D.C. Appeals to Supreme Court on Gun Law

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The District of Columbia on Tuesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that struck down the city's 30-year-old ban on private handgun ownership.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could lead to the high court's first direct ruling on the Second Amendment since 1939.

Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the appeal on the steps of police headquarters.

"The bottom line is we do not need more guns in this city," Fenty said.

Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHbPBPhcFr4NHKbqo5GGIF6wc2Eg

---

Now, it's up to the SCOTUS to grant the case cert (let's see if they can weasel their way out of this one).

They can decline to hear the case because they believe that the lower federal court made the correct decision for the correct reasons.

It's the Supreme Court and they can do pretty much whatever they damn well please and not be held accountable to anyone, but there's currently a split in the lower courts over the meaning of the 2nd amendment (collective vs individual right), that needs to be addressed.

The Supreme Court decides want cases it wants to hear. The Supreme Court can decline this case for any reason or no reason. The Law governing appeals to the Supreme Court states clearly the Court itself decides what cases it wants to hear with few exceptions (and most of the Exceptions are constitutionally mandated, such as border disputes between the states).

My point is does the GOP (Who controls the Court) wants a decisions on the Second Amendment? Right now the GOP depends on Rural fears about Gun Controls to keep Rural America voting GOP (Especially in the North, the Rural North while more conservative than the Inner cities, is much more Liberal than the Rural South. This is shown when the Rural North addresses Health care, education, the environment and Public Spending). If the Court would rule the Second Amendment protects people's right ot own any weapon, that is one less reason for Rural Northern Voters to vote GOP (The GOP threat that if the Democrats get the majority, the rural north would lose their guns, would be seen as the non-issue it is). The GOP keeps the Rural North Republican by keeping dragging out the threat of confiscation of all weapons by the Democrats if they won the majority. If the Supreme Court Rule it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government or the States to ban firearms under the Second, the GOP will NOT be able to drag out this "threat" at every election. This may be enough for the GOP to tell the Court NOT to take this case. For if the court struck down the Gun ban, how can the GOP run on the threat of a gun ban (It would take a 2/3 vote of the house and Senate and then 2/3rds of the States to ban firearms, i.e. a Constitutional Amendment). If the Court upholds the gun ban, they subject the GOP to attacks by anti-gun banners as being nothing more than two faced liars. Either way the GOP loses. Thus strong pressure will be put on the Court NOT to take this case, and if the case is accepted by the Court, for the court to decide the issue on some other ground.

My point is does the GOP (Who controls the Court) wants a decisions on the Second Amendment? Right now the GOP depends on Rural fears about Gun Controls to keep Rural America voting GOP (Especially in the North, the Rural North while more conservative than the Inner cities, is much more Liberal than the Rural South. This is shown when the Rural North addresses Health care, education, the environment and Public Spending). If the Court would rule the Second Amendment protects people's right ot own any weapon, that is one less reason for Rural Northern Voters to vote GOP (The GOP threat that if the Democrats get the majority, the rural north would lose their guns, would be seen as the non-issue it is). The GOP keeps the Rural North Republican by keeping dragging out the threat of confiscation of all weapons by the Democrats if they won the majority. If the Supreme Court Rule it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government or the States to ban firearms under the Second, the GOP will NOT be able to drag out this "threat" at every election. This may be enough for the GOP to tell the Court NOT to take this case. For if the court struck down the Gun ban, how can the GOP run on the threat of a gun ban (It would take a 2/3 vote of the house and Senate and then 2/3rds of the States to ban firearms, i.e. a Constitutional Amendment). If the Court upholds the gun ban, they subject the GOP to attacks by anti-gun banners as being nothing more than two faced liars. Either way the GOP loses. Thus strong pressure will be put on the Court NOT to take this case, and if the case is accepted by the Court, for the court to decide the issue on some other ground.

For decades, two of the biggest wedge issues used by the parties have been gun control and reproductive rights. The Dems have threatened the middle with loss of reproductive freedom, and the Pubs have threatened the middle with loss of gun rights. I have been saying since the seventies that the party that gives up its wedge issue first will rule the country for a long time. If the Pubs lose their "the Dems will take ur gunz!!!" issue while at the same time having had some success in restricting reproductive freedom, they may well be toast for generations.

If the liberals on the court are smart, they will join with the "conservatives" on the court and make the individual right interpretation a 9-0 decision; the Pubs might never recover, electorially.

Sorry, Fenty, it's not flying.

The problem is not the guns in the city, the problem is that the DC laws have set up the city so that ONLY criminals have them. Thirty years of a total handgun ban in DC is 30 years of failure as either a measure to reduce crime or a measure to reduce criminal ownership of guns.

but gun possession is allowed.

Those places have less crime in general anyway.

The problem with DC is that it is not like a state but is treated like such in lists of statistics. All states have a mix of urban, suburban, and rural areas, so when you read the state's crime rates, you see an average of the quiet rural areas, wealthy suburbs, and busy urban center.

DC's numbers is only for an urban area. So there's a skewing of numbers just in general.

But DC's gun laws are so strict that you can't even keep a loaded firearm in your own house. It has to be either disassembled or locked up, too.

so Washington vs. NY vs. Houston vs. Denver

Like this one:

http://www.statemaster.com/red/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun&b_map=1

Doesn't include DC or Florida, though. Lots of interesting numbers to look at.

is really well crafted, well reasoned. They can do whatever they wish. But this could be a great case for the second amendment.

:rofl:

The SC only takes a small percentage of the cases which comes it way.

This could potentially get very big, very fast.

The GOP does NOT want a ruling on the Second Amendment. The threat of a ban on Firearms is one of the few political slogans the GOP has to run on given the GOP failure on the economy and the Iraqi war.

gun control plank in the platform...fingers crossed for the '08 platform.

looking for that ten foot pole.

I can't see them getting near this right now.

Now, it's up to the SCOTUS to grant the case cert (let's see if they can weasel their way out of this one).


I believe the score, so far is that the 5th, 10th, and DC Circuits have ruled individual right while the the 9th has ruled collective right. It is only a matter of time before a citizen in the 9th sues for gun rights under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. They may as well get it over with.