You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)
- Thread starter tyme
- Start date
The more important "contempt of court" issue, Yellowfin, is whether "contempt of the Supreme Court", in a constitutional issue, equates to violating the oath of office.
I suggest that it is. I suggest that if D.C. does not come into compliance the responsible city leaders are fired and barred from holding any public office again.
I suggest that it is. I suggest that if D.C. does not come into compliance the responsible city leaders are fired and barred from holding any public office again.
jimpeel wrote:
I see some arguments about the delivery of a firearm to a resident of DC having to be done by an FFL in their jurisdiction. Any bets that there are at least a half-dozen DC cops who are FFLs? If that is so, couldn't the resident simply have the firearm shipped to the DCPD and take delivery from them?
Sir:
You are obviously a "dirty, evil minded old man". Long may you survive as such.
I see some arguments about the delivery of a firearm to a resident of DC having to be done by an FFL in their jurisdiction. Any bets that there are at least a half-dozen DC cops who are FFLs? If that is so, couldn't the resident simply have the firearm shipped to the DCPD and take delivery from them?
Sir:
You are obviously a "dirty, evil minded old man". Long may you survive as such.
Yellowfin and BillCa:
Re the "contempt of court" and or "contempt of the supreme court" mentioned in a couple of posts, who might it be that would bring charges, perhaps The Supreme Court itself?
Even then, or now with respect to Ms. Lanier, the DC Chief of Police, it seems that what we essentially have is a case of some bureaucrat running off at the mouth. I could be wrong, however it seems to me that actions rather than words, in this case, are required for contempt of court to arise, for it does not seem to me that the court has ordered DC government and or Police Dept. to do anything in particular. Ergo, no contempt of court, at least not yet.
Re the "contempt of court" and or "contempt of the supreme court" mentioned in a couple of posts, who might it be that would bring charges, perhaps The Supreme Court itself?
Even then, or now with respect to Ms. Lanier, the DC Chief of Police, it seems that what we essentially have is a case of some bureaucrat running off at the mouth. I could be wrong, however it seems to me that actions rather than words, in this case, are required for contempt of court to arise, for it does not seem to me that the court has ordered DC government and or Police Dept. to do anything in particular. Ergo, no contempt of court, at least not yet.
I guess the issue of shipping a firearm to the DCPD would be: Does the receiving FFL have to agree to accept the receipt of the firearm prior to its being shipped from the shipping FFL?
I believe that an interesting experiment could be had if a DC resident had a firearm shipped to him at the DCPD; and s/he then went to take possession of same once it was confirmed that the firearm had been received. If the DCPD refused to release the firearm to the resident then they might have a cause of action against the DCPD for refusing to adhere to the tenets of the Heller decision, ie: contempt of the Supreme Court.
Might be worth the cost of a Raven or Lorcin or H&R revolver to find out, given a willing out of state FFL to participate in the experiment.
Any volunteers at each end?
I believe that an interesting experiment could be had if a DC resident had a firearm shipped to him at the DCPD; and s/he then went to take possession of same once it was confirmed that the firearm had been received. If the DCPD refused to release the firearm to the resident then they might have a cause of action against the DCPD for refusing to adhere to the tenets of the Heller decision, ie: contempt of the Supreme Court.
Might be worth the cost of a Raven or Lorcin or H&R revolver to find out, given a willing out of state FFL to participate in the experiment.
Any volunteers at each end?
By the by. I wrote a quick note to the ACLU asking them when they are going to change their webpage:
the "answer" came today:
<yawn>
Subject: Heller decision
How soon will you be amending your policy #47 as posted at http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html in light of the recent Heller decision?
Sincerely,
Jim Peel
Longmont, CO
the "answer" came today:
Dear Mr. Peel,
Thank you for contacting the ACLU.
Our web site (http://www.aclu.org) has a search feature located at the top of the home page. By typing in a search request, you should find the latest news, court briefings and archival information on this topic.
If you are not already an ACLU member, we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about. To join please visit http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm or call 1-888-567-ACLU.
Sincerely,
D. Barber
Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union
<yawn>
Issues have to be raised for the Supreme Court to rule. The REAL advantage to the Supreme Court pulling up a case from Washington D.C., and correct me if I'm wrong here, is that Washington D.C. is ALREADY in Federal Court. In other words, if the issue of a law violating the Second Amendment is raised in a state, the issue has to be fully litigated in the state court system, ruled on by the highest court in that state, and then it can be brought to the Federal court, where it is again adjudicated. By ruling in Washington D.C., if the police, etc. are stupid enough to obstruct the intention of Heller, the cases can pretty much be fast tracked, straight to this Supreme Court, and brought quickly, before the court make up can be changed.
Scalia and company are pretty much young, healthy, and, barring cancer, etc. should be around a LONG time...
Scalia and company are pretty much young, healthy, and, barring cancer, etc. should be around a LONG time...
jimpeel:
Re the content of your post # 248, having read same, I find myself rather surprised that you got any reply at all. What is the secret of your success?
