Sporkk (deanmoriarty77) wrote in balanceofpower,
Sporkk
deanmoriarty77
balanceofpower

Gun control item here...



Court upholds District of Columbia gun law prohibiting handguns

Thursday, January 15, 2004 Posted: 10:16 AM EST (1516 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the District of Columbia's gun control law that prohibits ownership of handguns, rejecting a legal challenge by a group of citizens backed by the National Rifle Association.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the 28-year-old law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that others, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.

"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.

He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.

He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.

A gun control advocate welcomed the ruling.

"It's a big victory for those who overwhelmingly believe that we need fewer guns on our streets, not more," said Matt Nosanchuk, a spokesman for the Violence Policy Center.

Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, said the group's lawyers had not seen the ruling on Wednesday night but noted that other courts have taken the opposite opinion.

Ok, y'all. What do you think? Here are my considerations and questions:

1. "[T]he Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias."

Huh? If it had nothing to do with firearms, why does it say "the right to keep and bear arms"? Were they talking about upper appendages? And if they were talking about firearms, what makes a handgun less qualified than a rifle?

2. "It's a big victory for those who overwhelmingly believe that we need fewer guns on our streets, not more."

Exactly how does this law prevent "more guns on the streets?" Is there proof that proves any correlation between handgun laws and a reduced number of guns on the streets? Furthermore, what is inherently bad about having more guns "on the streets"? Police officers have guns all the time. Does that make their immediate vicinity more dangerous... or safer?

3. [T]he Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.

I find this very interesting. If the people are not state citizens, what are they a citizen of? Are they federal citizens? If they aren't protected by the 2nd amendment because they live in D.C., does this mean they are not eligible for protection under any of the amendments?

4. He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.

*snicker* Too easy. Just too easy.

Discuss!

Have a great day, y'all.

(Not Howard) Dean.

(x-posted to my LJ and to libertarianism
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 2 comments