| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| tericee |
Posted - 02/19/2003 : 5:16:48 PM
I found this on the Cato Institute website and thought it might interest Fluffy...
Residents challenge District's gun ban
by Jon Ward
A woman who lives in fear in a high-crime neighborhood, a security guard who wants to protect his home and a homosexual who says he has been threatened on the street are part of a lawsuit seeking to overturn the District's restrictive gun laws.
"We're not bad or dangerous people," said plaintiff Tom G. Palmer, who lives in the Dupont Circle neighborhood. "We just want to be able to defend ourselves against an intruder, a rapist, a gay basher or just a run-of-the-mill mugger or murderer."
The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court, targets the District's ban on handguns — one of the strictest in the nation — as a violation of residents' rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Bush administration argued to the Supreme Court in May that it believes the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a handgun, "subject to reasonable restrictions."
The Second 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."
Since 1939, courts have ruled that the Second Amendment refers only to members of a state militia, such as the National Guard. Possession of a handgun or a loaded firearm in one's home has been illegal in the District since 1976.
Mayor Anthony A. Williams' office said the city would not budge.
"The last thing this city needs is more handguns," spokesman Tony Bullock said. "You're not going to see any will on the part of this mayor to relax the gun laws in the District."
Margret Nedelkoff Kellems, the District's deputy mayor for public safety and justice, said Mr. Williams would instruct the city's corporation counsel to object to the lawsuit.
"The mayor's policy is very clear," Mrs. Kellems said. "He does not support abolition of our very strict gun-control laws. Gun ownership is not a means to control crime, and it's not a good thing for the city and its social structure."
A team of four lawyers, two of whom work for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, argue in the lawsuit that D.C. residents should be able to defend themselves from crime.
"It's unreasonable to insist that citizens put their lives in the hands of the D.C. government," said Mr. Palmer, adding that he had been assaulted and beaten several times because of his homosexuality.
Mr. Palmer, 46, a political-science researcher, said that several years ago he and a friend were chased by a group of some 20 young men at night.
The men threatened to kill Mr. Palmer and his friend, telling them that their bodies would not be found. Mr. Palmer said he stymied his assailants by pulling out a 9 mm handgun.
"The presence of a weapon changes a situation dramatically, and suddenly people who are full of bravado are brought up short. It's not very fun when the prey can fight back," Mr. Palmer said.
Shelley Parker lives just below the Trinidad neighborhood in Northeast, the site of one of the worst gang rivalries in the District and part of Police District 5. District 5 has had the most homicides during the past two years in the city, with 113. District 2 in Northwest has reported six homicides.
Ms. Parker, according to the lawsuit, has been threatened by drug dealers. She wants to own a handgun for her protection, but she "fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration and fine if she were to possess a functional handgun within her home," the lawsuit states.
Ownership or possession of a handgun is a misdemeanor. It carries a penalty of a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. On a second offense, it is a felony, punishable by five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
"We have to maintain the deterrent effect of the gun laws," Mr. Bullock said.
"I think it's a real myth that people would be able to arm themselves and avoid being shot," he said. "Chances are very good that they would accidentally shoot themselves or that the gun would find its way into the hands of a child, which is not what we want."
Another plaintiff is a security guard who is licensed to carry a handgun at work at the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center, a federal judiciary building. Dick Heller, a resident of Southeast, wants to keep a handgun in his home, but the city has refused his application.
"I'm able to protect people's lives at work, but I'm not allowed to go home, where there are open-air drug markets, and defend myself," Mr. Heller said.
Gene Healy, one of the Cato Institute lawyers working pro bono on the lawsuit, said, "We want a declaratory judgment saying that the District's policies as embodied in the code and as enforced violate the Second Amendment," Mr. Healy said.
He said the last time the D.C. gun ban was challenged was in the mid-1980s. It failed in the D.C. Court of Appeals.
