Article in Washington post: Gun Owners Next Victory in DC

Chiburbian · September 2, 2009 at 06:11 PM

Great article in the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opi...tory_in_dc.html

I would post a selection from the article but I am posting from iPhone. Could someone quote from the article for us to discuss?

Ocellairs · September 2, 2009 at 06:28 PM

I lkie that part about Illinois and Wisconsin.

That should be a hair rising event for the Brady Bunch. :frantics:

lockman · September 2, 2009 at 06:43 PM

Wisconsin does allow openly so Illinois has the only true "statutory phrohibition". But NJ, NYC, HI, CA & MA are just as bad in practice. I probably missed a a couple also.

2nd amendment forever · September 2, 2009 at 06:53 PM

From the article

Pecker · September 2, 2009 at 07:12 PM

What, you don't have OS 3 on your iPhone with cut and paste?

:frantics:

Jeff Johnson · September 2, 2009 at 08:02 PM

Excellent article and I hope he is right in his prediction!

Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute and was co-counsel to the plaintiffs in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Bud · September 2, 2009 at 09:14 PM

Here's the article:

Gun Owners' Next Victory in D.C.

By Robert A. Levy

Washington

The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, declared that Washington’s 32-year ban on all functional firearms violated the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, however, applied only to possession of guns in the home. The court did not address, and was not asked to address, firearms carried outside the home. That’s the issue posed in a new lawsuit against the District by Tom Palmer (disclosure: my colleague at the Cato Institute) and four other plaintiffs — represented by Alan Gura, the lawyer who successfully argued Heller before the court.

After Heller, the District relaxed its ban on residents seeking “to register a pistol for use in self-defense within that person’s home.” But D.C. law still states that “[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license.” Currently, the city affords no process by which to issue such a license. A first violation of the carry ban is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to five years.

Does the Constitution mandate that the nation’s capital allow firearms to be carried outside the home? The right to bear arms, the court said in Heller, is an “individual right unconnected to militia service.” To “bear” means to “carry.” More specifically, when used with “arms,” the opinion said, “bear” means “carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation.” Nothing in that formulation implies a right that can be exercised only within one’s home.

Indeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, although she dissented in Heller, cited Black’s Law Dictionary to suggest in a prior opinion that the Second Amendment entails a right to “wear, bear, or carry ..... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, ..... armed and ready ..... in a case of conflict with another person.” That language, says Michael O’Shea in the West Virginia Law Review, “reads like a literal description of the practice of lawful concealed carry, as engaged in by millions of Americans in the forty-eight states that authorize the carrying of concealed handguns.”

Of course, Second Amendment rights, like First Amendment rights, are not absolute. Scalia was careful to note that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Lawyers call such statements dicta — a statement not necessary to the holding and, therefore, not binding in other cases.

Nonetheless, dicta can be important. Gura, for that reason, took pains to fashion his new complaint to fit Scalia’s framework. The Palmer lawsuit acknowledges that Washington “retains the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns, prohibit the carrying of handguns in specific, narrowly defined sensitive places, prohibit the carrying of arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment protection, and disqualify specific, particularly dangerous individuals from carrying handguns.” Restrictions on carrying are permissible, but an outright ban is not. As Gura put it, the District “may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense, deny individuals the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places, [or] deprive individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”

Proponents of a total ban have seized on another of Scalia’s pronouncements in Heller. He pointed out that 19th-century courts considered prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons “lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” That statement, too, is dicta. Perhaps more significant, open-carry rather than concealed-carry was the preferred mode of arms-bearing in the 19th century. To be sure, some states prohibited concealed-carry, but only because they allowed open-carry — an alternative that the District probably would reject. An early Georgia case, for example, upheld a concealed-carry ban but struck down an open-carry ban. Ditto for other cases cited in Heller. Essentially, the Second Amendment demands that peaceable citizens be allowed to carry defensive weapons in some manner. The right to bear arms can be limited, but it cannot be destroyed.

