What are your thoughts on recent ruling that D.C. Gun Ban is Unconstitutional and Violates Individual Rights?

Question

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are...."

Answer 1

I feel this verdict is long overdue. As for the constitutionality of it, I fail to see how the anti gun group can find verbiage between the first amendment and the 2nd amendment that changes the protected rights from an individual right to a states right. I don't think states have rights anyway, they have powers, people have rights. And then they somehow figure that it switches back again to an individual right in the next amendment. There is no logical assertion for the jump back and forth, just wishful thinking.

Just as one of Britain's main proponents of its gun ban recently admitted, the gun ban was a total failure, so to is the gun ban in DC as can be seen in it terrible murder rate.

The commentary by the dissenting judge was quite weak, claiming that since DC is not one of the states, the constitution doesn't apply. Oh really? Then they shouldn't get to vote in federal elections. The no longer have freedom of speech? They no longer have freedom of religion?

Most importantly the DC gun ban had no apparent effect on the criminal use of guns but only served to keep the residents there defenseless against those same criminals. I sincerely hope that has changed for good.

Answer 2

So....people bit*h all the time about Homeland Security and how we are loosing our rights..blah blah blah but then they applaud the one thing that, ultimately determines whether a government is run by the people or runs the people.

The right was given to the citizens of the United States during the formation of the constitution because our founding fathers knew that a government, any government could no be trusted. Granted, a shotgun or 30.06 will not stop a tank but it en mass it will stop overt action by the government. Don't you think that if the Chinese would have been armed in Tian'anmen Square that the out come would have been different?

The police feel that they are "apart" the citizenry; just go talk to one. They use "us" and "them" in terms of the relationship. The day is fast coming when there is going to be nothing between your personal freedom and their overt actions but the threat of you being able to defend yourself. OK, people will cry that it is all BS and that our government will never "take" our rights like that. Just remember that attitude when your bit*hing about Homeland Security.

Next the criminals problem. If it becomes illegal for the average law abiding citizen to own a firearm for protection what is to stop the crook from coming into your house with a firearm and raping you or your daughter (or sons) and then killing you. They will KNOW that you have no way of defending yourself against them. Crooks will get guns, no problem. It's illegal for a violent felon to have a gun now but hey, they still get them. Take away all of the firearms in the whole world, military included and crooks will be killing you with an axe!

It is not the firearms; it's the people. If a person commits a crime using a gun, catch him/her and hang him/her, period. If you don't want to own a firearm the fine, I'd like to keep mine though and you don't have the right to take away my ability to defend myself unless you can guarantee absolutely that you can defend me yourself.

Answer 3

I don't think gun bans actually are unconstitutional, though I realize that the supreme court is generally considered to be authorized to interpret the constitution however it sees fit, wrong or not. My reasoning is different from others though, and is based on how the constitution was meant to be read. It limits federal government; it is not meant to limit the states or the people, as shown in both the ninth and tenth amendments. Just like the first amendment, it limits congress (as in, the US federal body) from making laws regarding the subject at hand. Federal legislation, such as the automatic weapons ban, is unconstitutional according to the second amendment. DC however, is under additional governmental authority beyond just US congress, and that government can regulate in whatever way they see fit, so long as it's in line with the desires of the people and with their own laws.

Answer 4

I'm no particular fan of guns--and don't own one (nor wish to). But the Court's ruling is really a no-brainer--an outright ban such as the DC law is clearly unconstitutional. I'm surprised only that that--and similar laws--haven't been overturned before now.

Nor do I see any legitimate public purpose being served by prohibiting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Regulation, on the other hand--registration, waiting periods, and bans on convicted felons owning guns--are clearly constitutional--and should be comprehensive--and a lot stronger and better enforced thanthey are.

Answer 5

I completely agee with the ruling. It is unconstitutional we all the right to bear arms and DC has no right to undiscriminately take away that right. Apparently for the past 30 years hand guns have been illegal in DC. That hasn't changed the crime in DC.

1975 there were 235 murders in DC with a population of 716K, that is 32.8 murders per 100,000

2005 there were 195 murders in DC with a population of 550K, that is 35.4 murders per 10,000 that is a 7.9% increase.

1975 was the year before the gun ban went into effect. Washingtons violation of their residents 2nd ammendment rights didn't change their crime. An upstanding citizen buying a gun will not hurt crime. Don't waste time on stupid laws that violate our constitution and do something about crime with more police, and stiffer senctences.

Answer 6

This ruling was a good and fair interpretation the constitution as written. The second amendment doesn't need a Ouija board to figure it out, plain and simple English is enough

Answer 7

Finally some judges that can both read and understand English. You may disagree with the 2nd Amendment but that does not give you the right to ignore it.

Answer 8

These kinds of cases tend to swing back and forth, depending on the leanings of the particular court ruling on it during that phase.

I'll withhold my own judgement on it until we hear the final word from the Supreme Court, which surely is going to have to hear this case next.

Answer 9

from what i've heard about the ban (and admittedly it isn't that much) i agreed with it. or to be more specific i agreed with the lower court's ruling.

the lower court ruled that in order for a well regulated militia limits on gun ownership can be legislated. in my opinion this is in line with what the constitution says.

in my opinion individuals do not constitute a well regulated militia.

Answer 10

About time and amen. Let the law abiding citzens arm themselves against the law breakers.