More Brady Whining re: Washington D.C.

M

MicroBalrog

New member
H.R. 3193 Would Permit Open Carry of Loaded
Assault Weapons on D.C. Streets

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) is
misrepresenting legislation he has offered to repeal the District of
Columbia's gun laws. The bill would allow assault weapons to be carried
openly on D.C. streets. It would also allow people convicted of negligent
homicide with a gun and court-adjudicated alcoholics to stockpile weapons.
Welcome to life in the nation's Capital if Congress repeals D.C.'s gun
laws by passing the so-called "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act,"
scheduled for House action Wednesday.
On Tuesday, Congressman Mark Souder (R-IN) sent out a letter that read "A
recent dear colleague to Congressional offices was blatantly wrong in its
assertion that 'H.R. 3193 would allow fully loaded assault weapons to be
carried in public.' This is completely false!"
"Congressman Souder needs to tell the truth about his legislation," said
Mike Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united
with the Million Mom March. "His bill threatens the safety of District
residents, the City's police officers, and any American who visits our
Nation's Capital. If Congressman Souder wants to carry the NRA's water, he
should come clean about the consequences."
A broad coalition of business, tourism and other District interests, along
with the police, strongly oppose the bill. If the bill passes, it will be
legal in the District of Columbia:

* For teenagers and adults to openly carry a loaded semiautomatic rifle,
including an AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle, on city streets without
a permit [H.R. 3193, sections 7-8, repealing D.C. Code sections
7-2502.02, 7-2502.03, 7-2507.02]

* To store firearms, including semiautomatic assault weapons, unlocked and
loaded in a home with children [H.R. 3193, section 7, repealing D.C.
Code section 7-2507.02]

* To purchase and use a firearm, including a semiautomatic assault weapon,
if you are legally blind [H.R. 3193, section 8, repealing D.C. Code
section 7-2502.03]

* To refuse to report to police that firearms, including semiautomatic
assault weapons, were stolen from your home [H.R. 3193, section 8,
repealing D.C. Code section 7-2502.08]

* To shoot squirrels or other animals with a firearm, including a
semiautomatic assault weapon, in your front yard [H.R. 3193, section 3,
amending D.C. Code section 1-303.43]

* To purchase and possess loaded firearms, including semiautomatic assault
weapons, even if a court has declared you to be a chronic alcoholic
[H.R. 3193, section 8, repealing D.C. Code section 7-2502.03]

* To purchase and possess loaded firearms, including semiautomatic assault
weapons, even if a court has declared that you have negligently killed
someone with a gun [H.R. 3193, section 8, repealing D.C. Code section 7-
2502.03]

CONTACT: Eric Howard of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united
with the Million Mom March, +1-202-898-0792.
 
Doesn' Sociaales Gun Control violate the Constitution?

Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller (1939). In this case, the Court stated that,
“The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... [and that] when called for service, these men were/are expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

Doesn’t Gun Control violate the 1939 definition of what the Malitia is? How
do we get the weapons required by The
U. S. Constitution, when our government says, NO?
 
In fact, states don't have rights at all. States have powers.

The RKBA, Hugh, is the right of every person in the United States, even a legal immigrant.

That was ruled by SCOTUS, unanimously, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez back in 1990.
 
I'm suprised that this punk didn't include another "brain surgeon" plan . If someone owes you money they have the option of zig zagging down the street while you open fire on them . If they make it to the corner they no longer owe you any money .
 
I'm suprised that this punk didn't include another "brain surgeon" plan . If someone owes you money they have the option of zig zagging down the street while you open fire on them . If they make it to the corner they no longer owe you any money .
Click to expand...

What?
 
"Militia is a State affair, and DC is not a State. They simply do not have the same rights as a State."
Click to expand...

While I agree with the sentiment of this post, it is factually incorrect. Washington, DC, certainly is not a state -- and as one who lives in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, I ardent believe it should NEVER become a state or have Congressional representation -- however, it does have an organized militia: The DC Air and Army National Guard. In fact, DC guardsmen have been on extended Northwest Asian deployments throughout the last several years.
 
Another way to think about it is if DC does not recognize the 2nd, then it does not have to recognize any of the bill of rights.

Look, the 2nd says people should own guns to prevent take over by our or other governments.

So in the framers minds they thought it would be quicker to train citizens to fight together than it would be to gather guns, gather ammo, teach citizens how to shoot, and how to fight together.

The concept is simple, invisioned over 200 years ago. Why some cannot figure it out is beyond me.

People have rights, states have power and authority.
No where are rights given to government, state or federal.
 
Of course States' have rights. Otherwise they would not be free States, and they would have no need for militia.

The SCOTUS has ruled in several cases (Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas, etc) that the Second Amendment only limits the federal government, which is not the same thing as it protecting an individual right. However, I will read the 1990 case you mentioned when I find the time.