Prediction: The courts will (and should) invalidate Washington’s unconditional ban on carrying, as well as similar bans in Wisconsin and Illinois, the only two states to have such bans. Regulations consistent with the Heller opinion will be permitted. But the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, expressly enumerated in the Constitution. That means government has the burden of demonstrating that its proposed regulations are necessary.

Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute and was co-counsel to the plaintiffs in District of Columbia v. Heller.

********************************************************************************

****

I have to say, it is a very encouraging article.

Christmas early this year, like the first Monday in October?

Drylok · September 2, 2009 at 09:56 PM

I'm trying not to let that article make me over confident about incorporation. It's hard to believe that we're going to win 2 in a row at SCOTUS.

Also this article re-ups the importance of SCOTUS appointments.

Bud · September 2, 2009 at 10:17 PM

We are not "winning"

We are having our inalienable rights reaffirmed.

Ashrak · September 2, 2009 at 11:05 PM

I read a speculative article yesterday about the lack of normal hiring patterns done by Stevens.......sorry, don't even remember where.

Drylok · September 3, 2009 at 01:54 AM

Ashrak,

What does normal hiring patterns mean? :frantics:

samhian1031 · September 3, 2009 at 02:09 AM

I second that!!! :frantics:

armueller2001 · September 3, 2009 at 02:17 AM

So how is the outlook for the Chicago gun case? I know Sotamayor was a new appointment to SCOTUS, did she replace a pro-rights or anti-rights judge?

xibit75 · September 3, 2009 at 02:26 AM

Carrying a firearm might be OK in some parts (out in the country, in small towns) but in Chicago it may have more negative effect that you think. There are still a lot of gang members that do not have any criminal record, and that's how they get into Army, Navy and Marines. With the training they receive there, they are a very dangerous to society and Chicago. Those gang members would also qualify for gun carrying permit, would you not agree ? I don't know about you guys, but I do not agree with Chicago having gun permits.

Bud · September 3, 2009 at 02:50 AM

You know, I think you're right. I don't think people in Chicago should be allowed to carry guns because of where they live.

After all, the Constitution was not written for all Americans, just some Americans.

I don't think people living in Iowa should be allowed to carry guns because they got Obama started on his way when they held the first primaries.

Let's see, who else shouldn't get to carry guns? Blacks? Jews? Latinos?

After all they're not real Americans like the rest of us.

Give me a break.

I don't read anywhere in the Constitution where American citizens of any race, creed, religion, national origin or geographical location are excluded from "All men are created equal."

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" George Orwell Animal Farm

I Hate Gunlaws · September 3, 2009 at 04:59 AM

So, let me get this straight: you believe that not having a permit will persuade a gang member without a criminal record to leave his/her concealable firearm at home? Really??? Hmmm....... might want to think about that some more.

Jeff Johnson · September 3, 2009 at 01:29 PM

I don't think people in Chicago should be allowed to vote either. They have so obviously screwed that up whenever given the chance- they are not reasonable or responsible citizens.

Federal Farmer · September 3, 2009 at 03:16 PM

Sotomayer replaced an anti-gun-rights judge (Souter) who dissented in Heller.

Stevens, who only hired one law clerk this year, is rumored to be considering retirement as well. In that case, any replacement (Diane Wood, of the 7th Circuit perhaps) would also be replacing an anti-gun-rights judge.

The other Justice that people think could retire during Obama's first term is Ginsburg, another Heller dissenter.

The only thing we have to concern ourselves with is Robert's and Scalia's continued good health.

w00dc4ip · September 3, 2009 at 03:19 PM

You really need to do some reading here and elsewhere and get educated before posting again.

Check out www.gunfacts.info to start and then try thinking logically.

