DC Gun ban to be abolished

[Alaska Darin]

ugh!

 

ok, I am a lawyer and am not going to give a Constitutional Law lecture. However, take speech for example. The government can restrict speech - but their ability to do so depends on what type of speech they are restricting, how narrowly tailored the restriction is, and how important the state interest is. This is what is called strict, intermediate, and rational scrutiny (other lawyers may use different terms). For example, political speech receives strict scrutiny - the state must have a compelling interest to achieve a necessary end. Most restrictions fail under strict scrutiny. However, business speech (i.e. advertisements) receives rational scrutiny, meaning a law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Most restrictions are upheld under rational scrutiny.

 

The issue before the Court is which level of scrutiny will be applied to the D.C. law. As far as I know, this is a case of first impression for the Court, thus the importance.

 

To answer your question - your rights are never absolute. Thus the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater."

Nor are the rights of the state absolute to completely ban speech (etc), which is what is actually being done. Under no definition is a complete ban a "reasonable restriction".

 

And there is ZERO doubt that the Founding Fathers would have allowed implementation of a complete firearm ban, as they understood that without private ownership, the citizens become subject to tyranny of government at all levels. WHICH IS THE REASON THEY FOUGHT A GODDAMN WAR WITH THEIR PRIVATE FIREARMS (which included handguns) FOR FREEDOM.

[slothrop]

Nor are the rights of the state absolute to completely ban speech (etc), which is what is actually being done. Under no definition is a complete ban a "reasonable restriction".

 

And there is ZERO doubt that the Founding Fathers would have allowed implementation of a complete firearm ban, as they understood that without private ownership, the citizens become subject to tyranny of government at all levels. WHICH IS THE REASON THEY FOUGHT A GODDAMN WAR WITH THEIR PRIVATE FIREARMS (which included handguns) FOR FREEDOM.

 

It is not a "complete ban." As justice Breyer said at the oral argument (paraphrasing) "this law does not restrict DC residents from owning a rifle or musket, does it?"

 

The law only bans handguns. Thus, it is not a complete restriction on the "right" to bear arms.

[KRC]

It is not a "complete ban." As justice Breyer said at the oral argument (paraphrasing) "this law does not restrict DC residents from owning a rifle or musket, does it?"

 

The law only bans handguns. Thus, it is not a complete restriction on the "right" to bear arms.

 

Are you allowed to carry a rifle or musket for personal protection outside of the home?

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

ugh!

 

ok, I am a lawyer and am not going to give a Constitutional Law lecture. However, take speech for example. The government can restrict speech - but their ability to do so depends on what type of speech they are restricting, how narrowly tailored the restriction is, and how important the state interest is. This is what is called strict, intermediate, and rational scrutiny (other lawyers may use different terms). For example, political speech receives strict scrutiny - the state must have a compelling interest to achieve a necessary end. Most restrictions fail under strict scrutiny. However, business speech (i.e. advertisements) receives rational scrutiny, meaning a law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Most restrictions are upheld under rational scrutiny.

 

The issue before the Court is which level of scrutiny will be applied to the D.C. law. As far as I know, this is a case of first impression for the Court, thus the importance.

 

To answer your question - your rights are never absolute. Thus the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater."

 

Since you brought up the comparison to free speech, I wonder how it would go over if DC only allowed free speech in your own home and only in incomplete sentences?

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

It is not a "complete ban." As justice Breyer said at the oral argument (paraphrasing) "this law does not restrict DC residents from owning a rifle or musket, does it?"

 

The law only bans handguns. Thus, it is not a complete restriction on the "right" to bear arms.

 

 

Great argument with the "musket". Does the 1st amendment only apply to words that were common at the time it was written?

[slothrop]

Since you brought up the comparison to free speech, I wonder how it would go over if DC only allowed free speech in your own home and only in incomplete sentences?

 

I am done trying to argue law with zealots. I just told you the issues. Feel free to make irrational arguments all you like. I quoted the one above because it made me chuckle. Did you eat paint chips as a child?

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

I am done trying to argue law with zealots. I just told you the issues. Feel free to make irrational arguments all you like. I quoted the one above because it made me chuckle. Did you eat paint chips as a child?