"We think the legal environment is different now, because legal scholars recognize that the Second Amendment means what is says," he said.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, U.S. District judge for the District of Columbia, is to review and rule on the lawsuit.
|
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| tericee |
Posted - 03/02/2003 : 02:01:10 AM
TTT for Fluffy. If he's interested. |
| Bustoff |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 7:47:28 PM
In my last post, I didn't mean to call people who haven't been educated "idiots." I meant "ignorant" and it was ignorant for me to say that.
I'm sorry |
| Bustoff |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 7:37:04 PM
quote:
Hear hear! Ban guns for idiots. Now, how do we inforce that?
Obviously we can't.
I used the word "idiot" loosely. In a sense, I meant people who haven't been educated about guns, which i think should be fixed before they are sold one.
And for those "idiots" who have been educated and still can't handle them, well, there's not much we can do. I grew up in a rural area where this knowledge about firearms was common and taught at an early age. So my opinion's biased in that way i guess. I'm in no way telling everyone to get a gun. If you don't like them or don't feel comfortable with them, stay away from them.
But should we let a few numbskulls ruin it for everyone? In the brutal but true words of George Carlin: "The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own." |
| GRock |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 5:31:36 PM
SAT Scores???
IQ Test??
we could just educate people about guns. instead of making guns into these scary weapons that you should run away from, we could make them something that pretty much everybody is acustomed too.
and if many people carried guns, i think it'd be a lot less likely to rob a bank when there may be 10 other people with guns instead of just one guard. or to hold up the E-Z-Go food mart when the next person to walk in may have a gun.
but i don't know. seems stuck between a rock and a hard place on both sides of this one. |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 2:03:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bustoff
Granted there are a few idiots who don't know how to handle a gun and end up shooting themselves or let a child get ahold of it. These people should not have them.
Hear hear! Ban guns for idiots. Now, how do we inforce that? |
| Bustoff |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 12:20:38 PM
This is all pretty scary stuff.
What I wanna know is why the legislators think banning hand guns will make things safer. The majority of violent hand gun users (thieves, gang members, etc.) obtain their weapons illegally, which means there's nothing that legislation can do about it. Period.
Granted there are a few idiots who don't know how to handle a gun and end up shooting themselves or let a child get ahold of it. These people should not have them. As an experienced gun handler, I can tell you that by taking a few very SIMPLE steps, these tragedies can EASILY be prevented. I think that hand gun possession should be allowed, but that some form of training beforehand should be implemented, as well as background checks and such.
It shouldn't have to be that way, but thanks to TV and movies, nobody has the proper respect for firearms today and they see them as toys that you can just play around with.
|
| Evergreen |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 05:39:20 AM
Fluffy said quote:
As I have always said, Burlington VT, Humboldt CO California, or Santa Fe NM, the most beautiful places to consider moving to that I have discovered.
Fluffy, we worry about you living in DC! You should seriously consider living in one of the most beautiful places.
I used to spend weeks on end in DC when the Dead used to play there. They'd always play a bunch of nights at the Cap Center or what used to be RFK stadium. The first TIMe we arrived in the city (a van full of home chunk hippies) we got lost in the northeast section of DC. Everybody else in the van wanted to stop and ask directions. I kept looking around the streets saying no way man keep driving, we'll find that hotel. Eric(we love you Eric) the air head, happen to be driving at the TIMe and stopped at the scariest looking convienient store on the block. Then we're sitting there debating who would go ask for directions in the van and some guy starts walking toward us holding a a gun. Scary guy with a gun and a van full of idiots with new york plates.
Long story short Mike pushed Eric out of the seat and we peeled out.
Then we finally find the hotel after driving thru alot of neighborhoods with bars on all the house windows and doors. Later to find out its temporary crack housing and theres alot of gun fire and police all week. We ended up staying because there weren't any rooms anywhere else close to the cap center. The hotel was 2/3 deadheads and 1/3 crack dealers. It was quite interesting. The shows were great though!
I know alot of cities have the violence and gun fire but in all the places I traveled around as a peace love dove oblivious hippy, DC struck me as a little more scary than the rest.
|
|
|