The people flaming you so far are using the same logic you do. Gang members who do not have any criminal record yet are not criminals, they are just law abiding citizens. When they break the law, then they become criminals. Until someone actually commits a criminal act, they cannot be punished or have their rights removed for having done something wrong. Technically everyone in the Army, Navy and Marines has been trained to kill, should all veterans have their right t own weapons removed because they could be dangerous? Police are trained to shoot, should their powers to carry firearms be removed as well? Think your logic through to completion, or perhaps your first amendment rights should be removed since you're clearly abusing them.

BigJim · September 3, 2009 at 05:14 PM

I wouldn't allow anyone in Cook County to have any guns.

armueller2001 · September 5, 2009 at 02:45 AM

Hey man! What about me? :Drunk emoticon:

spec4 · September 5, 2009 at 01:03 PM

Please explain.

Don Gwinn · September 6, 2009 at 06:54 AM

Xibit, this is not purely a rhetorical question--I'd like to know your answer--but tell me: do you really believe that those gang members you're talking about don't already use guns whenever they feel the need? In other words, is it your position that the prohibition on carrying guns in Illinois is stopping gang members from carrying guns?

I can't agree with that.

Topper · September 6, 2009 at 05:57 PM

I expect that you are here as a troll, but if not, spend a couple of hours reading posts on this forum and you will have a better understanding of the logic that you defy.

Good Day,

T0PP3R

Don Gwinn · September 6, 2009 at 07:11 PM

Topper, I wouldn't jump to conclusions. There are a lot of people out there who consider themselves strongly pro-gun but haven't given any real thought to some of their other biases. There are a LOT of people who consider themselves pro-gun but have one or several hangups about guns.

You can't take my guns, because I hunt with those--but you can have the assault weapons and the handguns the black gangsters use to kill each other.

You can't take my guns, because I'm not hurting anybody by shooting skeet--but nobody needs a sniper rifle!

You can't take my guns, because I need to teach my son to hunt deer--but I'm not one of those militia Constitution nuts. Those guys have to be reined in, or they'll get our hunting guns banned.

You can't take my guns, but I'm not one of those paranoid Dirty-Harry-Wannabes who wants to carry a gun around with him all the time to shoot people.

I've been told all those things and more. I have no trouble believing that there's a guy in Illinois who shoots, maybe collects guns, maybe hunts, maybe competes, maybe has one or more carry permits from other states--who still says "But I'm not one of those nuts who thinks there shouldn't be any reasonable laws--those gang-bangers in Chicago have to be kept under a lid."

You can never afford to get so comfortable in your views that you think no one really disagrees with you. The internet makes it easy to surround yourself with people who agree with you and lose sight of the fact that there are people out there who love America (as they understand it) and yet disagree fundamentally with you about what to do about it. They're all around us.

A couple of years ago, I encountered a post at David Codrea's blog that actually led me to stop reading it for awhile. The mother of a student at Virginia Tech testified against a bill that would have legalized concealed carry on college campuses in Virginia. A commenter theorized that she did that because she knew that defeating the bill would lead to more mass killings on campus, and she didn't love her son, so she was conspiring to have him killed. He added that she probably had taken out additional life insurance on her son so that his death would be doubly profitable to her. See what he did there? He started from the assumption that the woman must agree with him, since she could not possibly honestly believe (even mistakenly) that banning concealed weapons from campus would protect the students there. No one in the world really believes that position, so the only possible explanation for why they would argue for it is that they're evil conspirators plotting to have people killed--even their own children.

I gave him a chance to take it back, but he insisted that he meant every word. It didn't get any better from there. We should try not to be that guy.

moparcardave · September 6, 2009 at 07:27 PM

Carrying a firearm might be OK in some parts (out in the country, in small towns) but in Chicago it may have more negative effect that you think. There are still a lot of gang members that do not have any criminal record, and that's how they get into Army, Navy and Marines. With the training they receive there, they are a very dangerous to society and Chicago. Those gang members would also qualify for gun carrying permit, would you not agree ? I don't know about you guys, but I do not agree with Chicago having gun permits.

