Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Residents challenge District's gun ban

  1. #1
    Chief of Naval Operations sbp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    11,037

    Thumbs up Residents challenge District's gun ban

    http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030212-71671916.htm

    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. Top Stories

    "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.

  2. #2
    Admiral ArkiStan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Recession Central
    Posts
    5,898
    stop shooting. start bowling.

  3. #3
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    8,700
    I definitly see both sides. Buy a shotgun. The ban only mentioned handguns as far as I read. Shotguns are better for what they want anyway.

  4. #4
    Chief of Naval Operations sbp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    11,037
    This ban applies to all firearms.

  5. #5
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    8,700
    OK, then my only other arguement is this...

    They moved to that neighborhood well after 1976 when that ban was implemented, so they knew when they moved there that guns were banned. They should have picked either a less dangerous place or one where guns are legal.

  6. #6
    It's not so easy as just move to another place other than DC. I live no less than 10 miles away from the DC line. Residents in DC live there for various reasons and I think one of them is the job and public transportation. The housing is high, a car is a luxury (if you're not the local drug dealer for the corner), tax is 10% on cooked foods and around 5% for gifts (which is defined oddly) and the DC gets no funding because it's not a state to use for improved infrastructure. And oh yes...they got some corrupt ppl around here, but doesn't every local gov't.

    It is a crime to own handguns (or any firearm for that matter). The criminals are both native to DC as well from outside of the DC, mostly from MD, specifically PG County. I have lived in DC, PG County and now Montgomery.

    I don't know what a good solution to the gun law is. It already doesn't prevent crimes involving guns since DC was the "murder capitol of the world" and yet arming citizens doesn't strike me as a safe thing to do considering the short fuse I see ppl have in DC when I go visit my parents who work in DC. The ego is a high, the space is cramped, tempers are hot and short and somehow the thought of a burgular not only jacking up your place for money finds an additional bingo of a gun doesn't set me at ease.

    DC could hire money police but a statistic from a few years ago show DC has a very bad case of not being in shape to chase criminals, bother showing up when someone dials police, writing up a report, or closing a case. I think and DC and PG County are neck and neck on who's worse.

    Criminals are going to find a way to get weapons. Legalizing them might help the natives but the it also gives rise to abuse and criminals. I doubt if they legalized and opend a gun shop that the owner will do a close background check.

  7. #7
    Are you aware that one of the nations that has the lowest crime rate, Switzerland, requires every houshold to have a firearm?
    Legalizing concealed carry of firearms in Florida decrased the rate all crimes many by over 20% (except car jackings out of the airport, can't have a gun coming out of an airport) in ONE YEAR! This is even after adding in all the handgun accidents as a crime.

    Criminals fear their victems when they could be armed. And fear keeps people on the straight and narrow. Crooks don't fear the cops, they just avoid them. They are afraid of dying to a bullet from someone they wanted to steal from though. Where the chance of this happening is rare, like DC, crime goes up. Where this is likely, like Florida, crime goes down.

    The Second Amendment is clear. It says that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that you have to be in a militia to be armed, just that you have to be a people. It also uses the word "infringed", a curious choice of words there. Because infringed means interfered with in a slight way. That means any gun control legislation that prevents a citizen from keeping arms in any way is unconstitutional.

    If we "infringed" the 1st Amendment as much as we have the 2nd Amendment then there would be no free speach. People would be arested for speaking in public without a permit, not making speaches, just for speaking in a manner the government did not like. The 2nd Amendmant deserves as much lattitude as the 1st. If we don't do that you will find that the nation we live in is not quite as free as you thought.

  8. #8
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    8,700
    Grimm, the population density of Switzerland is far lower than D.C. You'll also note that Switzerland doesnt have an army and that every adult member of a canton is in "the army." I am willing to bet that you find areas of the US with equal population density to Switzerland have equal crime rates. Guns arent the factor, population density is.

    No capital city on earth has ever been a great place to live. CApital cities are usually where the poorest (and richest) members of a society live.

