Post by Swimmy on Feb 7, 2008 22:31:19 GMT -5
House, Senate members back DC gun owners
I am not sure how many of you read my comments about gun control on the disgrace forums. But it relates to this particular case. Until March 2007, D.C. had a complete ban on handgun ownership. The rational for the ban was to reduce the number of violent crimes. What many gun control activists forget is that criminals, by their definition, don't follow the law. So by banning guns, you're disarming the law abiding citizens.
In 2003, the U.S. Attorney General changed its long held position on gun ownership to the "Individual Rights" theory that interprets the 2nd amendment as giving citizens the individual right to own guns. Under this theory, handgun bans are unconstitutional. The other school of thought is the "Collective Rights" theory which suggests that the right belongs to the state and citizens who are members of the national guard.
Anyway, the case before the Supreme Court involves three plaintiffs. Two women and one ex-D.C. Metro police officer. They sued D.C. for its gun ban policy and the district court, adopting the individual rights theory, declared the handgun ban as unconstitutional. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
The last time the court analyzed the 2nd amendment was in the Smith case back in 1934 (sometime in the 1930s). It was a criminal defendant who was convicted of a firearms crime. The case is particularly interesting because the defendant never filed a brief so the court could not do much other than go on what the state submitted.
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court will do. I find it odd that Congress would sign on board like this. They could easily rescind the handgun ban since they have jurisdiction over D.C. Perhaps Congress just wants the court to be able to reach a decision to lay to rest what has been hotly debated as of late.
I am not sure how many of you read my comments about gun control on the disgrace forums. But it relates to this particular case. Until March 2007, D.C. had a complete ban on handgun ownership. The rational for the ban was to reduce the number of violent crimes. What many gun control activists forget is that criminals, by their definition, don't follow the law. So by banning guns, you're disarming the law abiding citizens.
In 2003, the U.S. Attorney General changed its long held position on gun ownership to the "Individual Rights" theory that interprets the 2nd amendment as giving citizens the individual right to own guns. Under this theory, handgun bans are unconstitutional. The other school of thought is the "Collective Rights" theory which suggests that the right belongs to the state and citizens who are members of the national guard.
Anyway, the case before the Supreme Court involves three plaintiffs. Two women and one ex-D.C. Metro police officer. They sued D.C. for its gun ban policy and the district court, adopting the individual rights theory, declared the handgun ban as unconstitutional. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
The last time the court analyzed the 2nd amendment was in the Smith case back in 1934 (sometime in the 1930s). It was a criminal defendant who was convicted of a firearms crime. The case is particularly interesting because the defendant never filed a brief so the court could not do much other than go on what the state submitted.
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court will do. I find it odd that Congress would sign on board like this. They could easily rescind the handgun ban since they have jurisdiction over D.C. Perhaps Congress just wants the court to be able to reach a decision to lay to rest what has been hotly debated as of late.