 

 

You're right, I'm not smart because I don't go on websites bragging about being a lawyer. I guess the comparison to the 1st amendment only applies when it supports your point of view. When all else fails insult someone...was that a lesson in Internet Law 101?

[slothrop]

You're right, I'm not smart because I don't go on websites bragging about being a lawyer. I guess the comparison to the 1st amendment only applies when it supports your point of view. When all else fails insult someone...was that a lesson in Internet Law 101?

 

I did not "brag about being a lawyer". Darin said that I should know better because he knows I am a lawyer. I also had some knowledge to bring to the issue. Sorry for insulting you - your point was just not analogous. My point about speech was just made to explain the way the Court is analyzing the issue, not on how they should come out on the issue.

 

It comes down to Justice Kennedy and how he will rule. It will be interesting and I can't wait to read the decision.

[KRC]

I am done trying to argue law with zealots. I just told you the issues. Feel free to make irrational arguments all you like. I quoted the one above because it made me chuckle. Did you eat paint chips as a child?

 

I thought I asked a legitimate legal question.

[R. Rich]

You should actually know what you're talking about before you attempt to argue a subject.

 

 

So should you.

 

How many guns have been registered in D.C. this year?

 

12

[Alaska Darin]

I am done trying to argue law with zealots.

Nice cut and run. I love how smart you lawyers think you are. You're not arguing law, you're arguing politics and your "profession" is at the forefront of ruining this country.

I just told you the issues.

No, you didn't.

Feel free to make irrational arguments all you like.

The funny part is you think you're the one being rational, all the while selling individual freedom to the lowest bidder.

[slothrop]

No, you didn't.

 

The funny part is you think you're the one being rational, all the while selling individual freedom to the lowest bidder.

 

Thanks for saying I am at the forefront of ruining this country. I thought we were a country of laws, and like it or not, lawyers are the vessel for that system. Maybe you are right and everyone should own a gun, get rid of the lawyers and let us shoot each other to resolve disputes like in other countries. That sounds great!

 

By the way, you don't read do you. I never, until the above paragraph, took a stance on this issue in this thread. I merely wrote how the Court will be approaching this issue and what will be the basis of their decision:

 

The issue before the Court is which level of scrutiny will be applied to the D.C. law. As far as I know, this is a case of first impression for the Court, thus the importance.

[UConn James]

It is not a "complete ban." As justice Breyer said at the oral argument (paraphrasing) "this law does not restrict DC residents from owning a rifle or musket, does it?"

 

The law only bans handguns. Thus, it is not a complete restriction on the "right" to bear arms.

 

And you don't think that's not the very next step if this BS law is upheld?

 

Way to dance around the concrete questions and focus on some or other inanity, as they teach at law school.

 

AD, the 'Collectivists' love to pretend that the "(to) the people" phraseology throughout the BoR applies to each person individually rather than individuals-as-part-of-groups, until it gets to this. Funny me, I always thought the 2nd was written in plainly clear English.

 

And to the asshat above who said that 'strict constructionist judges' are somehow in a pickle on this issue, please go to your elementary school of attendance and get your money back.

[Alaska Darin]

Thanks for saying I am at the forefront of ruining this country.

You're welcome. Sorry the obvious ain't so...

I thought we were a country of laws, and like it or not, lawyers are the vessel for that system. Maybe you are right and everyone should own a gun, get rid of the lawyers and let us shoot each other to resolve disputes like in other countries. That sounds great!

I've never advocated anything of the sort. You think you can take off your lawyer hat for 2 seconds and discuss something rationally, instead of the typical emotionally bankrupt "absolutes" argument your profession is so fond of?

By the way, you don't read do you. I never, until the above paragraph, took a stance on this issue in this thread. I merely wrote how the Court will be approaching this issue and what will be the basis of their decision:

You don't have to. You're a liberal. You've basically stated that all the liberal judges on the panel are going to vote that D.C. has the right to throw out the 2nd Amendment. Real tough to figure out where you stand based on that, ain't it?

