Comments on: DC Gun Ban Overturned

By: Blacknell.net » DC Gun Ban Case (Heller) Decided Tomorrow

Blacknell.net » DC Gun Ban Case (Heller) Decided Tomorrow — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:51:18 +0000

[...] be no majority opinion, but a plurality decision. Just what we need. I’ve described my mixed feelings about both positions (collective v. individual right to bear arms) here before, but I [...]

By: Blacknell.net » DC Gun Case: a Brief Clarification of Context

Blacknell.net » DC Gun Case: a Brief Clarification of Context — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:54:32 +0000

[...] seems that today’s Supreme Court hearing of the case concerning DC’s gun regulations is getting a lot of media play today. One of the things I keep hearing is that DC only bans [...]

By: Beth

Beth — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:18:36 +0000

It looks like the federal courts have taken a completely different approach, anyway, one that seems more sensible to me.

By: MB

MB — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:45:43 +0000

Huh.

I think I’ll take a look at NY then, as they’re the next most gun-restrictive environment that comes to mind.

(This is interesting - my understanding of this has been turned inside out.)

By: Beth

Beth — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:14:18 +0000

And a quick look at the law in this area suggests that this is how most states have decided the issue: screw the Second Amendment, it doesn’t affect us, and this is a proper exercise of our police powers.

By: Beth

Beth — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:07:40 +0000

The case I was thinking of was In re Rameriz, 226 P. 914 (Cal. 1924). Still good law in California, holds that gun control is a proper function of state police power and does not implicate the 2nd Amendment because that only applies to the federal government. That case in turn cites United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535. I’d say that Rameriz is of questionable merit on its own since it relies on older cases holding that NONE of the first ten amendments apply to the states, and that’s obviously old news, but the California Supreme Court as recently as 2000 cited Rameriz for its basic principle — that the states can regulate firearms at will because the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to them.

By: MB

MB — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:25:47 +0000

Decision here (75 page PDF, dissent starts on 59).

Beth, the theory sounds right, but I have a hard time imagining that it hasn’t been tried and rejected. Maybe it’s time for me to start looking for a refresher on the subject (it’s an area with so much crap to wade through that I’ve generally avoided it online . . .).

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:59:03 +0000

I know of at least one (very old, I think) state high court decision that held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, that is was never incorporated into the 14th Amendment substantive due process guarantee. Under that theory (which is different from the “militia” theory), the Second Amendment would still apply to D.C., right, but state governments could ban guns in any way they want?

By: MB

MB — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:50:02 +0000

I’ve not read the opinion yet, but if the reports are right (and that’s a big if), that was indeed a very tortured dissent, Jackson.

I don’t know (or care) enough about 2nd Amendment decisions to speak intelligently on the limits of gun regulation, Miles, but I do know that DC’s regulation borders on a near practical ban. I’ve a friend who kept his sporting clay shotguns in my (Arlington) basement because he (living in Glover Park) couldn’t secure a permit for his shotguns, despite months of efforts. Only after a bit of serendipity and personal interest on the part of the DC police did that permit get issued. And everyone I know who hears about that is amazed that it was issued at all.

And yes, you’re exactly right about the “conservatives” and their selective bleating about “activist” judges . . .

By: TheGreenMiles

TheGreenMiles — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:37:46 +0000

I could see the debate over the constitutionality of banning all guns. But the DC law doesn’t ban all guns. It bands HANDguns. Rifles and shotguns are OK with permits and trigger-locks. Just like the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words or yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t allow every firearm in every community.

What really ticks me off? If this was any other issue, you know conservatives would be railing against those activist judges overruling the will of the people.