2007 1:25:18 AM

Quote :

"Hey if it works I would be all for it, I just remain skeptical. If it made things worse, it would be nearly impossible to repeal."

well would you say that not allowing handguns has worked?

11/21/2007 11:15:30 AM

Quote :

"If anything, it will drive criminals to shoot someone they would probably not otherwise shoot, just in case they did have a handgun"

riiiiiiiiiight

11/21/2007 11:16:51 AM

kant take errr guns!!!

Nahh i'm pro-gun.

11/21/2007 12:08:18 PM

Quote :

"If anything, it will drive criminals to shoot someone they would probably not otherwise shoot, just in case they did have a handgun"

Why would a criminal intent on knocking a guy up for a few bucks (knowing full well that the police simply don't have the resources to actually track him down) up the ante to 1st or at least 2nd degree murder over a guys wallet?

I just don't see this happening.

11/22/2007 10:32:42 AM

I've said it before, I'll say it again. An armed society is a polite society. If people get their heads blown off for trying to steal your car, break into your house, or rape you, the people still alive will stop trying to steal your car, break into your house, or rape you.
End of story.

11/22/2007 12:00:49 PM