I am guessing that you were saying that a criminals with records get into the military? Yes some do, but they have thus paid the price and God Bless them for their service. Who's to say someone shouldn't be allowed to carry because they might turn into a criminal?

Why would living in the sticks be ok for carrying a weapon verses Chicago? I don't know where this arguement comes from, probably to to and abundence of reading liberal anti gun articles. It's the same thing what we have seen here that blacks shouldn't have guns, another far left falsehood.

Simpley put.

'We the people" I am looking at those three words and I don't see anything that says not Chicago.

Tvandermyde · September 7, 2009 at 01:28 AM

isn't that the premis Obama ran on -- what works in cheyene may not be right for Chicago??

Rights are not dictated by your zip code.

drdoom · September 7, 2009 at 03:19 AM

Carrying a firearm might be OK in some parts (out in the country, in small towns) but in Chicago it may have more negative effect that you think. There are still a lot of gang members that do not have any criminal record, and that's how they get into Army, Navy and Marines. With the training they receive there, they are a very dangerous to society and Chicago. Those gang members would also qualify for gun carrying permit, would you not agree ? I don't know about you guys, but I do not agree with Chicago having gun permits.

1. Your argument that carrying a gun in Chicago legally would have a negative effect, holds no water. How many gang members have carried a gun, violated the law, and killed someone? more than one. So your arguing that allowing people their freedoms might have a negative effect on society? (playing devils advocate) Gee, I guess we should take away the vote from overly-emotional women, blacks, latinos and all minorities.

2. What difference does it make, if I carry a firearm on the moon, or on the southside, as long as there is a person with a criminal history in the vicinity, you will always have the chance of being attacked, anywhere, period.

3. I don't care if your Law Enforcement, Military, SWAT, Obama Civilian Secuity force, or the man on the moon, if you are not training with your weapon at least once every month, you will not be effective with your weapon. Most people in the Navy hardly use a weapon, and they don't even use live ammo up at Great Lakes for basic training. Anyone in the Army, has morals and ethics drilled into that brain after getting off the bus, more so with the Marines. If your in the Marines, you WILL get it engraved on your brain that the only time killing is justified is in self-defense, or in war.

Me thinks you smell of Obama root, otherwise your just plain ignorant. Educate yourself with the facts, and the truth. Like many here have said, our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not limited to just to people out in Kentucky, but also in Chicago. Despite all the ignorant morons in that heck-hole, I still believe they have just as much a right as I do, to own whatever weapon or 'accessory' they damn well please.

Lou · September 7, 2009 at 03:32 AM

Using your logic, Chicago citizens should not be allowed to hold public office. They might not be corrupt crooks yet but they soon will be. Look at all th corrupt Chicago politicians and how dangerous they are to society.?

[sarcasm mode now off]

Ol'Coach · September 7, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Forgot gang members, talk about Mr. avg, like me:

If I live in Bone Gap, IL, pop 272, it would be OK for me to carry, but if I move to Chicago, it would be not OK?

How have I changed?

Or, is it your thought that, in Bone Gap, it's OK, because I will probably never have to use it, but in Chicago it's a bad thing because chances are good I would need it?

Explain, please!

Sign In

Article in Washington post: Gun Owners Next Victory in DC

Recommended Posts

Chiburbian

Ocellairs

lockman

2nd amendment forever

Pecker

Jeff Johnson

Bud

Drylok

Bud

Ashrak

Drylok

samhian1031

armueller2001

xibit75

Bud

I Hate Gunlaws

Jeff Johnson

Federal Farmer

w00dc4ip

BigJim

armueller2001

spec4

Don Gwinn

Topper

Don Gwinn

moparcardave

Tvandermyde

drdoom

Lou

Ol'Coach

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Browse

Activity

My Activity Streams

Store

Support