    I think everyone here knows I am a big supporter of gun ownership so you cant say I;m not being unbiased here. I don't think legalizing guns in DC is the answer. I think if teh local DC economy was improved the crime would go down.

    All in all, I believe that liscencing responsible citizens to carry consealed weapons is a good thing that saves more lives than it costs. But I believe in respecting the law of the land, and if guns are banned in a District then the citiens should push to have it repealed through legal means. I'm not sure how their representation works, but it should come to a public referendum.

  9. #9
    Chief of Naval Operations Jenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Kansas City area
    Posts
    10,947
    Originally posted by Cantacuzene
    Canta's stuff
    Damn, Canta, that's the most mature thing I have ever seen you say on here! hehe
    Check out my spoilers for over 20 shows @ SpoilerFix.com

    Check out my TV blog, where I post weekly & daily TV
    schedules, TV news, interviews with TV stars & more!
    All new TV forums as well @ TV Is My Pacifier

  10. #10
    Originally posted by Cantacuzene
    Grimm, the population density of Switzerland is far lower than D.C. You'll also note that Switzerland doesnt have an army and that every adult member of a canton is in "the army." I am willing to bet that you find areas of the US with equal population density to Switzerland have equal crime rates. Guns arent the factor, population density is.
    ...
    The comparison was not intended to be Switzerland vs DC, it was Switzerland vs US. Of course a country is less dense in population than a major city!!! Duh!

    So here goes your premise:
    Population density of the US = 72.87 people per square mile.
    Population density of Swiss Confederation 446.58 people per square mile.
    So Switzerland should have almost 6 times the crime as the US?
    Ummm... I don't think so.

    I got my numbers from www.nationalgeographic.com, they might be a little out of date, but close enough.

  11. #11
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    8,700
    I don't think its a fair comparison. We have places like montana, north dakota, etc that throw off our average.

  12. #12
    Lieutenant Commander i6s1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    905
    Originally posted by Cantacuzene
    I don't think legalizing guns in DC is the answer. I think if teh local DC economy was improved the crime would go down.

    There is no "The Answer". Just because a solution is not 100% effective does not mean it cannot be part of an answer.

    Are crime rates linked to the economy? Yes, but even during the best economic times, there is still enough crime in DC that another piece of the puzzle is warranted. The statics have shown that CCW permits have lowered crime. Guns should be legalized in DC as a crime prevention stratagy. The nice thing about legalizing guns is cheap, and immediatly effetive. Measures to improve a local economy can be expensive and can take years. Both are important parts of the solution.
    YVAN EHT NIOJ

  13. #13
    Originally posted by Cantacuzene
    I don't think its a fair comparison. We have places like montana, north dakota, etc that throw off our average.
    Ummm... Switzerland has a lot of mountain teritory that is unusable for anything. I don't think you are considering your position rationaly. You are just knee jerk defending it. If you don't like some data you just throw it out. This is what is called "bias" in the scientific world.

    Now the best comparison I found was a 1990 population density chart that shows New York having a population density of 381.0, not the highest density in the US, but a fair comparison. Allowing for growth, today it might be very close to Switzerlands density. While I personaly think that there is probably more habital land in New York, I don't want to go to the effort to research this. I wonder how New York State's crime rate compares to the Swiss crime rate?

  14. #14
    Admiral molecularfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Walking through a lemon grove looking for one good orange
    Posts
    6,134
    Originally posted by Grimm
    Are you aware that one of the nations that has the lowest crime rate, Switzerland, requires every houshold to have a firearm?
    Legalizing concealed carry of firearms in Florida decrased the rate all crimes many by over 20% (except car jackings out of the airport, can't have a gun coming out of an airport) in ONE YEAR! This is even after adding in all the handgun accidents as a crime.
    Ok, first of all, there are way too many differences between Switzerland and the United States for your comparison to be accurate. First of all, Switzerland has never really had a crime problem so there isn't already a framework for crime to work off of. Other differences, 1) the wealth distribution 2) the apathy of our society 3) the selfishness inherent in our socitey 4) our society's worship of violence etc... There are two many variables to say that having firearms is the difference. As for the Florida example, the question is what has happened to the crime rate since. In my experience, fear only works for a very short term basis. After an initial slowing down of crime, places tend to go back to their original crime rates as people figure ways around the problem. Now... if you wanted to lower crime rates, here are two very effective ideas on how to lower our violent crimes rate: 1) If someone is convicted of a violent crime, instead of jail, we should lock them into a pit with 12 lions (or if they're convicted of sexual abuse, rape, etc... tatoo "insert here" on their inner thigh before we put them in jail). 2) Purposely taint drugs going into our society with various toxins (change them from time to time so people never know what's in them). This will kill a lot of the people who use drugs (who statistically are much more likely to commit crimes), give addicts a real incentive to quit, and decrease the number of people who will try them out for kicks. Both of those should decrease the crime rate by more than 20%.