The way I understand constitutional law, the only US jurisdiction over gun control is as it relates to militia. And I understand the militia to be State Militia as a check on the US. The States have a right to check the US because the States have sovereignty. DC does not have sovereignty.
 
The DC Air and Army National Guard. In fact, DC guardsmen have been on extended Northwest Asian deployments throughout the last several years.
Click to expand...

The National Guard is NOT the militia. (check when it was created. Then check the date on the ratification of the Constitition. You may note a slight discrepancy.)
 
The SCOTUS has ruled in several cases (Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas, etc) that the Second Amendment only limits the federal government, which is not the same thing as it protecting an individual right.
Click to expand...

That's an important distinction and those are bad rulings. The 1A, for example, clearly addresses CONGRESS, in saying that "Congress shall make no law..."

The 2A, in contrast, does not address Congress. It simply says, "shall not be infringed" and does say WHO may not infringe. IOW, it does not limit WHO may not infringe to just Congress.

Check the wording of the others and you'll see similar wording. The writings AND the State constitutions of the time bear this out. If Maryland had wanted to make Catholocism the state religion of Maryland, the U.S. Constitution is not violated thereby.

But Maryland cannnot infringe on the RKBA or conduct searches with out probable cause, etc.


But then there's that 14th Amendment business....
 
Of course States' have rights. Otherwise they would not be free States, and they would have no need for militia.
Click to expand...

States do not have rights. They have the power and authority over those things, not rights.

Rights are obtained at birth for every human, period.

Here is part the Georgia Constitution:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to
prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

People have rights, states have power. Saying a state has a right is incorrect, they may have the power to control something, but no where do they ever have the right to control.

The bill of rights says what the people have from birth. It limits the power of the government over peoples lives. States have no right to exist, they are granted authority to exist.

States rights are not rights, they are power and authority. The Federal government may take away a states power and that power is wanted back, but they have no rights defined anywhere.
 
here you go, the begining of the bill of rights

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Click to expand...

The bill of rights declares what powers the government does not have over it's people.
 
Quartus . . .

With respect, I believe your assertion that the National Guard (Army and Air Force) is not part of the militia is entirely incorrect.

Title Ten, United States Code, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311b states (and this is a precise, verbatim quotation):

“The classes of the militia are —
(1) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia”

Therefore, pursuant to the aforecited Federal statute, the “organized militia” and the “National Guard” are identical, indistinguishable, and synonymous.
 
My english teacher said something like "there's a bill that will let you guys carry uzis around in the streets" I guess this is what he is talking about. The subject was brought up when some girl said that there shouldnt be ANY guns. :barf: some people just don't get it. and why is everyone in my highschool anti-gun!?!?
 
Rugerdude, the answer to your question is, "ignorance". They have been fed a lie, and they have believed it. Your job, should you decide to accept it, is to counter the lie with truth.

It's a big job.
 
With respect, I believe your assertion that the National Guard (Army and Air Force) is not part of the militia is entirely incorrect.

Title Ten, United States Code, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311b states (and this is a precise, verbatim quotation):

“The classes of the militia are —
(1) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia”

Therefore, pursuant to the aforecited Federal statute, the “organized militia” and the “National Guard” are identical, indistinguishable, and synonymous.
Click to expand...


That's interesting, but what did the FF say? What did THEY mean when they wrote the 2A? Were they referring to a National Guard that was formed more than a hundred years later?

They were not.
 
Quartus . . .

“That's interesting, but what did the FF say? What did THEY mean when they wrote the 2A? Were they referring to a National Guard that was formed more than a hundred years later?

They were not.”
Click to expand...


I agree with your viewpoint regarding the Founding Fathers’ position, the Second Amendment, and the date of the National Guard was organized compared to the ratification of the Constitution.

However, all that is utterly immaterial, whether the two of us like it or not. The law – just as our nation and our society – evolves. Were the law not to have been modified since 1795, we would have only thirteen states, women would not have the franchise, blacks would still be enslaved, and so forth.

The current state-of-the-law re the militia is defined by Title Ten, United States Code, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311b -- not by our revered Founders or their Second Amendment intentions. And that edict clearly defines the “organized militia” specifically to include the National Guard. Therefore, as I previously indicated and pursuant to the aforementioned Federal statute, the “organized militia” and the “National Guard” are identical, indistinguishable, and synonymous.
 
If we allow for the meaning of the Constitution to change simply because we want it to, rather than by the legal method of Constitional amendment, we are no longer a nation under the rule of law, but under the whim of men.

That's the whole point of having a Constitution - to define what legally may be done and what may NOT be done.

All 'changes' to orginal intent that do not pass through the amendment process are lawless.
 
What Quartus said. And, in support of that view:

"A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless."
-- Justice Antonin Scalia


"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
- The Supreme Court of the United States in Marbury vs. Madison


"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them,"
- The Supreme Court of the United States in Miranda vs. Arizona.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top