[slothrop]

You've basically stated that all the liberal judges on the panel are going to vote that D.C. has the right to throw out the 2nd Amendment. Real tough to figure out where you stand based on that, ain't it?

 

Ok Davey Crocket, take off your furry hat and read every word this time:

 

I said that the "liberal block" of Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and stevens will vote to uphold the DC Law. That part you got.

 

I ALSO said the conservative block of Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts will vote to strike the D.C. law.

 

That leaves Kennedy as the "swing vote."

 

This is not taking a position. This is analyzing the makeup of the Court and my analysis (and most experts agree) is Kennedy will decide this case. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE HE WILL FALL ON THIS ISSUE.

[Alaska Darin]

Ok Davey Crocket, take off your furry hat and read every word this time:

 

I said that the "liberal block" of Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and stevens will vote to uphold the DC Law. That part you got.

 

I ALSO said the conservative block of Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts will vote to strike the D.C. law.

 

That leaves Kennedy as the "swing vote."

 

This is not taking a position. This is analyzing the makeup of the Court and my analysis (and most experts agree) is Kennedy will decide this case. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE HE WILL FALL ON THIS ISSUE.

You're having a hard time with this, aren't you?

 

1. You're a liberal.

2. You state the liberal block is going to uphold the gun ban. You're not basing this on what you would do as a liberal?

 

Thanks for ignoring the other 2 things. The silence ain't exactly deafening.

[slothrop]

You're having a hard time with this, aren't you?

 

1. You're a liberal.

2. You state the liberal block is going to uphold the gun ban. You're not basing this on what you would do as a liberal?

 

Thanks for ignoring the other 2 things. The silence ain't exactly deafening.

 

Listen Grizzly Adams, I said the liberal block will VOTE to uphold the law. There are only four members of that block, which is not enough to constitute a majority of the Court.

 

I ALSO said the conservative block will VOTE to strike the DC law. Does that make me a conservative with your logic?

 

It comes down to which block Kennedy sides with. Thats my point. What don't you get?

[UConn James]

Ok Davey Crocket, take off your furry hat and read every word this time:

 

I said that the "liberal block" of Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and stevens will vote to uphold the DC Law. That part you got.

 

I ALSO said the conservative block of Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts will vote to strike the D.C. law.

 

That leaves Kennedy as the "swing vote."

 

This is not taking a position. This is analyzing the makeup of the Court and my analysis (and most experts agree) is Kennedy will decide this case. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE HE WILL FALL ON THIS ISSUE.

 

Supreme Court tackles gun control: Justices signal support for individual ownership

[K]ey justices, including Anthony Kennedy, suggested that they believed the Second Amendment was rooted in a concern for Americans' ability to protect themselves, rather than militia-related interests.

 

Kennedy referred to the "concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."

 

A swing justice on an ideologically divided court, Kennedy also said he believed the Second Amendment covered a 'general right to bear arms.' "

 

Umm, I'd say he's swinging in a certain direction....

[UConn James]

2. You state the liberal block is going to uphold the gun ban. You're not basing this on what you would do as a liberal?

 

Yep. So much for justices deciding each case based on the merits of the case, rather than a prejudicial belief on the topic. GUNS BAD!

[Alaska Darin]

Listen Grizzly Adams, I said the liberal block will VOTE to uphold the law. There are only four members of that block, which is not enough to constitute a majority of the Court.

From Davy Crockett to Grizzly Adams. You've got to be a very effective litigator with such references at your disposal. Thanks for the math lesson. I had no idea 4 was less than half of nine.

I ALSO said the conservative block will VOTE to strike the DC law. Does that make me a conservative with your logic?

I don't need logic to surmise you're a liberal. I've been reading your posts for years. Shoot, the fact that you're calling people zealots for being on the opposite side of the argument you don't have the balls to actually stand with tells the rest of us what we need to know.

It comes down to which block Kennedy sides with. Thats my point. What don't you get?

I didn't need that one explained again. I knew it when the case was first accepted by the SC because it's always really obvious what the liberals are going to do when it comes to actually important individual freedoms. You dancing around the questions is what I don't get. But we can keep up this stupidity as long as you want.