Of course, I suppose that they would always be happy, pleased, content to accept your contributions (money) as with the old adage to the effect that cash has no enemies.
Re the content of your post # 248, having read same, I find myself rather surprised that you got any reply at all. What is the secret of your success?
Of course, I suppose that they would always be happy, pleased, content to accept your contributions (money) as with the old adage to the effect that cash has no enemies.
Socrates and others:
I noticed in the latest issue of Gun Week, 15 July, page 4 a continuation of the lead article from page 1, what appears to be an excerpt from Justice Scalia's opinion, wherein he offered the following.
"undoubtedly", he continued, "some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army in the pride of the nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem".
I suppose that all in all, we should be thankful for the court's majority opinion, seemingly it was quite a near thing, far from the 7 to 2 vote others had earlier predicted, however I was particularly struck by Justice Scalia's mention of "well trained police forces providing personal security". Possibly for members of The Court, or others of high and mighty status, but most assuredly not for us mere mortals, this based on any number of court rulings, local state and federal, going back to the 19th century.
Surely, Justice Scalia could not be ignorant of "case law" and history., or put in other terms, "Say It Isn't So Joe, Say It Isn't So". In any case, while the majority opinion will likely turn out to be a boost for our side, it will be quite a while before any interested parties can determine which way the cookie actually crumbles here.
I noticed in the latest issue of Gun Week, 15 July, page 4 a continuation of the lead article from page 1, what appears to be an excerpt from Justice Scalia's opinion, wherein he offered the following.
"undoubtedly", he continued, "some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army in the pride of the nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem".
I suppose that all in all, we should be thankful for the court's majority opinion, seemingly it was quite a near thing, far from the 7 to 2 vote others had earlier predicted, however I was particularly struck by Justice Scalia's mention of "well trained police forces providing personal security". Possibly for members of The Court, or others of high and mighty status, but most assuredly not for us mere mortals, this based on any number of court rulings, local state and federal, going back to the 19th century.
Surely, Justice Scalia could not be ignorant of "case law" and history., or put in other terms, "Say It Isn't So Joe, Say It Isn't So". In any case, while the majority opinion will likely turn out to be a boost for our side, it will be quite a while before any interested parties can determine which way the cookie actually crumbles here.
Alan
Their non-answer was an appeal for funds. They effectively told me to f--- off; and if I wanted a real answer I would have to join the organization.
Their "aggressive work on the issues you care about" does not cover the issue I care about because they won't cover Second Amendment issues. So I won't be joining any time soon.
Their non-answer was an appeal for funds. They effectively told me to f--- off; and if I wanted a real answer I would have to join the organization.
Their "aggressive work on the issues you care about" does not cover the issue I care about because they won't cover Second Amendment issues. So I won't be joining any time soon.
And here it comes ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377203,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377203,00.html
D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down
Monday, July 07, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's repeal of the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., may be a boon for a segment of the firearms industry whose last major windfall might have been in the heyday of the Dirty Harry movies: those who make and sell revolvers.
The court ruled that a blanket ban on handguns is unconstitutional, but D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and other Washington officials want to keep in place a prohibition on semiautomatic handguns — those in which a bullet clip is inserted into the gun's grip.
Such a ban would continue to outlaw 9-mm and other popular pistols that are legal in most other places around the United States. And it would make the classic six-shooter the only legal handgun in the District.
For revolver manufacturers, a ban on semiautomatics in Washington could be good for business.
"If there's a total ban on all semiautomatic handguns, oh, absolutely," said Paul Pluff, spokesman for Smith & Wesson, the nation's top revolver manufacturer. Smith & Wesson sold 185,000 revolvers in 2006, 48 percent of all revolvers made that year in the United States, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms statistics released in January.
Pluff recalled the last time revolver sales went through the roof — back in the 1970s.
"Clint Eastwood — for several years — he was salesman of the year," Pluff said of the actor who portrayed vigilante cop Harry Callahan. In the Dirty Harry films, Eastwood's character brandished a Magnum .44-caliber Model 29 Smith & Wesson.
The District of Columbia is currently in the midst of two parallel efforts to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling. The mayor's administration is revising its rules on dealing with registration and ownership of handguns, and separately, the D.C. Council is working on changing the city's laws.
D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson, who sponsored a bill last week to address the court's decision, told FOXNews.com he's willing to consider the fate of semiautomatic handguns, but he doesn't think it needs to be addressed immediately. His bill would not change the semiautomatic weapons law.
He said the first thing the council will need to do is address the court's ruling that D.C.'s law must include a self-defense provision.
"I think we should look at the definition of semiautomatics in relation to what's prohibited, but I'm seeing a short-term and a long-term approach. .... And in the short term, I don't think we need to address it," Mendelson said.
At the moment, neither the mayor's nor the council's efforts appear aimed at changing the city's ban on semiautomatic guns.
"Under District law that the Supreme Court did not disturb, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally may not be registered. Revolvers in the home will be legal and, as before, residents remain free to register most shotguns and rifles," reads the city's Web site.
"Automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal in the District of Columbia with this ruling," Fenty said at a news conference following the court's ruling.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., outlawed handguns altogether. And although the city allowed residents to own other firearms like rifles and shotguns, it was illegal from that point on to keep them loaded, even inside the home.
The only handguns that remained legal following the ban were revolvers owned by residents and business owners before the ban was instituted — and those, too, had to be kept unloaded. According to city records taken in the months after the 1976 ban, some 42,000 handguns were legally registered at the time, but none of the records remain on how many were residents, business owners, or police officers, who also had to register their guns.
According to ATF, 73 percent — or more than 1 million guns sold in the U.S. in 2006 — were semiautomatic pistols. National Rifle Association spokeswoman Rachel Parsons said if city officials try to keep semiautomatics outlawed, they can expect to hear from her organization.
"The NRA is going to ensure that D.C. actually complies with its own laws and with the Supreme Court's decisions," she said.
According to Parsons, D.C. code already has an allowance for some semiautomatic handguns — pistols with a magazine holding fewer than 12 live rounds were grandfathered under the now-overturned 1976 ban.
"They are falsely claiming that all semiautomatic handguns are banned," Parsons said. She said the NRA will wait until the city sets its new rules to decide how to respond.
The District interprets its prohibition to encompass all semiautomatic handguns. Alan Gura, one of the lawyers who represented D.C. residents seeking gun rights in District of Columbia v. Heller, said one line of D.C. code basically renders semiautomatic handguns as a machine gun, which would still be illegal.
Current city law defines a "machine gun" to mean "any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot: a) Automatically, more than one shot by a single function of the trigger; b) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading."
Gura said the Heller decision does not protect "dangerous or unusual weapons" — like fully automatic, military style machine guns — but it does protect weapons "in common use" or those people would use for "lawful purposes." Semiautomatics, which police departments have made their weapon of choice, would fall under that category, Gura said.
"It's unfortunate that, you know, they seem to think that a ban on semiautomatic firearms is constitutional. It's not," Gura said. "Semiautomatics are garden variety. It's a normal, non-exotic, typical technology. It does not let you spray bullets. ... People here 'automatic,' and they think, 'Oh, it's Rambo.' It's not."
Mendelson said he does have a limit to what he thinks is safe.
"I think an individual possessing a handgun that can fire 18 rounds — that is loaded and can fire 18 rounds semiautomatically — is a problem for public safety in the District," Mendelson said. "I don't know what the correct number is, but something less (than 18 shots)."
Peter Nickles, interim attorney general for the city, said it remains to be seen whether the city will include any updates on semiautomatics as part of its rules changes. Currently, the city is trying to balance a number of issues, including meeting the court's ruling and avoiding further legal challenges.
Pluff said the argument for allowing semiautomatic pistols might be overstated, at least when it comes to self-defense. Revolvers are more accurate, more reliable and easier to manage than higher-tech semiautomatic pistols in an emergency, he said.
"From an accuracy standpoint, from a reliability standpoint, revolvers are still very popular," Pluff said.
He said the chief priority in his mind for a self-defense weapon is "to take myself away from danger. ... For most people, most confrontations, it's not going to be a high volume of rounds being shot."
But, Pluff said, when it comes to safety inside the home — a major question in the minds of policymakers — semiautomatics and revolvers are no different.
"Any gun is safe if properly stored and properly handled. ... Whether it's a semiautomatic or a revolver, it's a mechanical device. If you put that gun on a table and nobody touches it and nobody misuses it, that gun will never go off," Pluff said. "Any gun can be safe or unsafe depending on the person's consciousness to safety."
jimpeel in post# 258 put up the following article:
And here it comes ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377203,00.html
Quote:
D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down
Monday, July 07, 2008
Read the article for yourselves. Having said that, it would not really surprise me to see the clowns in Washington D.C. "city government" try to pull so rancid a stunt, this based on their past performances, positions and statements.
Should they try to pull this stunt, or anything akin to it, I would hope to see the FEDERAL JUDICIARY come down on D.C. with hob nail boots on ALL FEET. This is what SHOULD happen. As to what would actually happen, that unfortunately could be a wholly different story. In any event, as with some of the "crystal balling" and predictions concerning what will or might eventually come forth from the USSC on DC v Heller, only the passage of time will serve to answer such questions.
And here it comes ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377203,00.html
Quote:
D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down
Monday, July 07, 2008
Read the article for yourselves. Having said that, it would not really surprise me to see the clowns in Washington D.C. "city government" try to pull so rancid a stunt, this based on their past performances, positions and statements.
Should they try to pull this stunt, or anything akin to it, I would hope to see the FEDERAL JUDICIARY come down on D.C. with hob nail boots on ALL FEET. This is what SHOULD happen. As to what would actually happen, that unfortunately could be a wholly different story. In any event, as with some of the "crystal balling" and predictions concerning what will or might eventually come forth from the USSC on DC v Heller, only the passage of time will serve to answer such questions.