    The Second Amendment is clear. It says that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that you have to be in a militia to be armed, just that you have to be a people. It also uses the word "infringed", a curious choice of words there. Because infringed means interfered with in a slight way. That means any gun control legislation that prevents a citizen from keeping arms in any way is unconstitutional.
    I agree with you on this... although I thought that the intent of this was to give the people the power to rise up against the government should they become corrupt. Sorry, but we've already lost that power. I'm not sure what good a firearm would do against an apache...
    If we "infringed" the 1st Amendment as much as we have the 2nd Amendment then there would be no free speach. People would be arested for speaking in public without a permit, not making speaches, just for speaking in a manner the government did not like. The 2nd Amendmant deserves as much lattitude as the 1st. If we don't do that you will find that the nation we live in is not quite as free as you thought.
    Not the same thing. While this is a useful argumentative tool to scare people into supporting your argument, the fact is that the first amendment is not what is under question. The argument is about the second amendment. This is about as accurate as bud putting sexy twins on to sell beer. Effective, no doubt about it. A logical argument... sorry no. Not that much blood has left my head.
    Disclaimer - The above opinion should not be taken as medical advise. My only advise is to talk to your doctor. If you are stupid enough to take anything I say seriously, you have nobody to blame for your cranio-anal inversion but your stupid self.

    I may not be smart enough to do everything but I am dumb enough to try anything. - Beastboy.

  15. #15
    Originally posted by Grimm
    [B]The Second Amendment is clear. It says that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that you have to be in a militia to be armed, just that you have to be a people. It also uses the word "infringed", a curious choice of words there. Because infringed means interfered with in a slight way. That means any gun control legislation that prevents a citizen from keeping arms in any way is unconstitutional.
    While the first part of your statement is still quite open to debate since the Second Amendment is anything but clear, the last part is incorrect.

    ...the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so. Taken from USconstitution.net
    Paul Beasi

  16. #16
    Admiral Merlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Square On My Arse
    Posts
    7,410
    Originally posted by Cantacuzene
    OK, then my only other arguement is this...

    They moved to that neighborhood well after 1976 when that ban was implemented, so they knew when they moved there that guns were banned. They should have picked either a less dangerous place or one where guns are legal.
    I have to disagree with your point here. The "just leave" attitude does not work. If some law gets passed that you don't like you are supposed to fight to change it, whether that be through legislation or through judicial process. You don't simply surrender land or your home that easily. If a local government is doing something you consider to be "wrong" you should attempt to change it regardless of when you moved there. This is taking responsibility for your government and I think it is what the Founding Fathers intended.
    :monkey:

  17. #17
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    8,700
    Originally posted by Merlin


    I have to disagree with your point here. The "just leave" attitude does not work. If some law gets passed that you don't like you are supposed to fight to change it, whether that be through legislation or through judicial process. You don't simply surrender land or your home that easily. If a local government is doing something you consider to be "wrong" you should attempt to change it regardless of when you moved there. This is taking responsibility for your government and I think it is what the Founding Fathers intended.
    That was not my point at all. If I live in a place where guns are legal and then they become banned, I'll fight it. However, they moved to a place where guns were ALREADY banned before they got there and then now they complain. They still have a right to try to change it, but its more difficult.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •