Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

D.C. Attorney General: All Guns Must Be Registered

The Supreme Court has struck down D.C.'s longtime ban on handguns, with a 5-4 ruling. Ruling can be read here. The question for city officials is: What now? In a recent interview (before the court ruled), Interim D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles was asked what would happen if the city lost the case.

He said that residents will not be able to buy a handgun and bring it to the city immediately following the high court's ruling. There will be a period of continued legal arguments before a lower court judge to hash out specifics around the high court's opinion, Nickles said.
In the meantime, Nickles said, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration will instruct the police department to issue new regulations within 30 days detailing the process for registering handguns. (The city has gun regulations already on the books, which have been largely moot because of the gun ban, but those rules likely would be updated and revised, he said.)

"All handguns have to be registered," Nickles said.

Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 21 or older (*) and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.

Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.

One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision, Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home expect in the case of self-defense.

Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings.

For those folks who already own guns--against current law--Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime.

(* Corrected from previous version of the story that included the wrong age.)

By David A Nakamura  |  June 26, 2008; 10:15 AM ET
Categories:  David Nakamura , Gun Ban Case  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Busy Day in the District: Courts to Health Care
Next: D.C Gun Ban Decision: Poll and Comment

Comments

I full shot heard around the USA for Second Amendment rights.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

At least gun owners will be required to register their weapons. I'm sure that the guys shooting people in Trinidad will be sure to comply with that as quickly as possible.

Posted by: Lock Your Doors | June 26, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Now that DC is expected to abide by this part of the U.S. constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court, perhaps someone will consider allowing the residents to be represented in Congress?

Posted by: Deaniac | June 26, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

About time....I'll be packing this afternoon and ready for action

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Congratulations, NRA. Now DC criminals can have something else to break into peoples' houses to steal: handguns.

Posted by: CWK | June 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of District residents to own firearms, perhaps they can do something about our lack of voting representation in Congress? Or are some rights more important than others?

Posted by: DCVoter | June 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I know obscenity when I see it, and the court's decision in this case is obscene.

Posted by: Sane Citizen | June 26, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I wonder which emotive Leftist poster will be first to use the moronic "Wild West" analogy?

Posted by: Rufus | June 26, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

How could four Justices vote that you have no right to protect your home. The right to self-defense is immutable.

Posted by: jack o'connor | June 26, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Typical. The Second Amendment is upheld by the Supreme Court yet D.C. officials will do their best to institute a de facto ban. Hopefully all the unreasonable infringements outlined in this article will be struck down as well.

Posted by: oldno7 | June 26, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Wow,

As a 20 DC resident, this is something.

Posted by: Jackson123 | June 26, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

As a resident of the District of Columbia. I am glad the Supreme Court overruled the D.C. hand gun ban. The 30 year handgun ban hadn't worked, because hoodlums, savages, thugs, and criminals were still able to get their hands on guns and were packing on the streets of the District of Columbia. The Metropolitan Police Department didn't protect the citizens of the District of Columbia. Myself and other law abiding citizens were helpless on not being able to own a handgun.

Thank you Supreme Court for ruling on this most important issue in the District of Columbia in years. To all the hoodlums, thugs, savages, and criminals out there. I will be one of the first to apply for a handgun for my home. Don't even think about breaking into my home, because I now too will be packing like you. LOL LOL

Posted by: Ward 4 D.C. Resident | June 26, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Rufus, I think you're projecting. You in fact were the first to mention the Wild West. Congratulations for bringing up the very thing you didn't want anyone to say. You're a smart one.

Posted by: Rufus is a Leftie | June 26, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

like homey cares one way or the other

Posted by: homey | June 26, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

A very sad and extremely PATHETIC day in Washington, DC. Well, once again, this is what this country had coming when they allowed G.W. "DUMBA$#" Bush and his band of IDIOTS to steal two elections and take over the country. DEAL WITH IT PEOPLE...BEND ON OVER AND TAKE IT LIKE CHAMPS...HAHAHAHAHA...AMERIKKKA IS SUCH A FUNNY COUNTRY...HAHAHAHA!!!

Posted by: T. Williams | June 26, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Wow,

As a 20 DC resident, this is something.

Posted by: Jackson123 | June 26, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Rufus, we didn't have to. You did it for us

Posted by: Duane | June 26, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

So guns are legal to have and hold and whatever whackjobs do with them. Bullets however, are not protected by the Constitution.

Posted by: jarob | June 26, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Not sure why we need guns for hunting in DC. And if we need them for self-defense, that makes it clear that the police can't protect us and we're all supposed to become vigilantes. That's great. I'm moving to Montana.

Posted by: Another DC Voter | June 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Always funny when morons like Rufus can't think of anything original to say, so they try to guess what others will say.

Posted by: DC At Large | June 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The problem with the ban was that it didnt stop criminals from using handguns. In 1976 there were 135 handgun murders in DC. In 2007, there were 143. It's good that law-abiding citizens can defend their homes. And I am not a gun nut. I agree with registration and banning assault rifles and such. But in this city, criminals shouldnt be the only ones getting handguns.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Lock and load baby!!!!!! Time to go hunting..

Posted by: El Rico | June 26, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Now, will the gun nuts be slapping each other on the back when DC's murder figures rise?

Most likely not. The will of the majority means nothing compared to most gun nuts' feelings of inadequacy. Now they can flout the will of the majority of the city of Washington, DC and have their replacements for what Mother Nature didn't provide them.

But every dead kid from a stray bullet has those folks to thank from now on.

Posted by: James Hare | June 26, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Sorry liberals but the Second Amendment actually means what it says. The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Posted by: oldno7 | June 26, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

SAVAGES????

I GUESS YOU REDNECKS WILL BE PARADING AROUND DUPONT CIRCLE WAVING THE CONFEDERATE FLAGS WEARING THE LATEST IN CAMO PRINT PUMPS NOW HUH?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Now that DC has finally been TOLD it must abide by the US Constitution, we can let you have representation in Congress. Funny how that works!

Posted by: Welcome to Reality DC | June 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece."

CAN ANYBODY SAY DISCRIMINATORY POLL TAX?

Posted by: unfair | June 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Battery Kemble Park should be a great hunting ground for all them deer out there!

Posted by: El Rico | June 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Get ready for a crime spree. We all know it's coming. Thanks NRA members! Can I come hang out at your place in McLean when my neighborhood gets too dangerous?

Posted by: WardOneDC | June 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Jarob,

Actually, from what I understand, 'arms' is inclusive of ammunition

Posted by: Jackson 123 | June 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

it's about time. since criminals and the cops (some of them are criminals) are carrying guns, it's about time I'm able to also.

Posted by: pistol pete | June 26, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

CWK said:
Congratulations, NRA. Now DC criminals can have something else to break into peoples' houses to steal: handguns.

cwk, now those criminals have something to worry about when breaking into that home.

Posted by: john234 | June 26, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

I wonder which right-wing nut job will be first to be a little bit*h.

Posted by: Dan | June 26, 2008 10:38 AM

Pussy

Posted by: El Rico | June 26, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

F you Joey five cent Nickles!

Posted by: I'm getting a gd handgun! | June 26, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, we all knew this was going to happen anyway. Afterall, when the constitution was written everybody owned a gun to protect themselves and eat. Now it looks like DC will have to make a better effort at increasing it's police force and coming up with more rational and effective laws surrounding guns and youth conviction.

Posted by: lidiworks | June 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Fenty - STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Wooohoooo | June 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Another DC Voter: Your appeals court already said the police have no responsibility to protect you from criminals. See Warren v DC 1980-81. So, I'm not sure why you think they are protecting you.

Posted by: Welcome to Reality DC | June 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I'm not into guns, that's my disclaimer. But, the ban went against the Constitution, even I could understand that. While I would prefer there be NO guns, I feel more strongly that the Constitution be honored and respected. I am pleased that all gun owners will be required to register their guns.

That being said, the criminals, of which there are almost as many as there are law-abiding citizens, will continue to not follow the laws and use guns for acts that would make the Founding Fathers cringe.

I'm fine with the guns. I'd rather have them than the criminals. Let's get rid of the criminals. Drive them out of our city. And, I don't give a damn where they go or what they do as long as they can no longer commit crimes and run ragged over the rest of us.

Posted by: ethixrulz13 | June 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Get ready for a crime spree. We all know it's coming. Thanks NRA members! Can I come hang out at your place in McLean when my neighborhood gets too dangerous?

Posted by: WardOneDC | June 26, 2008 10:38 AM

Get ready? DC has been in a crime spree since 1968 you idiot. I guess you forgot about all the black on black crime with GUNS that has claimed over 10,000 lives.

Retard.

Posted by: El Rico | June 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Let the rampage begin!!! Walmart here I come!!!
All jokes aside, this is a historic ruling. Good or bad, "normal" citizens who are not law enforcement should have the right to the defend themselves. I await how the courts will hash out the legal wording in this new ruling.

Posted by: DP | June 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

If you criminalize handguns, the only people able to buy guns will be criminals.

This ruling is a great step forward for civil rights and for self-defense for the people of Washington, DC. They will be able to feel safe in their homes.

As far as representation in Congress, the founding fathers said only a state may have representation in Congress. When DC becomes a state, then I shall be completely for them having representation. Otherwise, DC is analogous to Puerto Rico as far as their rights go - it's just a territory. If DC got representation, then ALL of our territories would have to get representation, as well.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Now that the court has ruled that the DC ban on guns was unconstitutional, city leaders will have to focus on the real problem, which is black-on-black crime, drugs, and gangs. The guns are not the problem, but DC's black culture needs to become civilized.

Posted by: Now Focus on the Real Problem in DC | June 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Now I'm OK with moving back into the city - freedom for my people.

Posted by: ArlingtonMan | June 26, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

"Now that DC is expected to abide by this part of the U.S. constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court, perhaps someone will consider allowing the residents to be represented in Congress?"

?????

The DC residents are the idiots that made gun laws that are constitutional.

They can't be trusted with constitutional rights. We can't trust them with a Congressional vote either.

They can always merge back with Maryland.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Welcome to the Wild Wild West! Yeh baby!
Slam me back one bartender and send over Miss Kitty.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I prefer a shotgun to a handgun for home protection. Handguns are just easier for criminals to conceal and take their victims by surprise. There's nothing like catching a burglar in your living room in the middle of the night, though, pumping your shotgun, and yelling, "Surprise, fool!"

Posted by: DC Resident | June 26, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

"...required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws."

A ban is still possible:

If you can't read or write, you can't take the test and therefore cannot have a handgun.

You didn't get 100% on the written test? You can have a handgun.

Is this like having to take a test to vote (which is also an individual right) which has been found to be unconstitutional.

Posted by: Alan | June 26, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I waited over 30 years for this. Now, all my guns are legal!!! Go screw yourselves Nickles, Lanier and Fenty

Posted by: Justice | June 26, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

El Rico, I said "spree." You would have understood my post if you weren't a retard and knew that the definition of "spree" is "a period or outburst of extreme activity." Extreme, as in not the norm. We have had a sustained level of crime in the District and now will have a spree. Retard.

Posted by: WardOneDc | June 26, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Oops, typo's:

"...required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws."

A ban is still possible:

- If you can't read or write, you can't take the test and therefore cannot have a handgun.

- You didn't get 100% on the written test? You can't have a handgun.

This like having to take a test to vote (which is also an individual right) which has been found to be unconstitutional.

Posted by: Alan | June 26, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The problem with the ban was that it didnt stop criminals from using handguns. In 1976 there were 135 handgun murders in DC. In 2007, there were 143. It's good that law-abiding citizens can defend their homes. And I am not a gun nut. I agree with registration and banning assault rifles and such. But in this city, criminals shouldnt be the only ones getting handguns.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 10:35 AM
_____________________________

Because idiot VA laws allow anyone to get rifles at gun shows.

Posted by: go back to VA | June 26, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

As a resident of the DC Metro area I've always been wary of venturing about the city at night. I'll let out a cheer the first time some nefarious criminal is stopped in their tracks by a gun-welding, freedom loving, and recently liberated law-abiding citizen. I see DC's crime problem improving a bit.

Posted by: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... even by DC government! | June 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

This just in from the decision.

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment."

Guess I can unlock the shotguns now.

Posted by: DC Guy | June 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Soon the Post will carry stories like this -- "Three black male teenagers got the surprise of their short lives when the white man they were trying to mug pulled out a gun and shot them dead. He claimed self-defense."

Posted by: Mugger's Worst Nightmare | June 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

WardOneDC, we are already in an ongoing crime spree that just never seems to stop! The criminals almost outnumber the law-abiding citizens. Children are armed and shooting! I'm not into guns, but I also do not think this will cause an increase in crime. Until the criminals are BANNED, we will still be a city under seige.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

A great day for America!

Posted by: FLvet | June 26, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Now I'm OK with moving back into the city - freedom for my people.

Posted by: ArlingtonMan | June 26, 2008 10:42 AM

------------

Come on home my brethren!

John Smallberries
DC Council AT LARGE Candidate

Posted by: John Smallberries Esq., Republican Candidate, AT LARGE | June 26, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

A handgun is a terrible choice for in-home self-defense. A bullet from even a .22 pistol can easily penetrate drywall and travel from one room to another, inadvertently killing a family member. If you really want to protect yourself, get a .410 pistol, or a small-gauge shotgun and load it with bird shot. That would disable or kill an intruder in the same room with you, while reducing the likelyhood of killing an innocent person elsewhere in your home.

Posted by: Anonymouse | June 26, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm just curious about why Scalia failed to employ stirring rationale of a couple of weeks ago re: Gitmo: this will undoubtedly lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans. Funny how those who base their rulings on ideology rather than law can so conveniently forget their erstwhile reasonings. Scalia is no jurist: he should be impeached.

Posted by: abqcleve | June 26, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Does this mean that if I have a gun already registered in another state, it is considered registered in DC (full faith and credit?) And since a car is considered an extension of the home; can I carry that gun in my car? Can I do this today?

Posted by: jackrickdc | June 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Now that DC is expected to abide by this part of the U.S. constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court, perhaps someone will consider allowing the residents to be represented in Congress?

Posted by: Deaniac | June 26, 2008 10:30 AM

-------------------------------------------
What a novel idea! So much for the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: kasdc | June 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

If this is all about 2nd Amendment freedom, why shouldn't I be able to have semi-automatic weapons, hand grenades, bombs, and tanks stored in my garage? What is it about the handgun that makes it protected by the constitution when these other things aren't? This is just an arbitrary line, not a law of nature. And it won't do anything to solve the real problem

Posted by: Oh puhh-lease! | June 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Wow. The anti-gun crowd simply is immune to facts. Emotion trumps thinking for them. Fact: Gun bans do absolutely, positively nothing to stop gun violence because -- surprise! -- criminals do not obey the law. Fact: Communities with the highest rates of private gun ownership have the lowest rates of gun crimes. Of course, there is an old saying: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts." What fools you people are!

Posted by: DENNIS | June 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Sorry liberals but the Second Amendment actually means what it says. The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Posted by: oldno7 | June 26, 2008 10:37 AM

oldno7: you need to read the Constitution. That's not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Posted by: jindc | June 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

There is no way a limit of one handgun, prohibition on semiautos, or requirement that the gun be unloaded would pass muster based on the Supreme Court decision. These are just another form of defacto bans.

Posted by: face reality fenty | June 26, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

So, in the eyes of this court, a wild-eyed gang of crackheads constitutes "a well-regulated militia." Nicely done.

Time to buy stock in Kevlar and coffin companies.

Posted by: TheRightIsWrong | June 26, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Hey, oldno7 -- which militia do you belong to?

Posted by: Anonymouse | June 26, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse


Its a great Day in the U.S. of A.

Posted by: Jay in Mass | June 26, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

DC still wants to make waves to slap the Supreme Court in the face.

No where in the US should should there be limit on the right to own guns. I even favor having all citizens wear a sidearm in public, as opposed to concealed weapons.

Posted by: Maddogg | June 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

What I find funny is that conservatives love to have their second amendment rights, but have no problem giving up their freedom of speech? What am I missing here? Have your guns, what do I care?

Posted by: Iraq Vet | June 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

As a resident of the District of Columbia. I am glad the Supreme Court overruled the D.C. hand gun ban. The 30 year handgun ban hadn't worked, because hoodlums, savages, thugs, and criminals were still able to get their hands on guns and were packing on the streets of the District of Columbia. The Metropolitan Police Department didn't protect the citizens of the District of Columbia. Myself and other law abiding citizens were helpless on not being able to own a handgun.

Thank you Supreme Court for ruling on this most important issue in the District of Columbia in years. To all the hoodlums, thugs, savages, and criminals out there. I will be one of the first to apply for a handgun for my home. Don't even think about breaking into my home, because I now too will be packing like you. LOL LOL

Posted by: Ward 4 Black D.C. Resident | June 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Just a tidbit of info:

Vermont has the fewest gun laws in the country, and also has one of the lowest crime rates.

There is no place I would feel safer at night than Vermont, knowing that absolutely everyone there is packing heat.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I have been inspired. Government does work!!!

Posted by: honor82dc | June 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Smallberries is rejoicing with his fellow DC citizens!!

Yes, we should elect people whose representation and leadership is not STUPID,

ELECT SMALLBERRIES, who at this moment is throwing way all trigger locks and loading his long guns!

Posted by: John Smallberries Esq., Republican Candidate, AT LARGE | June 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

El Rico, I said "spree." You would have understood my post if you weren't a retard and knew that the definition of "spree" is "a period or outburst of extreme activity." Extreme, as in not the norm. We have had a sustained level of crime in the District and now will have a spree. Retard.

Posted by: WardOneDc | June 26, 2008 10:44 AM

Loser Islam El-Obama supporter that you are, you just don't understand time relativity. The crime spree that started in 1968 never stopped.

Retard cokc chugger terrorist muslim lover.

Posted by: El Rico | June 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Rufus,

I'm anything but a "leftie." We've been under siege in DC for years. It's already the Wild, Wild West...right in our nation's capital!

I say ban the hootapops.

Posted by: ethixrulz13 | June 26, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

like so many NRA types oldno7 conveniently ignores the rest of the 2nd amendment, namely, the part about a "well-regulated militia being necessary..." or does he plan to go out and organize one with all the folks who'll be buying guns?

Posted by: eomcmars | June 26, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

WardOneDc - Are you sure that a sustained high level of crime isn't the same as a long-term spree? Sure, it isn't as bad as the late 80s, early 90s, but it still is much higher than should be accepted. Maybe as an incentive for District home sales, on top of tax incentives, Fenty can offer a .45 and gun training to each new homebuyer?

Posted by: WardCleaver | June 26, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

First people, DC is not a state and the constitution makes it VERY clear that only states may have representation in the Congress of the United States. DC is a Federal Territory (District) and as such it is by the grace of Democrats that DC residents are even ALLOWED to vote for the President of the United States. You knew this when you moved here. Stop the bellyaching immediately!
Second, guns have been in DC for years. The ruling by the Supreme Court doesn't as much impact DC as it does nationwide the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Finally we are getting the 2nd Amendment interpreted by the only people legally qualified to do so ... The Supreme Court!

Posted by: Sensible DCer | June 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

DC At Large, Duane, and the anonymous loser can now see that Mike was the first emotive Leftist poster to invoke the moronic "Wild West" analogy.

Leftists are such non-thinkers that you can always tell what they are going to do.

Well, you lost this one and the people have won!

Posted by: Rufus | June 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Finally, people other than Marion Barry supporters will have guns.

Posted by: Former DC Resident | June 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

@ Iraq Vet

As a moderate, I'll have my cake and eat it to.

I want gun rights AND free speech.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

To read some of these posts you would think that DC was the Wild West (thank you Rufus). A simple google search shows that according to FBI statistics, Washington rates number 18 in violent crime for cities with populations of 100,000 or more. Of course, no one wants to live in the 18th most violent city, but you could do worse by living in Flint, St. Louis, Detroit, Memphis, Orlando, Oakland, Miami Gardens, Little Rock, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Cleveland, Nashville, Miami, St. Petersburg, Stockton, or Springfield (not the Springfield of Simpson's fame).

Posted by: DCism | June 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"Get ready? DC has been in a crime spree since 1968 you idiot. I guess you forgot about all the black on black crime with GUNS that has claimed over 10,000 lives."

Amen, El Rico!

Posted by: ethixrulz13 | June 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

DCVoter,
Read the relevant part of the Constitution below. DC is not a state. Voting representation is clearly unconstitutional for DC.

Now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of District residents to own firearms, perhaps they can do something about our lack of voting representation in Congress? Or are some rights more important than others?

Posted by: DCVoter | June 26, 2008 10:31 AM

Article I, Section 2 states that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . . . ." It also says that "No person shall be a Representative who shall not . . . be an Inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen" and that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union . . . ." The same section guarantees that ". . . each State shall have at least one Representative . . ." and provides that "When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I can now own an handgun in my D.C. home. Hurray!!!!

The Metropolitan Police Department did a terrible job in protecting the residents of D.C. and Fenty and the spineless D.C. Council wanted to take our rights away to own a handgun. Shame on you!!!!

Posted by: Black Ward 4 D.C. Resident | June 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

If you take this illogical to its own end, no need for self-defense in 'sensitive' areas?

Posted by: shhhhh | June 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

To Chris who wrote that DC should not have representation in Congress since we are not a state...
Would you then favor the correct implementation of the Constitution's 16th Amendment. It allows income taxes to be levied only in the States....DC is not mentioned!!
By the way, Congress has the supreme authority vested by the same Constitution over the District of Columbia, therefore it can grant us a seat in the House.

Posted by: DC John | June 26, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

To Chris who wrote that DC should not have representation in Congress since we are not a state...
Would you then favor the correct implementation of the Constitution's 16th Amendment. It allows income taxes to be levied only in the States....DC is not mentioned!!
By the way, Congress has the supreme authority vested by the same Constitution over the District of Columbia, therefore it can grant us a seat in the House.

Posted by: DC John | June 26, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, everybody register your guns.

The same thing Hitler did in the 30's.

Then he sent his goons door-to-door get them; sometimes the gun owners were allowed to live when they left.

Posted by: DC Voter | June 26, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

To all you anti-gunners I say boo hoo. Im sure you would feel differently If someone broke into your house, tied you up and raped your wife while you watched. Every law abiding citizen in America should be armed. And not just in the home. A car jacker would think twice if he had a gun pointed at his head. Good job NRA.

Posted by: Rat | June 26, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

First of all, I do not own a gun.I think if you study statistics, there are just as many murders in DC now as when handguns were legal. The ban has not worked, and it is better for a citizen to choose whether or not to own one. Why does the city feel the need to have gun registration and limit you to one gun? You should have to have a license to own one, but why have to register it? The criminals will not register their guns, will they? City officials should abide by the Constitution which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What part of "infringed" don't they understand?

Posted by: rockinravenmaniac | June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Libscums lose another one.

Posted by: Not A Libscum | June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

El Rico - Wow! If ignorance is bliss...you must be one happy person!

Posted by: Your Mamacita | June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Fantastic! 90 degree weather, tempers on the rise, and everyone in the District has access to a hand gun, including school kids.

This proves once and for all that 5 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices are too senile to correctly interpret the Second Amendment, which states that one has the right to bear arms when SERVING IN A MILITIA! That means unless you've enlisted in the National Guard, you DO NOT have the right to carry a gun.

Posted by: chitchco | June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

James H,
Let's see if the District's murder figures actually do rise. Also, a clear majority of the criminals that are carrying weapons in the District are convicted felons, previoulsy charged, etc... The laws on the books favor them and they know it - this is why you live in one of the most violent cities in America.
Regarding the stray bullet - you and I as residents are responsible for the rapes, the murders, and the "on target" bullets that have killed DC kids until now. As a DC resident, take some responsiblity for the current crime ridden situation you allowed... These innocent dead children don't excuse our pacifism over the District's violent situation...

Posted by: Fed 1811 | June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, free at last!

Posted by: Karl | June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

@ DC John

Congress also has the power to grant you statehood if you apply for it.

Like Puerto Rico, DC has chosen to eschew being a state.

As far as the 16th amendment, will you please quote to me the relevant text? I'd like to know whether it says "in the United States" - meaning the country and its territories - or whether it specifically says only States.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

So does anyone know how much taxpayer money the DC Govt used on lawyers only to lose in the end?

Posted by: FLvet | June 26, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Supreme Court. Clearly, the Founding Fathers granted us the right to bear arms. One thing for sure: crime in DC is going down.

Posted by: MyDeadHoldHands | June 26, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Does anybody really believe that the previous gun ban has done anything to help gun violence in DC over the years? Does anybody really think that criminals will more easily get their hands on guns to commit offenses with the ban removed? I mean they already have an easy time obtaining guns illegally! DC Residents have a Constitutional right to purchase and own a gun, just like a citizen in any other city in this country. If you look at National Statistics, DC has just as high if not higher gun violence compared to other major metropolitan cities now, with the gun ban in place. Face it people, the gun ban did not work. What DC needs is to replace this destructive ignorant black thug culture. Kids need a father and a mother, not a baby-daddy and a baby-mama!

Posted by: DCRESIDENT1966 | June 26, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

This has nothing to do with whether or not a gun ban is effective.

It has to do with whether or not the Constitution grants the Government the authority to ban guns. I agree that the Constitution clearly does not give the Government that authority.

That does not mean that We The People, can not amend the constitution to give the Government that authority. It only means that as currently written, We The People have not given the Government that authority.

Those who feel that a gun ban is a net positive idea, should draft an amendment to the Constitution and pressure their legislators (both State and Federal) to pass it.

Allowing the Government to garner powers and authority not granted by the Constitution is dangerous, regardless if that power is "good" or not.

That leads to unnecessary wars and USA PATRIOT Act's.

Posted by: MDLaxer | June 26, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The DC Attorney General should go back to school.

DC can not enforce laws or regulations that are not on the books yet. Nor can he delay a decision by the Supreme Court to its own ends.

DC Residents right now can legally own guns (not just one). They do not have to wait for new regulations. They do not have to turn themselves in for an Amnesty when the law governing this has been declared moot.

This is DC Government propaganda and not law.

Posted by: Ex post facto | June 26, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The national guard is hardly a militia.

A militia would be if say, the government got out of hand and so the population of a region took up arms to overthrow the government - a right that this country was founded on.

We wouldn't be able to do this without arms. The militia would regulate itself. How? Because any real ex or current military members in it would take charge of it and regulate it - it's in their training to be able to take command if there is no one else to.

Posted by: @ chitchca | June 26, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

What a pity that the Supreme Court would strike down a law that has, for 30 years, guaranteed the absolute safety of every resident of DC and has been instrumental in making DC the safest city in the United States, if not the world.

The utopian dream is over, and crime shall soon swamp our fair and swampy city.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Rat, the NRA was no help with this case! Thank god for Mr. Levy!

Posted by: johng1 | June 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

What's the over/under on how much crime will decline? I'll put the opening line at a 1/3 drop, at least.

Posted by: CrimeWillGoDown | June 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home except in the case of self-defense.

Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings."

This is going back to the Supreme Court in 3...2....1....


"For those folks who already own guns--against current law--Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime."

Umm, yeah? You can't exactly prosecute someone under a law that was ruled Unconstitutional.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

A great day for the Constitution and the rights of citizens. Maybe a light will come on in the brains of the reality-impaired.

Posted by: Lanzman | June 26, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

And Chris, you are an ignoramus!

DC will have representation. This case helps open that door.

Posted by: johng1 | June 26, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

"Posted by: Mugger's Worst Nightmare

Soon the Post will carry stories like this -- "Three black male teenagers got the surprise of their short lives when the white man they were trying to mug pulled out a gun and shot them dead. He claimed self-defense."

You have to be kidding me!!! The post will never publish that as it would disagree with their policy of publishing a truth that disagrees with their politics.

Posted by: Bill Smith | June 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

@ Mike

Did you not see the statistic that DC has the 18th highest crime rate in the USA? How is that the safest?

I hope your post was satire.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The facist four plus one have done an exceptional job - proving the rule that they are otherwise normally subversive to the intent of supreme law. I suppose the normally reasonable fair four must be being contrary as an exception to their rule as well.

if the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.".
Then when, in dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons", he betrayed a blind spot he should get corrected...
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

the Framers MADE a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials - "...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

I really think government has a problem with understanding that "Shall not" is "evidence" of some sort of "limit"

(Not to mention that government seems to confuse corporations for PEOPLE sometimes - but does NOT give any person the equal protection of the laws when compared to the protections corporations or corporate executives have...)

Posted by: steven | June 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

This idiot! DC's black culture? No its America's problem, racism. Your remarks wreak of ignorance like the utterances of one who promised to "Change the hearts and minds of Iraqis". I don't know what your background is but you can READ about violence everywhere not just DC.

Now that the court has ruled that the DC ban on guns was unconstitutional, city leaders will have to focus on the real problem, which is black-on-black crime, drugs, and gangs. The guns are not the problem, but DC's black culture needs to become civilized.

Posted by: Now Focus on the Real Problem in DC | June 26, 2008 10:41 AM

Posted by: 4real | June 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Go to hell Nickles!

Good point, anonymous poster at 11:03 AM!

Posted by: johng1 | June 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Whatever the merits of the policy debate, this opinion by Scalia is one of his worst. He says that the part about a "well-regulated militia" is merely a preamble, and the "right to bear arms" is the operative part.

Okay. But surely the former bears upon the latter. Say for example that my Home Association documents said that "Because the community currently is in an unincorporated part of the county, the Association shall levy its members $100 a month for improvements." A few years later, we are incorporated into the county, which then takes over the responsibility for improvements (road maintenance, etc.)

It seems clear to me that the result should be that the Home Association should then cease charging me $100 per month, since the condition for the charge has ceased to exist. And so it is with the right to bear arms. Since we now have a standing army, there is no longer a need for a militia and, consequently, no constitutional right to bear arms. That does not mean the states cannot confer that right -- they can. It just means the right does not derive from the Constitution.

Talk about your activist judges!!!

Posted by: ogenec | June 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Does this include assault weapons such as fully auto machine guns? How about grenade launchers, bazookas and surface to surface missles?

Posted by: Sal | June 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Anyone for a pool on when the first kid shoots himself after getting his hands on Daddy's legal Glock?

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"SensibleDCer",

I was born in DC. I didn't move here.

Why don't i deserve the same rights as all my fellow citizens of the United States. I pay my federal taxes, i serve in the federal military....why can't I have representation?

Posted by: jindc | June 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

@johng1

DC will have representation the day it becomes a state.

As far as I know, there is nothing keeping it from becoming a state except the will of its populace.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Fantastic! 90 degree weather, tempers on the rise, and everyone in the District of Columbia has access to a hand gun, including school kids.

This proves once and for all that 5 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices are too senile to correctly interpret the Second Amendment, which states that one has the right to bear arms when SERVING IN A MILITIA! That means unless you've enlisted in the National Guard, you DO NOT have the right to carry a gun.

Posted by: chitchco | June 26, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Exactly. You should be able to walk into a DC police station today and license a handgun you legally bought. The laws are still on the books requiring registration, but the DC Government is REQUIRED to issue you a license and register your firearm under the current DC law.

Posted by: to ex post facto | June 26, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

What does registration do? A gun is not like a car. A policeman can trace a car leaving the scene of a crime from it's license plate but the serial number of a handgun is not visable if someone still has it in their possession. The criminals in DC that are responsible for shootings are not going to register their handguns and even if they did, they don't leave them at the scene of shooting.

Posted by: Alan | June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I'm a liberal leaning independant, but this is where I have to part ways with the simple minded liberals that think that if you get rid of guns you get rid of peoples ability to commit crime and kill their fellow man. The right to own and bear arms is vital to the survival of our democracy. Not to protect it from invading armies, but to protect it from those that would errode and destroy it from within. The current administration has illustrated clearly, the need for a mechanism to get rid of a non representative government. The founding fathers knew that, over time, all government becomes corrupt, and ends up servicing it's own agenda, at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent. The constitution says that it is not only our right, but our duty to get rid of a government that fails to represent the will of the people, like the one we have now, and elect a new representative government. The right to own guns is the mechanism they gave us to accomplish that right and duty. The supreme court decided, not only for DC, but for the entire country, that it is indeed our right to have the ability to protect ourselvs, not only against the individual that would do us harm, but against a government that would attempt to take away our constitutional rights. We have seen the beginnings of it with the Bush administration, and this ruling sends a signal to the government that they best not go too far, or we may have a 2nd ammendment million man march.

Posted by: Hank | June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

After I saw what happened during Katrina I went out and got a couple of guns, I resided in MD. If any type of disaster hits the Wash. DC area we're on our own. This is a right every American has, the right to bear arms! Break in my home I'm blowing you away!

Posted by: noneck | June 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

@ ogenec

What makes a "militia"?

An organized and armed group of civilians.

A militia cannot exist if their right to bear arms is taken away from them.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

This decision really puts a nail in the coffin for all you anti-gun, anti-liberty, pro government hacks out there. THE SUPREME COURT MADE A DECISION AND GUESS WHAT...

the phrase a "well-regulated militia" DID NOT EXCLUDE ones INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AN BEAR ARMS

SO STOP all this "you aren't in a militia" (said with a whiny voice) BECAUSE EVIDENTLY as THE LAW IS READ IN THIS COUNTRY you are INCORRECT.

CASE CLOSED

Posted by: Some folks never learn... | June 26, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Register your firearms? Those too young to remember need to study the history of Nazi Germany and what happened to those who were foolish enough to comply.

Posted by: Doc | June 26, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Now that you are able to protect yourselves in your homes... How are you simply going to protect yorself on the street, where the many senless deaths and mass murders occur...

Let wait and see how many are actually going to abide by the new ruling, MD & VA will continue to barter GUNS into you community (city) and all you can do is simply sit in the confines of your homes and join the many others that are simply hostages in their neighborhoods...

Their are laws that protect those criminals who barter guns and those that get them illegally tp prey on victims with those bartered weapons... And if you think of putting a shooting range in my community, you better think twice...

Those that have already been victimized will now be able to have weapons to protect themselves as well.

There should be no discrimination as to where you live, if you are a DC resident there will be many lobbyist making sure that you have access to a gun in your home.

The criminals will continue to get them and will not even think about coming in your homes, they will continue to shoot you on the STREET and the sad part is you can not defend yourself...

Posted by: Gun Ban Supporter | June 26, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Quite a collection of big brains here today.

Muggers' Worst Nightmare -- and his friend Bill Smith -- might be leading the way, but the posters analogizing to Nazi Germany are not far behind.

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 26, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Just remember, Obama's one vote away from overturning this and confiscating all weapons -- the first step in building his socialist utopia.

Posted by: info | June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I think that each person that doesn't accept parts of the constitution that doesn't apply to their own personal belief structure needs to have a part of it (the constitution) that does restricted for a while...

I hate people that have such a narrow view of the world that they can only take it in the most narrow minded manner-- their own. Good luck with evolution if you can't see another person's point of view.

It must be nice to so easily label someone as a GW Bush clone or evil Republican just because they disagree with your feelings....

Good luck DC.


Posted by: Ruffus | June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Let them eat lead.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

@Chris

This is where we get into the weeds. Whatever a militia is, can we agree that it is the opposite of a standing army? If you look at the history of the clause, the Framers were suspicious of standing armies (given their anti-colonial roots, that's hardly surprising).

Now that we have a professional army, however, there is absolutely no need for a militia. None whatsover. When that condition went away, so did the associated constitutional right.

Again, I am not saying there should not be a right to have guns. I'm saying it's an issue for the states, not the Constitution. And that fact that I, a moderate, have to point this out to the conservatives on the court is really scary.

Posted by: ogenec | June 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"As a resident of the District of Columbia. I am glad the Supreme Court overruled the D.C. hand gun ban. The 30 year handgun ban hadn't worked, because hoodlums, savages, thugs, and criminals were still able to get their hands on guns and were packing on the streets of the District of Columbia. The Metropolitan Police Department didn't protect the citizens of the District of Columbia. Myself and other law abiding citizens were helpless on not being able to own a handgun"

__________________________________________

You could not be further out of touch with reality. The police will now be denied the right to arrest a criminal for possession of a handgun on the street. Before today that law allowed to take hoodlums off the street as well as one more gun at a time. Now the simple possession of a gun will not be against the law by you or by someone who is planning to do a drive-by shooting.

You were not helpless. Can you honestly articulate ONE instance where a law abiding citizen was denied the right to protect himself or his home with a handgun? I doubt it.

Statistics (not the NRA's stats) show that thousands of people are killed every year by people who mistakenly kill their neighbors, family members, children who find their parents guns, or other mishaps around the house. The cases where a homeowner truly protects himself with a gun are very, very few.

Posted by: JT | June 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

SAD...VERY SAD! The fact that statistics show that the number of gun-related crimes rose slightly during the years since the gun ban ignores the likelihood that an unknown number of gun-related crimes, deaths, kids accidentally shooting each other, etc were prevented by the gun ban - it is difficult to prove a negative. However, if statistics are your bag, "Google" the international statistics regarding gun-related deaths, which show that the USA HAS A RATE OF GUN-RELATED DEATHS THAT IS DOUBLE ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

I say it is time to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to REPLACE THE 2nd AMENDMENT with a clear, rational, national regulation of all guns and ammunition in the USA. Guns don't kill people...bullets do." BAN BULLETS - VOTE DEMOCRAT.

Posted by: Joseph Bleaux | June 26, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Chris, DC did try to gain statehood, I believe in the 70's. The constitutional amendment failed to be ratified by the requited number of states.

This will change, just as today's gun ruling restored our rights.

Posted by: johng1 | June 26, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

One more point. I don't think the "we ARE TOO a militia!!!" folks really want to make that argument. Because if you are correct, the Constitution says you have to be "well-regulated."

Posted by: ogenec | June 26, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Rufus

Us lefties have guns too. The bullet has no political preference.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Outstanding..but only one gun!!!!!!!
Back to the courts....how about the collector and/or the hunter? One gun does not fit all situations.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The Constitution was upheld no matter what people on here think. People really need to understand the constitution before they actually open their mouths on the subject.

To the people who through insults...it takes away from your argument and it is poor debating for it shows you do not have a coherent argument to make.

I applaud SCOTUS on this decision for it was the right ruling.

Posted by: Gov. Major | June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

@ ogenec

Yes - we definitely agree that the militia is the opposite of a standing army.

However, when the government becomes oppressive and the citizens need to take up arms against their army (as we did against Britain over 200 years ago), the citizens will need to form a militia and take up arms.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Watch out darkies, if you try mug law abiding citizens your going to get shot back. In fact tonite, I am going to wear my rolex watch and be sitting in my living room waiting for you with the safety off.

Posted by: Non-Darkie | June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

"Make my day, punk!" -- Clint Eastwood

This SCOTUS decision has been long overdue and it is time to place power into the hands of law-abiding citizens. The D.C. Council and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton have stood in the way of common sense for too long. Criminals don't give an arse about laws; they still obtain and use weapons for their illegal purposes. One month from now, I will be registering my Beretta 92S that I will purchase in D.C.!

Posted by: Black and Bitter Like Coffee | June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Why are you guys arguing about Militias? While I have not read the opinion, it appears that that issue was interpreted as a separate reason for the right.

Posted by: johng1 | June 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

So what exactly are you trying to say? That the law-abiding residents of the District are suddenly going to go running into the streets to shoot folks now? (Laughs hysterically) And as for the shooting range comment, you're obviously deluded if you think valuable land inside of the district could ever be used cost-effectively as a gun range, that's ludicrous. Gun ranges are a type of development usually only feasible in low-density rural areas. Unless of course the District's residents demand a crud load of practice after being suppressed for so many years ;-)

Posted by: Re Gun Ban Supporter | June 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

@ Joseph Bleaux

No citizen who truly believes in this country should ever consider overturning any of the Bill of Rights.

If you overturn even one of the first ten amendments, you open all ten of them up to being unnecessary.

Our Founding Fathers included those ten amendments to our Constitution as basic human rights, and they need to be treated as such.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

All the gun-control nuts claimed Florida would become the Wild,Wild West when they changed the law for self defense some years ago. To their dismay there has been no rise in street killings that in any way related to the current law. Law-abiding citizens don't kill people indiscriminately. Criminals do and they could care less about your gun laws.

Posted by: Les | June 26, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Well, if owning guns enhanced safety, then the U.S. should be the safest country in the industrialized world, shouldn't it?

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Yay! The city should arm every woman and train them how to shoot to defend themselves.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

an unloaded gun is classified as a paperweight and worthless.

I challenge anyone to defend themselves at 3am with a gun that has a trigger lock or is unloaded.


"Hold on Mr. Killer.... Let me load the clip and unlock the gun so I can shoot you...


Wait..... Where are you going? Come back here!... Where is my bat....
"

Posted by: manymoreyearsoflawsuits | June 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait to hear the avalanche of news stories about DC residents that protected themselves against a crime by having their handy dandy hand gun. That's the logic, right? More guns, less crime.

Posted by: Bill Monroe | June 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I have trouble understanding why is it that an outdated constitution can't be updated... the Framers did it for their social circumstances. I guess you rather argue about the past than prepare a peaceful future for your children. Instead of buying a bun go and buy a book for those marginalized teenagers, maybe you will learn something in the process.

Posted by: funny | June 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Almost everyone here is in the militia! not that it even matters! Check out the law regarding militias:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) 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

Posted by: tommytommy | June 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

From Yahoo News:
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
---------------------------------------
Um, yeah stupid that's exactly what they were aiming for. Not only that, but a well regulated militia at the time consisted of every able-bodied man. Thus there is perhaps a historical argument for keeping guns away from women but certainly not from citizens as a group overall. ;)

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

@ Funny

Civil rights never become outdated - only the lack of them becomes outdated.

The first ten amendments are the basis for civil rights.

Without guns, how will you stand up against a tyrannical government?

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I live in a part of the country where many people own firearms. No one is shooting each other, crime is low and accidents are few. If DC is having a gun violence problem, it's not because of firearms, it's due to other factors the city needs to deal with. Patching problems with ineffective feel good laws is a cop out and unfair to the residents of our nation's capital who deserve better.

This ruling is a relief for citizens across the country.

Now DC residents need to be represented. It's appalling and embarassing that they aren't.

Posted by: Ken | June 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

To all the people who think this will result in a "crime wave": Want to back that up? Most studies show that in places where people are allowed to own guns, the crime rate involving guns is much LOWER than in places where handguns are outlawed. Criminals don't usually go and bother people who have the ability to defend themselves.

Posted by: Choco | June 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Let's watch the statistics on ALL murders committed with handguns in DC. The great majority of such crimes involve people who know each other, and many of them happen within the home. If there are fewer muggings but more in-home murders (so that the total number of people killed is greater), is that a step forward?

As for the bogus comparisons to Vermont etc. -- the only valid comparisons are ones that look at what happens when gun laws change in a *specific place* -- there are too many other variables otherwise. Does anyone know the data from those cases?

Posted by: larry | June 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Except for the fact that Stevens is wrong and that the governments can still put restrictions on guns. They just cannot ban them.

Posted by: Gov. Major | June 26, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Steve if banning guns enhanced safety, DC wouldn't have been the murder capital for so many years and would've even been safe.


--------------
Well, if owning guns enhanced safety, then the U.S. should be the safest country in the industrialized world, shouldn't it?
Steve

Posted by: Lance | June 26, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

To the poster that said get ready for a crime spree.

There has been a crime spree in DC for the last 30 years. Do you really think that continuing a gun bad, will cause the thugs to all of a sudden one day follow the rules and start breaking into peoples houses with stick and stones??? If anything we will see more thugs getting shot as they break into people homes and only then will they have second thoughts since there lives are now in danger.

Ask your self this.

You awake tonight to the sound of broken glass and hear someone approaching your kids room, would you rather reach over and grab a firearm, or a phone to call 911 and wait 60min for metro to arrive?

Posted by: Ward 6 Guy | June 26, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Bravo US Supreme Court! So now all of us
"Typical Small Town Clinging To Our Guns
And Religion" can keep our firearms ready
to put down the "Typical Marxist Barack
Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi Gun Grabber
Bunch Communist Take Over of the USA! So
Thank You US Supreme Court For Protecting
Our Second Amendment Rights,To Own and Bear
Arms! A Great Victory for the US Consitution and the Second Amendment over
Gun Grabbers Obama,Pelosi,Hoyer,Reid and
Howard Dean! Vote Republican and McCain!
NOBAMA!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | June 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

DC's acting attorney general really doesn't get it, does he? He still thinks he has the right to stop people from owning guns doesn't he?

Like so many arrogant, over-empowered government employees he'll have to be, figuratively speaking, beaten down completely on this issue.

Posted by: royb | June 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Am I the only person who's concerned that this thread is full of people who viscerally hate the District and everyone in it, and they're all orgasming with glee over this decision?

Posted by: cminus | June 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Folks, you are getting exercised over nothing. The sun will rise tomorrow morning on schedule. Nothing will change. Great now DC people can own guns. Rest assured that the powers that be will regulate you out of "meaningful" ownership. They can still mandate disassembly, locks, limit access to ammunition, all of the above. There will only be more litigation.

Posted by: From Texas | June 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I'm somewhat disappointed in the decision. I will say that the decision is the correct one for sure, but I'm disappointed that as a liberal myself, there wasn't a single "liberal" justice in the majority. I am a liberal gun owner. I know that to some that sounds like an oxymoron but I don't believe so. I have a lot of friends who are liberal gun owners. Take a look through these message boards and you can see what a danger some of these rabid right wing fascists are. And many of them are heavily armed.

Posted by: guitaristo | June 26, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

CRIMINALS BEWARE!! NOW THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS IN D.C. CAN EVEN THE SCORE ON CRIMINALS, THUGS AND THIEVES!! YOU BEST THINK TWICE WHEN YOU DECIDE TO ATTACK THE OLD AND YOUNG. YOU'LL NEVER KNOW WHO WILL END YOUR REIGN OF TERROR!! GREAT DAY FOR AMERICANS!!

Posted by: SGT. FURY | June 26, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Ward 4 D.C. Resident

What you fail to realize is that having the gun and being able to affectively use it against the so called hoodlums are two different things. If the criminals are not afraid of each other why do you think they will be afraid of you or me? Seeing how often you hear of shootings the so called thugs are a lot more familiar with guns than the rest of us. Now please tell me how this repeal will stop them from killing each other? Thats the problem, not them killing you and me. They know who they are after when they commit murder. Not to mention most DC residence already have handguns anyway. Now they will just get a fine if caught instead of facing jail time. But the flip side is so will the criminals. Now the criminal that already has the assault charge and gun charges will get zero jail time when he is caught again with a firearm on the street. Now that thug who would have went to jail for the next gun change will still be on the street. Thats something to think about. The gun ban with all its flaws did put criminals in jail based on the mandatory sentence.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I prefer a shotgun to a handgun for home protection. Handguns are just easier for criminals to conceal and take their victims by surprise. There's nothing like catching a burglar in your living room in the middle of the night, though, pumping your shotgun, and yelling, "Surprise, fool!"

Posted by: DC Resident | June 26, 2008 10:42 AM

How many times has this happened to you Mr. Heston? LOL

Seriously though banning handguns completely is ridiculous and over-reaches way too much. If a regular citizen wants one in their home then that's their right. So long as the procedures to acquire a handgun are stringent then it's fair game. Now the NRA nuts are probably going to go nuts on the fact that the registering process is unfair and just too damn difficult, but that's a crock of poo. You have to register to drive a car then it's unimaginable to say that someone should just be handed a gun without review.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I call Godwin Rule on DCVoter, for an unecessary Hitler reference.

Posted by: Jonathan | June 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

TEXAS: They can still mandate disassembly, locks, limit access to ammunition, all of the above. There will only be more litigation.

===========================================

Actually Texas, that's not necessarily true. Read the opinion and you will notice that D.C. cannot stop people from having their guns unlocked for self-defense.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Quote: "One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers."

From the opinion: "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute--would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Clearly any plan to limit the functionality of the gun a non-starter from this point forward. I doubt they could get by with saying a gun must be unloaded. Unless of course the District decides to fight this and spend all that extra discretionary money it has in its coffers.

Posted by: Dan Mosqueda | June 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Ya know...I'm done here. I can't stand the mudslinging.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

This ruling really isn't about guns. Its much more far reaching. It will take quite awhile to "shake out" the nuances. The role of the police in protecting the citizenry need s a very hard look. A historical look at the facts reveal that the first job or priority of the police is to protect the police.This has always been first and foremost. Second, the police protect property; if any citizens are protected its incidental. Protecting us is not on the list of police prioritys and never has been.

Posted by: lorena2 | June 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Good ruling though. The ban was blatantly unconstitutional, as is the proposed limit on one per household.

Posted by: Jonathan | June 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Ward 6 Guy: So you're going to leave your gun put where your kids can get it? Now that's great parenting!

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

To Jarob,

"So guns are legal to have and hold and whatever whackjobs do with them. Bullets however, are not protected by the Constitution."

The Second Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear guns..." It says "arms."

If you'd bothered to read the opinion you'd have seen this statement on page 7: "Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as 'any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.'"

I would definitely say a bullet falls into the category of something used "in wrath to cast at or strike another."

Posted by: kd | June 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

As resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania I'd like to extend my congratulations to the citizens of the District of Columbia in the sharing and the affirmation of their full constitutional rights.

Posted by: state72 | June 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

When will Americans end this obsession for firearms? Guns are not big and they are not clever. Some of the opinions evinced here are just laughable; my favourite is the one where a challenge is meeted out to the 'homies' to break into a house to see what happens!
We live in the 21st century, not in the 1800's. There is no need for shoot outs at the 'Last Chance Saloon'. Don't Americans understand that the rest of the world hate them for their bully boy tactics on the world political stage, and this attitude pervades across the whole of American society; from the destructive actions of the Bush dynasty through to the gun toting population that seem to think it normal for a civilised society to allow its residents to carry weapons.
The sooner ther USA sinks into obscurity the better. After all their 100 years of fame will soon be up. After that who cares what happens in the States? They can all shoot themselves as much as they want, as long as the rest of the world is left alone.

Posted by: bob | June 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

In DC most fireworks are illegal.
Same in Virgina.
The good people in DC and VA are not responsible enough to own fireworks.

Guns? Sure. Go for it!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Hunting could become very, very big in DC after all the wiliest most dangerous animals in the world, in the history of the world are sitting around stealing us blind day and night 24/7. The only question is shoukkd we ned a license or will it be open season. I'm only kidding of course.

Posted by: lorena2 | June 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Wow
look at both sides going at it

this is still and will always be a volatile subject

Good Luck DC - the more things change the more they stay the same

Posted by: La Hank | June 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

What the Opinion says is only partially relevant. A motivated DA with a lot of public money can keep the ball in the air indefinitely. This is only the start of the litigation. Look at Gitmo.

Posted by: From Texas | June 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Hooray For The Second Amendmant and our US
Supreme Court for uphold our Right to Own
and Bear Arms! This has to be a crushing
defeat for Gun Grabber Barack Hussein Obama
and his fellow Democrat Losers Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi,Cockroach Steny Hoyer,
Harebrain Harry Reid,Dirty Dickey Durbin,
and Howard Dean! A big thank you to our US
Supreme Court! Vote NO on the Democrat
Gun Grabbers from Barack Hussein Obama on
down! No Way Obama! NO Damn Obama! NOBAMA!

Posted by: Claudine 1000 | June 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Actually, from what I understand, 'arms' is inclusive of ammunition

Posted by: Jackson 123

- I think you could make a persuasive argument to the contrary.

- also i don't think there is any restrictions to the size of a handgun that can be available for sale. In other words, if DC were to limit the sale of the size of handguns to only those that fire BB sized or smaller projectiles. That might still satisfy all requirements. So no magnum .44 with armour piercing bullets.

- and if you put a waiting period on sale of bullets to say 2 months or more.

food for thought.

Posted by: jarob | June 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I believe guns are unnecessary. I've lived in the District for over 5 years and have successfully defended my home from armed intruders with a Samurai sword on two seperate occaissions. Throwing stars and nunchucks are also very effective against guns. If you practice two to three hours a day and are fearless, you will not fail.

Posted by: razorsedge | June 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Just remember folks, you now have the right to legally have a gun to protect your home, not become Charles Bronson. Seeing that most of you new DC residence cant tell a thug from an honor student in this city you may want to hold off on packing in the street until you get to know the difference. Or maybe the honor student who wears baggy jeans, a tee shirt, with a cap on his braids will need to get a makeover to prevent being killed by the law abiding citizens who got him confused with the thugs. The judge will not accept the I thought he was a thug defense.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Both my guns have locks on them. So explain to me how I'm a bad parent? I'm sure you leave a lot more dangerous things around the house then a locked gun, like alcohol, knives, prescription drugs. You don't know me to call me a bad parent. I could say the same about you since you don't have a plan to protect you family god forbid if that time comes when you have seconds not hours to think about what to do.

Posted by: Ward 6 Guy | June 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Oh bo ho ho for all you liberal pukes who think they can selectively trash the constitutional rights that they don't like and support only those that fit their own socialist agenda's. Hail to all of us stupid, conservative rednecks (the silent backbone of this great country)! May we wave the flag high on a great day for freedoms sake! Happy upcoming 4th of July, and shoot'em up!!

Posted by: Deepsixer | June 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

@ bob

If that's how you feel, you probably shouldn't even care about the article or what either side of this argument thinks are our rights, so you shouldn't be here wasting our time.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

A barking dog will protect your home much better than a sleeping hand gun.

Posted by: Bill Monroe | June 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I never read the ban on PISTOLS as being a ban on all weapons, or as preventing legitimate self defense or hunting interests. I own several pistols myself, but let me say this: they aren't worth SQUAT for hunintg or self defense--shotguns seem a lot better for self defense, shotguns and rifles for hunting. If my little town in SC were as crime-ridden as DC, I would happily sell my pistols back to the state (or city). Surely there is no RIGHT, in either the constitutional or practical sense, to own a particular type of (easily concealable and practically only useful for killing other people, and then ineffciently)gun. This is just another result-opriented opinion from a Supreme Court which decides who can win an election, an area long considered to be beyond the reach of the courts.

If you want meaningful self defense or hunting weapons--shotguns and rifles are the way to go.

Posted by: Jack from SC | June 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

To all you D.C. nuts who think that allowing legal ownership of handguns is going to do nothing else but turn D.C. into a bloodbath:

Go ahead! But you didn't need the Courts to give you permission to do that anyway. You guys have been the murder capital for quite some time - even with a handgun ban in place.

P.S. Don't forget to blame it all on Bush, the NRA, aliens, God, whoever you hate at the moment.

Posted by: Watching from afar... | June 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Dear Rat: As an "anti-gunner", I ask you about how you would feel if your kid was killed by another kid who used a "legal" gun to accidentally (or intentionally - eg Columbine) shoot him? Or if a road rager decided to shoot a member of your family with the "legal" gun in his car because your family member cut him off in traffic? BOO HOO TO YOU TOO! (Just don't come crying to me.)

Posted by: Joseph Bleaux | June 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

When will Americans end this obsession for firearms? Guns are not big and they are not clever. Some of the opinions evinced here are just laughable; my favourite is the one where a challenge is meeted out to the 'homies' to break into a house to see what happens!
We live in the 21st century, not in the 1800's. There is no need for shoot outs at the 'Last Chance Saloon'. Don't Americans understand that the rest of the world hate them for their bully boy tactics on the world political stage, and this attitude pervades across the whole of American society; from the destructive actions of the Bush dynasty through to the gun toting population that seem to think it normal for a civilised society to allow its residents to carry weapons.
The sooner ther USA sinks into obscurity the better. After all their 100 years of fame will soon be up. After that who cares what happens in the States? They can all shoot themselves as much as they want, as long as the rest of the world is left alone.

Posted by: bob | June 26, 2008 11:40 AM


We don't really care what idiots around the world think of us. Good ruling. DC will be far safer in a few years.

Posted by: Drew | June 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

With all this conversation about what is constitutional and covered by 2nd, don't overlook the fact that it was a 5-4 decision. The court ultimately decides what is constitutional and what is not. And this court was decided by who Bush put into office. It very easily could have gone 5-4 the other way if Roberts had not been appointed. Remember that this time around.

Posted by: 15 Year DC Resident | June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Guns kill people just like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig.

Posted by: Gordito Mojito | June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Have a look at this law.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/08/leg_history_of.php

Posted by: Jeff Texas | June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Bob but as nice as it would be to not need guns and to try to be civilized, it doesnt change the criminal population that do not seem to want to be a part of civilized society. I would rather be safe than civilized. You cannot just turn the other cheek to the violent crimes being committed in this country. Your best defense is to fight back and drive the criminal element out.

I believe people should definitely be able to own guns but I think they should all have to attend a safety course. Guns should be respected just like cars should be because they can kill other people. You have to prove your knowledge when you drive a car so why not with a gun? Then again I think the voter competency test is a good idea too and that will clearly never happen!

Posted by: Jason | June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Do any of you people even live in D.C.? Welcome to the new Wild West with the overturn.

To give you a clue, over 350+ assault with a deadly weapon in D.C. for just the month of MAY 2008! The reason the gun law was in effect was because police needed a reason to search folks and pull suspicious folks over. Which by the way, the criminals are suing the police department for doing random checks of vehicles in D.C. - they apparently like to do drive by shootings. Now, the supreme courts takes away the need for trigger locks on guns, sorry kids the supreme court doesn't care about you either!

This is going to be a tragedy in Washington.

Posted by: fresh | June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Dear Rat: As an "anti-gunner", I ask you about how you would feel if your kid was killed by another kid who used a "legal" gun to accidentally (or intentionally - eg Columbine) shoot him? Or if a road rager decided to shoot a member of your family with the "legal" gun in his car because your family member cut him off in traffic? BOO HOO TO YOU TOO! (Just don't come crying to me.)

Posted by: Joseph Bleaux | June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Ogenec, your ideas are wrong because the need for an armed militia of citizens is just as necessary today as it was in 1789. The existence of the U.S. Army or police departments does not negate the need for a milita. The purpose of the citizen militia is to protect the people from its own oppressive government. The Founding Fathers were afraid that the federal government would become an oppressive dictatorship so they wanted to ensure the ability of the people and the states to keep the federal government in check.

Posted by: face reality fenty | June 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Yea, more guns ... Bring 'em on!

Posted by: George Bush | June 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

This has gone on since the first caveman formed a weapon with a stout piece of wood.For a while he had a real advantage.Then, another caveman made a longer club.Ad Infinitum

Posted by: John Harris | June 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Well, only "allowing" the registration of one handgun? Check this out! Several calibers on one frame:

http://www.americancopmagazine.com/articles/SIG/SIG.htm

SIG Sauer P250.

Posted by: Ed H. | June 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Is there a way that D.C. can ban the brand or "types" of handguns that are being used in all these shootings in D.C.?

Posted by: sane one | June 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Cool ... now I can shoot my friends in my office.

Posted by: Dick Cheney | June 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

now that the ban has been overturned, can you now advocate for open carry like they do in Virginia. I think it would be cool to be to wear my gun on the outside to warn would be evil doers that I am strapped. What about taking my gun into a bar? Lord knows that I may run into someone that will step on my new sneeks and I may have to put a cap in his as*. Thank you Supreme Court!

Posted by: Mike C. | June 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Watching from afar.

Get your facts strait. DC has not been the murder capitol for a long time now.

Posted by: Ward 6 Guy | June 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I'll be packing this afternoon walking the DC street and God help the low-life that crosses my path.

I'll be packing my 44 Mag.

Dirty Harry

Posted by: Chevy | June 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Finally we have sanity! The DC politicians only wanted the criminals to own handguns it seems. That was the unwritten law.

Now these politicians will have to find a new way to make money.

Posted by: Joseph | June 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

...and we should all have to pass a morality, civility, authenticity, paucity, and my authority test before we own guns, drive cars, walk dogs, have children, start businesses, get married, go to college, etc.... give me a break you fascists.

Posted by: Gordito Mojito | June 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

What good did the DC gun ban do? It didn't protect a single citizen. As I recall DC was America's murder capital for some time. With all those gun control laws you would think it should have been the safest city in the US. If gun control worked, it would have worked there. IT FAILED. And now the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says? Oh my....................

Posted by: Don | June 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Well, if owning guns enhanced safety, then the U.S. should be the safest country in the industrialized world, shouldn't it?"

Have you kept up with what's going on? The wrong people own the guns and have them readily available. The law-abiding citizens aren't going to risk going to jail.

And, BTW, cops can take bad guys off the streets just for carrying a firearm because most of them are already felons and the cops know them on a first name basis. Visit the precinct some time and observe the interaction between the cops and the bad guys. It's like a family re-union with the civilized side trying to keep the uncivilized side from hurting anybody.

Posted by: Les | June 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

It always made sense to me that law abiding citizens should lock up their weapons and keep them inaccessible, so when the bad guy with an illegal weapon breaks into the house threatening everyone at gun point the homeowner could not protect his family. Lets give the bad guy rights so he can do as he wants and keep the law abiding citizen under the thumb of socialist liberal democrates.

Posted by: QED | June 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

From my cold dead hands!

More guns less crime!!!!!!!

Posted by: Minister Dizzy | June 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse


Hey Mayor Fenty
Bottom line is that it is not IF you will be a victim of crime in this city but WHEN you will be a victim...I had to wait 12 minutes for police when my 911 call of someone trying to break into my home was called in--and I live in NW. Response times SUCK in this city.

So the next time someone tries to break into my home, or hold a knife to my throat (1988) They better be ready to eat some lead because I will never be a victim again.

NW resident

Posted by: mike | June 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Claudine 1000

Iraq war. Gas Prices. Weak Dollar. Massive Debt. Those are the issue that affect americans, not the DC gun ban. You can try to spin this but unless you can provide a Republican who will address and fix those problems your doomed in november no matter how many labels you give the democrats. Why? Because all of the problems that I listed happen under republican control, not democrat control. As a matter of fact, the last time those issues did not exist was when a democrat was president. Republicans will loose and its your own damm fault. You had the whole thing and squandered it away. Good luck convincing us voters to vote against our own interest. Ill take Hussein over McSame. Hey that would make a nice bumper sticker. What do you think?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Wow, what a bass-ackwards country. No wonder you have such a high prison population and a shameful murder rate.

Posted by: LOLOLOLOLOLOL! | June 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

WOW!!!! This is frightening ladies and gentlemen. For the record all criminals are not felons, especially the ones who have not been arrested and convicted of a crime. Growing up in Soufeast DC, I can assure you the never arrested and convicted felonious criminal will by a gun, register it and wait pateintly for the opportunity to use it.

For the security gaurd who sued for the right to bear arms for self defense, you protect other people as a security gaurd because that is the job you applied for. Your right to own a gun has nothing to do with your choice to be a security gaurd. Obviously, our Supreme Court thinks like you do. We are so unfortunate.
Be mindful Mr. Security Gaurd, criminals carry their weapons with them, you can't. The gun carrying criminals don't have to break into your home or carjack you to shoot you or injur you. Let's not forget Gramercy Street NW or the crime in Georgetown with the British intern. If you carry your gun outside of your home, you will be a criminal. What right would you sue for then?

Posted by: Keon | June 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Come on home my brethren!

John Smallberries
DC Council AT LARGE Candidate

Posted by: John Smallberries Esq., Republican Candidate, AT LARGE | June 26, 2008 10:46 AM

------------------

Is your name really "Smallberries?" Wow, I bet you got made fun of a LOT. That sucks. Must be why you feel the need to put "Esq." after your name, despite the fact that "esquire" is not an official title. Tool.

Posted by: D | June 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Bob,
It's fine that you wish the US would fade into obscurity. Are you European? Guess what, since you guys have always needed us to defend you, what are you doing now that Russia is rearming? Is France going to stop the Russian someday? Or will they all become collaborators again? I hope we dont rescue you this time. The world loves to criticize the US until you need us for help. Fine, if you dont need us. We'll keep our guns over here and you can fight off invaders with your wine and cheese.

Posted by: To Bob | June 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

mike

You NW guys have it made. Try waiting 45min for metro to show up.

Posted by: Ward 6 Guy | June 26, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Really, it is silly for law abiding citizens NOT to be armed. As a DC kid who grew up in the 80s, I remember, sadly, the crack wars and loads of collateral damage that came from them.

As now, an Ohio resident, I am so thankful that not only may I have as many guns in my home as I can afford (just 2 for now) but I can also carry concealed. Being a law abiding citizen who is well trained in fire arm use and who is a lawyer, I strongly believe that the citizenry be able to protect itself in the home AND on the streets.


Posted by: DC Kid from the 80s | June 26, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Ive waited for this day since I was a little boy, I cant belive its finaly here. I think im going to donate more money to the NRA because they will need it for all of the law suits to come. This is a great day in America!

Posted by: Jason | June 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

The large majority of DC residents favor a gun ban, and I'll venture to guess that most of you posting here who are in favor of guns do not live in the district. All we want is the right to govern our own city - something the Supreme Court ignored this morning. If they had (and if this decision wasn't about putting money into the pockets of the gun lobby), then the vote would have been 5-4 in favor of the gun ban.

Posted by: I live in DC and I hate guns | June 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Since the court has upheld the second amendment, it matters little if you disagree.

However, to resolve any ambiguity that might linger in your mind on the interpretation of the text, I provide the following quotes by some of the founding fathers who wrote the document.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Commenting on the second amendment, John Adam wrote:

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." (John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763, reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 [Charles F. Adams ed., 1851])

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

- Patrick Henry

"...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Dozens more are here. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

The only question remaining is why the dissenting justices ignored the clear intention of the writers.

Intellectually honest second amendment opponents must now recognize the right of the people to bear arms and understand that infringing those rights is also unconstitutional.

BTW, Nickels has no authority to dictate the number of guns people may own. Hasn't he learned anything from this decision?

Posted by: Shack | June 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey Ward 6 Guy
I really feel for you. but whether it is ward 6 or NW you, me, no one is safe.

about that metro situation, they need to do a much better job your way. I smell descrimination and it really stinks.

hang in there bro,
mike

Posted by: mike | June 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Is it not amazing 4 low-life scumbag judges don't feel we have a right to protect our own homes even though the 2nd ammendment couldn't be clearer.

What idiots!!

Has that pig ginsburg ever ruled favorably on any issue where common sense dictates the answer?

When are they going to remove that idiot from the bench?

Yesterday she ruled against giving a 300 pound savage the death penalty who brutually raped an 8 year old girl, scaring her for life.

Posted by: Chevy | June 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I love all of these posts from people who don't live in the district or who lived here in the '80s. It shows how completely outdated you are.

Posted by: No one cares about your opinions | June 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Joseph Bleaux,

Yes, gun ownership is legal, but where does the ruling state gun owners have the right to act irresponsibly? When I lived in VA, I planned on buying a safe to store my loaded weapon (not a lock and key one, but one that could be opened in seconds with the right button press combination).

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Dear Hank: It's people like you who give comfort to all of the David Koreshs, Ted Kozinskis, and Timothy McVeighs out there, and who keep the Secret Service in business. Libertarians are anti-government until they need a stadium built (or some other "earmark") at taxpayer expense.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Shack,
All those quotes came from a time when there was no electricity. There was slavery and people rode around on horses. Get with the times, kid.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I have to quote this to help end the militia arguement.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Commenting on the second amendment, John Adam wrote:

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." (John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763, reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 [Charles F. Adams ed., 1851])"

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I worked in DC and in London as club security. Great Britain has a full weapons ban.

I saw more guns in London in three years than I did in DC in six years. Criminals, by definition, will break laws and have guns to gain an advantage. It is time for that advantage to be minimized.

I now live in Texas where guns are a part of the social fabric and I feel much, much safer than I ever did in DC or London.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

All gun owners, similar to automobile or motorcycle owners, should be required to carry a significant liability insurance policy to cover use (or misuse) of their weapons.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Can we now use guns to defend our homes against the FBI, NSA, etc? Or only against non-state criminals? I'm much more concerned about protecting my liberty than my stereo system.

Posted by: Liberty USA | June 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

If you take the time to analyze the ban and not just react out of some gut feeling, you'll find the ban had no affect on homicides in DC. 143 last year. 135 in 1976, the year the ban went into affect. If you look at places that have "on demand" concealed carry permits you'll see they haven't increase homicides. Whether honest citizens have the ability to own and carry a weapon has no impact on the criminals who will own and carry. The only difference is you might be able to protect yourself or someone you love if you have the right. The Supreme Court did the correct thing. The majority opinion was decidedly on the mark. They do not have to right to rule the Second Amendment void.

Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I'd always believed that when guns are outlawed, only Republicans will have guns. I no longer have to live with that fear.

Posted by: Armed Liberal Democrat | June 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Liberty USA - shoot a cop, win a needle.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp | June 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

How is it that we have to come to this before the liberals understand that we the people have rights. One of those rights is to own guns, wow, and now the very place where it is supposed to be upheld is forced to commply.

Maybe just maybe that is why you have "0" representation in congress, ignorance should not be allowed to vote!

Posted by: Kadius | June 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

@ anonymous

It doesn't matter that there was no electricity and slavery, those men are some of the brightest minds that ever walked the planet. Nobody writes or thinks or speaks like they do anymore, and the entire country is based on their idea of government.

If you don't like that then this isn't the country for you.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Now I can go register my gun Legally. Protecting my House and family is not an Option. Law or no Law there were going to be protected it about it

Posted by: Eric | June 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't get why the liberals are so upset.

Do you actually think that it will be possible to get your gun registered in DC. You cant get your car registered in a timely fashion here.

As long as these "let the criminal win" advocates keep getting elected, DC will be an unsafe place to live in. I'll remain happily in VA.

Posted by: Luis | June 26, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with the right-wing fanatics in almost all their other views. However, I think the individual and the population in general have the right to self-protection, both against bad individuals and bad government. So, from a practical standpoint, the Second Amendment makes sense still today - and probably will make sense forever.

This is, admittedly, an enourmously over-simplified statement. But the general idea I am trying to convey is that the Second Amendment still makes sense today, and probably will make sense forever. That was a good decision.

Posted by: Balance | June 26, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse


"The right to self-defense is immutable."

It's not a right if it can be taken away.

I see D.C. is getting ready to enact reluctant compliance with the Supreme Court's decision, making owning a gun as painful and inconvenient as possible.

Keeping a gun unloaded or locked IS WORSE THAN NOT HAVING A GUN. When you need a gun you need it ten minutes ago.

D.C. blames inanimate objects for the dubious honor of having one of the worst, most incompetent and corrupt police force in the country, which despite the almost absolute ban in handguns has allowed the city to be the murder capital of the world more often than not.

People for the ban should have the decency to show that it produces some good result. And at least recognize that this has not been the case.

Some ban.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"Activist court overturns 100 years of Constitutional interpretation of 2nd Amendment"
Conservatives always are complaining about "activist judges" who re-interpret the law in ways they don't agree with. For the past 100 years or so, the Court has interpreted the right to bear arms as a collective right associated with state-run militias. Now this court changes that, but conservatives not are complaining. I guess an "activist judge" is one whose decisions I disagree with!

Now we know...

Posted by: bobs | June 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Never fear the gun, only the owner. I fear the cops more than the robbers. If someone wants to kill you, you will die. We have plenty of weapons; Bow and Arrow, Pocket Knife, Sling Shot, club, and so on. If our liberal society would relize that the Bible and its teachings are for the betterment of society, and that a strong family with Christan family values would calm society down. However as long as people think it is alright to have recreational sex with no thought of the children that will come from that party, we will have a society against its self.
I have owned guns my entire life (70 years old) and have taught all of my children how to safely handle and use a gun. I am against killing of anything; however, since parents don't raise their children (to respect life) the way I raised mine, I must be able to protect my family. I hear that the job of the police is to serve and protect, how would they do that?? Ask them to come and protect you, there first question is; has a crime been committed? If not then it is not in their job discription to protect, only to investigate and arrest. So there you go!

Posted by: marvin | June 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

bobs - "For the past 100 years or so, the Court has interpreted the right to bear arms as a collective right associated with state-run militias."

This is factually incorrect.

You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to create your facts.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp | June 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Not all liberals are anti-gun. I am a liberal and I agree with the ruling. I just wish all you right wing whack jobs were as concerned about other Constitutional rights, like the right to not be subjected to warrantless searches, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process and a host of other Constitutional rights GWB and his band of thugs have violated in the past seven years.

Posted by: errol | June 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I thought it was kind of silly that all the criminals in DC had guns, anyway. Guns don't kill people. People do.

Posted by: Fred | June 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

THE NRA just redefined the DC fireworks celebration! Now if we can only escalate the price of ammunition and gas high enough in DC, we'll be able to eliminate drive-by shootings altogether!

Food for thought

Posted by: Diplomatztatus | June 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment as long as the rules keep to the technology available at the time the Amendment was enacted.

Meaning citizens may own guns as long as they are muzzle loaders. They also have the right to bear pikes and sabers.

When the Amendment was created I don't think that in their wildest dreams they imagined the availability of the type of weapons available today.

Posted by: Sparky | June 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Questions of honor were once settled with pistols at 50 paces. That was an absolutely legal, thoroughly American way of solving disputes. Perhaps the 5 justices in the majority want to return America to those halcyon days (whereupon, of course, Uncle Clarence Thomas would have to remove himself from that august body).

Posted by: John Van Horn | June 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

How is it that we have to come to this before the liberals understand that we the people have rights. One of those rights is to own guns, wow, and now the very place where it is supposed to be upheld is forced to commply.

Maybe just maybe that is why you have "0" representation in congress, ignorance should not be allowed to vote!

Posted by: Kadius | June 26, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The ruling proves, among other things, that Interim Attorney General Nickles is not fit for his job -- unless you consider pandering to his boss a qualification.

It is the duty of the Attorney General (or in most places "City Attorney") to exercise independent legal judgment, without so much as a whiff of a consideration as to what his boss might want. In other words, a city's chief attorney is supposed to have the integrity to do what is right under the law.

And, the first law that has to be obeyed is the U.S. Constitution.

But, Mr. Nickles doesn't care about the U.S. Constitution. All he cares about is supplicating himself before his Master, Mayor Fenty and doing HIS bidding.

Oh, Mr. Nickles talks tough, runs roughshod over his junior and generally makes a mockery of any attempt of his subordinates to show some personal integrity in how they conduct their jobs.

He's really an unprincipled, easily bought, bully-only-when-he's-got-a-club, kind of guy. No integrity. No ability to stand and look squarely at the D.C. gun laws and say "They're unconstitutional".

D.C. needs an Attorney General with personal integrity, not a penchant for personal aggrandizement.

Posted by: Nick | June 26, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I am sure that all the felons, drug dealers, hop heads, criminals, murderers, robbers, thugs, burglars, rapists and so on will abide by the new law.
Gag me with a spoon!

Posted by: Steve G. | June 26, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"Someone wrote:

Does this mean that if I have a gun already registered in another state, it is considered registered in DC (full faith and credit?) And since a car is considered an extension of the home; can I carry that gun in my car? Can I do this today?"

Why, absolutely! Any handgun you have registered in another state is covered by "full faith and credit". This attempt to force a registration of _all_ handguns, including those registered in another state, is clearly unconstitutional. However, persons buying guns in the District may be required to register that handgun, in the same way that they would be required to register in another state.

As for carrying a handgun in your vehicle, see the laws of such places as Texas at the time when it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon but perfectly legal to openly carry a weapon. Thus, a reasonable measure would be the so-called "rifle rack rationale". If the officer can see your weapon at the time s/he approaches, they can approach with all due caution and can make no claim that "you suddenly displayed a weapon and so they blew you right out of your socks as they were trained to do".

As for requiring a test before ownership, that is still trying to restrict the exercise of an absolute right. They just won't quit. It's just the same as when they tried to require literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting in the Deep South in the 1950s. They used to hand papers written in Chinese to black voters and demand that they read it. The correct response from most people they tried that on was to say "it says that this is one black man that ain't gettin' to vote in Mississippi today". This is the same thing. And I think it's a damn shame.

As to the person quoting numbers, they seem to have forgotten that in 1986 or so, over 400 killings in one year made the District "the nation's Murder Capital". Add to that figure the roughly five times the number who were non-fatally shot, and that meant that about one in 15 in the District in that year were personally and directly affected by handgun violence, despite the nation's most strict ban.

I used to see people up at Clifton Terrace waving around their Uzis and the only reason they stopped was because someone inside shouted out "chill out with that sh*t baybee, I got you dead in my sights". And the Uzi would go back under the coat and that, my friends, is a good example of how home ownership of firearms is how you keep the peace in the streets.

Thank you, Supreme Court.

Posted by: klaatu | June 26, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Some of you people sound so dumb. Most of the violent crime takes place on the streets. Usually, between thugs who know each other. What good is your gun sitting in your house if you get accosted on the streets? And you can forget about a carry concealed law coming out of the city council down the road.

Posted by: commonsenseman | June 26, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

@ marvin

this is not a moral or religious discussion, please don't try to turn it into one - we are trying to have a rational conversation.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

@ Sparky


If we had those weapons from 200 years ago, muzzle loaders, etc...

How would we overthrow a tyrannical government? You need the same weapons they have, or on par with them.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

So... I can keep a hand gun in my house, but can not take it out of the building or into another building. What if I want to go to the range and fire my weapon so I can be familiar with it's use? Also, with shotguns... I must keep it unloaded and with a trigger lock, except in the case of home defense??? Is the bad guy going to wait while I unlock and load before he/she starts stealing my furnishings??? And you want to have the right to representatives voting in Congress... Give me a break... you deserve what you have and if you wish to live with it don't complain.

Posted by: Icediver | June 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I hate this stupid country and it's gun totin lunatic majority.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

If you combine the populations of Canada, Australia, U.K, Japan and France (who all ban hand guns) you have a population greater to that of the U.S.

In 2001 there were 4196 gun deaths in those countries combined, compared with 30780 in the U.S (who uphold the rights of gun owners).

The Supreme Court just made it more likely that this number will be even higher in 2008.


Posted by: Someone mentioned facts.... | June 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"All those quotes came from a time when there was no electricity. There was slavery and people rode around on horses. Get with the times, kid."

Typical, illogical, non-sequitor that fails to address either the facts or the argument.

The culture of the time, current crime rates, potentiall tragedy have nothing to do with the framers intention nor the constitutionality of the D.C. law.

What do you propose? Tossing out the constitution and loading the court
with idelogues that support your position(s)?

That would rededuce the constituation to so much toilet paper. But of course, you wouldn't be alone. Many here don't appear to really care about the constitutionality of the issue.

BTW, name calling, e.g,, kid, is a sign of moral and intellectual weakness.

Posted by: Shack | June 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Come visit Arlington. We have Wild West shoot-outs every day.

Stupid liberals.

Posted by: DCisforCriminals | June 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

To Larry @ 11:39AM

Prior to Florida's passage of a concealed handgun law in 1987, the crime rate was a whopping 36% above the national average. But within four years of passing a concealed carry law, Floridians saw their crime rate plummet to 4% below the national average, according to David Kopel.

In More Guns, Less Crime (1998), the University of Chicago's John Lott examined the impact of concealed carry permits. Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, he found that after controlling for other factors:

Concealed handgun laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new laws to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

The British government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%.[3] According to the International Crime Victimization Survey, the violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the U.S.[4] A figure published in the Economist Magazine in January , 2004 clearly illustrates how armed robberies were changing in Britain before and after their January 1997 handgun ban. Prior to the ban, armed robberies were falling dramatically. After the ban, armed robberies stopped falling and started rising.

Just a few examples.

Posted by: Jim | June 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe; and preserve order in the world as well as property---- Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them"

Posted by: hankomatic | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the unattributed (you didn't provide a name) reply to my comment regarding kids shooting other kids etc. reflects the reality that many gun owners (not you, maybe) are careless with how they secure guns. When your kid visits a friend's house, do you always know that the friend's father has been as diligent as you in securing his firearms?

And the unattributed (you didn't provide a name) reply to my comment regarding amending the Constitution ignores the fact that the Constitution has been amended 27 times, including, (arguably) all of the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment changes or clarifies exactly WHO is protected by the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Joseph Bleaux | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

responding to
Dear Hank: It's people like you who give comfort to all of the David Koreshs, Ted Kozinskis, and Timothy McVeighs out there, and who keep the Secret Service in business. Libertarians are anti-government until they need a stadium built (or some other "earmark") at taxpayer expense.

I am not anti government, I am anti totalitarian government. I am anti non representative government. Government is necessary and vital, but it has to be a responsive and representative government. What we have now is fascism, that is a govenment that caters to corporations and the extremely wealthy at the expense of the majority of the electorate. This administration, with the help of almost everyone in congress, has done NOTHING good for the people of america. Everything is worse now than it was 7 years ago, unless you are one of the corporations that have profited by the manufactured war on terrorism.

People like you, whoever you are since you didn't have the courage to give your name, are a comfort to the people in power, by assuming you know what people think, and trying to paint true patriots that believe in the constitution and the rule of law, as fringe loonies. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Hank | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

And again the US Supreme Court gives the
Liberal Democrat Gun Grabbing Control Freaks like Barack Hussein Obama a painful
defeat and upholds the Citizen's 2d Amendment Rights to Own and Bear Arms! Good
for our High Court! And I hope the voters
will remember that Liberal Loser Obama's
remarks about how "Small Town Americans
Cling to Their Guns and Religion" come
election day 2008! Since Obama had just
slipped up and told us of his Personal
Anti-Gun Owner Agenda! Vote No To That
Gun Grabber Phony Barack Hussein Obama!
Because if Muslim Extremist Marxist Obama
and Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and Harry
Reid and Howard Dean get in power,watch
out as they will try to take your guns!
Just Say NO Barack Obama! NOBAMA!

Posted by: Sandy5274 | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

To CWK - do you mean to imply that it's my fault that there are robbers, because I possess things someone else might want to steal? By your logic, we should all have nothing, so as to not tempt each other into breaking the law. I choose to have things, things that I acquired through my own honest efforts, and I choose to defend myself and my things against those who would try to harm me or take my property.

Posted by: Tarheel Gunner | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I would much rather hang out with responsible adults who own guns than with those who dont.

Gun owners typically are better versed in laws and common sense than one would think!

Also, if they forbid guns to be loaded and ready to go, there is no sense in even owning one since it is now classified as a paperweight...

Posted by: TruthHurts | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The point of the D.C. handgun ban was not prohibit handguns from the law-abiding. The point was that it was a prosecutorial tool. Now that that police and prosecutors are stripped of the ability to prosecute criminals who have handguns, there will be far more people committing crimes for which they will not serve time. The easiest charge on which to prosecute someone was on whether or not they had a handgun. The U.S. Supreme Court removed that weapon from the prosecutor's arsenal. Not understanding this key point is precisely how defenders of their so-called 2nd amendment right to bear arms can tolerate this ruling. I used to live in D.C. and even worked in the criminal justice system. I'm sorry for you that still live there-- particularly in crime-ridden neighborhoods. As usual, the rich white folks will not be that affected. (In the interest of disclosure, I am white and would be middle class in D.C.)

Posted by: smack | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

some unthinking knee-jerk wack job writes:

"I GUESS YOU REDNECKS WILL BE PARADING AROUND DUPONT CIRCLE WAVING THE CONFEDERATE FLAGS WEARING THE LATEST IN CAMO PRINT PUMPS NOW HUH?"

well, i'm gay, not white, not a redneck, and i'm a law-abiding citizen who lives in the dupont circle neighborhood, and i hate the failed dc gun "ban" that ensured only thugs had guns. now we can change that equation so the moronic SAVAGES that prey upon us may just have to think twice before they plunder, rape and pillage.

Posted by: deeahntay mjumbi | June 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

CWK writes: "Congratulations, NRA. Now DC criminals can have something else to break into peoples' houses to steal: handguns."

CWK - I can't wait til one of the MFs tries it in my house. I'll be there to greet him - and this time I'll have a fighting chance to finish his business and ensures he doesn't have the chance to harm you and yours, either.

Posted by: TJ Roentgen | June 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

As a committed leftist, I welcome this decision. Part of the rationale behind the Second Amendment was to allow a citizen to protect himself from a hostile government.

How do you self-professed conservatives like your "activist judges" now? It's OK when it works in your favor, huh?

Posted by: smdunkel2 | June 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I have a message for all you criminals out there. I am against handgun violence, so don't make me shoot you.

We're still a long way off from any court interpreting the Heller decision to mean that a CCW permit is also a constitutional right, so don't anyone run out into the streets packing a concealed weapon yet.

I live in downtown Oakland, Calforna (sorry, somebody stole the "i" as _ was typing this), and I must say, I don't go outside at night. Even though I can have a handgun in my home, once I step outside, I am at the mercy of the street thugs and maniacs that plague this city. So for now, I am still a prisoner in my own home in the nighttime. So I can't wait until the cases for CCW permits start clogging the courts. Can anyone tell me where there is a conservative judge in Oakland? Anyone? Please?

Posted by: ToArms | June 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court has some explaining to do. The DC government can't ban hadgun ownership for public safety reasons, but States can still deny the mentally ill, and felons from owning guns for public safety reasons? How do they reconcile that? Doesn't each State get to determine which issue is a public safety concern for that State? Is the Supreme Court saying that an individual has an absolute right to own guns? Justice Scalia seems to think the majority can have it both ways. This ruling wasn't a win for the American people because more people will die because of it. The majority of people who support this ruling don't even live in DC. The NRA and gun dealers will applaud this ruling because they arm themselves to protect themselves from themselves. This ruling will start a massive purchase of weapons across America because everyone will fear everyone else. All I can say, is I hope America is ready for the lawsuits and the coffins

Posted by: phillynick | June 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Two weeks ago Scalia attempted to give the administration unlimited surveillance rights based on the reasoning that people would die without such surveillance. How f*ing disingenuous. Scalia's decisions often lead to more people dying and this is just another example.

Posted by: where's the militia? | June 26, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

NOW...we must have SCOTUS concur with the true meaning of: "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The "FRINGE" of something is it's outer boundary. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means the government may not go "IN" the "FRINGE". It is OFF LIMITS! In other words, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be touched...the government simply may not penetrate the second amendment without violating it. Find a fifteenth century dictionary and study the roots of the word INFRINGE. You will concur.

Posted by: E T ARNOLD | June 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

@ Chris 10:41 AM who bloviated:

"As far as representation in Congress, the founding fathers said only a state may have representation in Congress. When DC becomes a state, then I shall be completely for them having representation. Otherwise, DC is analogous to Puerto Rico as far as their rights go - it's just a territory. If DC got representation, then ALL of our territories would have to get representation, as well."

The difference is that Puerto Ricans don't pay federal taxes. It's what "Taxation Without Representation" means.

Idiot.

Posted by: pfish | June 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Steve G writes: "I am sure that all the felons, drug dealers, hop heads, criminals, murderers, robbers, thugs, burglars, rapists and so on will abide by the new law.
Gag me with a spoon!"

Where U Been, Bro? They already have guns. It's the rest of us citizens - formerly called "victims in waiting" - who now have the right to meaningfully defend ourselves.

Posted by: deeahntay mjumbi | June 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The justices got it just right. About time YAY!!

Posted by: Rachel Trout | June 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad the idiots out there ignore the first part of the Second Amendement: "A well regulated Militia". Some homeowner with a gun is not that.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | June 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"I hate this stupid country and it's gun totin lunatic majority."

MOVE. Please.

Posted by: Randy | June 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

A person asked on yesterday blog:

"Would someone please (a pro-gun person please) comment on the lower violent crime rates in european countries which have gun control, and what we should tell the numerous parents of innocent 3 year old children who have been through years of excruciating pain or death caused by folks exercising their 2nd amm rights?"

I'll comment, because I am a pro-gun democrat and pro-choice across the board.

Europe does not have universally lower violent crime rates. According to FBI Handbook of Crime stats, you are actually more likely to be violently assaulted in most parts of London than in New York City. Where violent assaults happen, however, firearms ownership tends to result in greater lethality. There is some evidence on a state by state, county by county comparison in the US that permissive firearms rules correlate with lower violent crime rates in general, but of course poverty is the cofactor that both sides of the firearms debate rarely consider. The plain fact is that where urban poverty is greater, criminal activity is greater, and violence is greater. This seems to be the common factord between violence in America's large cities and in Europe's large cities.

Interestingly, European capitols where firearms laws are permissive have the lowest violent crime rates in Europe.

As to your comment vis a vis 3 year olds, very few innocent children are shot in the US in any given year. Most victims of gunshot wounds inside the US are criminals who are shot while committing a crime, typically by some other criminal, and sometimes by people exercising self-defense. In point of fact, your average three year old has a far far greater statistical chance of being killed in an automobile crash than by a firearm. So if the issue is curbing street carnage, your priorities would be better served by banning automobiles than firearms.

Of course, such bans would be absurd. The point is that we all have civil rights, and firearms ownership is a very important civil right. There remain laws against idiotic conduct with a firearm, and people who break those laws can be prosecuted. Thus, as one can be prosecuted for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater if such event can be reasonably construed as likely to cause injury, despite the First Amendment, so too a person who just starts shooting up the street can be prosecuted, despite the 2nd Amendment.

In the end, it's the conduct that matters. The overwhelming majority of legal firarms owners are law abiding citizens who never shoot anyone and are never shot by anyone. If you want to mitigate urban violence, you need to address poverty, substance abuse, and criminal activity, not firearms ownership, because it is those first three that are the risk factors for violence in our society.


Posted by: Mike in AZ | June 26, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's all start shooting and killing.

Posted by: Stick a barrel down your throat | June 26, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

DC will make it so will need a note from GOD to register a hand gun.
Every thing from FBI, home land and credit check.So don't start packing yet

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I cannot wait to buy my gun!! At least now I will be able to defend myself against this Republican administration!!

Posted by: DC boy | June 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

...to break in. I will then take my 9 MM and put a cap in yer azz. Taste the 2nd Amend. Tastes good, don't it?

Posted by: Waiting at home for you... | June 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

This decision is insignificant. I need to arm myself to protect myself against government tyranny, and a single, registered handgun is not going to overthrow the U.S. government backed by the mightiest military in the world.

The citizens need the unchallenged right to arm themselves to the teeth: assault weapons, tanks, nuclear devices. Heck, the landmine treaty might limit the federal government but by the Constitution it cannot infringe on my rights.

Posted by: Marko | June 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Now that it is clear we can have loaded guns (unloaded is the same as "no gun"), grasp this: thieves and burglarers have to fear that homeowners will be armed and dangerous.
Thieves are likely to get their heads blown off.
Consider this: if you are going to buy a gun, get training, and go to a shooting range to get practice. Respect that implement else it may kill you.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

To the people who think that there are not laws on the books about using a gun to commit a crime. There are Federal laws that INCREASE the penalties' if one uses a gun to commit a crime. I'm not 100% certain but I think these laws add about ten years to your prison sentence. So if you are going to use a gun to commit a crime, you will do the added time.

Posted by: Chas. | June 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I look at it this way...

This country has a-
"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" - right?

What happens when the leadership of that government forgets about the people? Are we supposed to roll up our copy of the constitution and beat the leaders over the head with it until they start listening to the people again?

NO!!!! Our founding fathers knew that the constitution is nothing but ink on paper without giving the people some way to keep the leadership in control under that constitution.

The leadership of our government works for us - we don't work for them. Too many people have forgotten this - both in the leadership and in the voting booth. The constitution does not tell the people what they can do, but rather, it tells the government what is is NOT allowed to do. These are points that many have forgotten, and points that many of our leaders want you to forget.

Posted by: BK | June 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I can't figure out why there even is a second amendment. It was a different time -- frontier on one side, British on the other. There was war on our soil. The amendment doesn't belong in civil society.

Posted by: webg | June 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Dear Hank: I DID give my name, as I did with this message. I DO respect the rule of law and the Constitution, but feel that it should be clear and rational. YOU are the one who suggested that we need guns so that we can conduct a violent overthrow of a government (or administration) with which we disagree. That's not democracy, that's anarchy. Democracy is working within the laws/Constitution to pursue changing a law/Constitution with which we disagree.

BTW: if you noticed, at the end of my original post, I wrote "VOTE DEMOCRAT" - I'm not a Bush supporter. He's the one, along with his Supreme Court appointees, who got us into this mess. The current government has done more to erode our rights under the Constitution than could possibly be achieved by amendment, but that doesn't mean I want everyone to have guns so we can overthrow the government.

Posted by: Joseph Bleaux | June 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Now that it is clear we can have loaded guns (unloaded is the same as "no gun"), grasp this: thieves and burglarers have to fear that homeowners will be armed and dangerous.
Thieves are likely to get their heads blown off.
Consider this: if you are going to buy a gun, get training, and go to a shooting range to get practice. Respect that implement else it may kill you.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I GUESS YOU REDNECKS WILL BE PARADING AROUND DUPONT CIRCLE WAVING THE CONFEDERATE FLAGS


Yep

Posted by: bryan2369 | June 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"

You guys have been the murder capital for quite some time - even with a handgun ban in place.


Posted by: Watching from afar... | June 26, 2008 11:49 AM "

You sound like a stupid troll. New Orleans? Detroit? Ever heard of them? Look up the latest stats.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Guns must be kept unloaded except in case of self-defense, eh? So you'll be using them as clubs, then?

Posted by: Bill Mosby | June 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Just keep this day in mind (and all of the left-wing cry baby quotes herein) after Obama loses the election - - BIG TIME!

You left-wing nut jobs have truly lost touch with reality.

Maybe now some of us that were forced to move out of the city because of the unconstitutional gun ban will decide to return...

GOD BLESS THE SUPREME COURT!

Posted by: Aaron Burr | June 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse


Justice Scalia's comments on the rationales presented by the District's lawyers are scathing.

For example:

[ ... ]
But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and
the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for
military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the
purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms
in the militia for the purpose of killing game"
is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
qualifying phrases positively establish that "to bear arms" is not limited to military use.
[ ... ]

----

If that's the basis of their argument, and the argument is insane, one reasonably thus presumes that anyone making the argument is also insane, or at least more than a trifle disingenuous.

Posted by: klaatu | June 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The most troubling thing that comes to mind when I read all these posts is the shear breadth of the right and left with the comments. The average person wanting to protect their home will not be unsafe with their firearm and doesn't want to be a vigilante, or criminal and walk into your corner Starbucks shooting. Firearms need to be respected and I can tell that the ones that are completely against it have never owned, shot, or respected what they can do. The firearm is only as dangerous as the person holding it. I have hunted all of my life; however, I can humbly say I have never had the urge to shoot anyone. I have guns in my house... so does that make my house more of a target for people to steal them... I think not. Sensible laws are needed for sensible people and it's unfortunate that so many people fly to the right or left with issues. Or use their rights for the wrong reasons. Besides if you really want a firearm in any part of the world with enough money you can get anything. Stop being a quack get back to your roots, go to church, mosque, temple reconnect with your community and stop being a recluse and so many things in this country would heal themselves.

Posted by: FRMR PA Resident | June 26, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being Armed possess over the people of almost every other nation....where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms"

Posted by: hankomatic | June 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I am reading these comments and I am extremely concerned.

First I have a couple of questions:
1. Where/How were you people raised?
2. Why are you so angry?

Now here is my comment. I think that the right to bear arms to protect one's property is a great thing, which is what the overruling of the ban entails. Don't think that this is some free for all to carry a gun on your person and just shoot people who you feel are threatening.

THIS IS NOT NYC AND YOU ARE NOT BERNARD GEOTZ!!!!!!

Keep in mind as many of you have stated, that the criminals already have guns. Don't think that just because you have the right to have a gun leagally gives you the right to take the law into your own hands. I really would like to know how many of you are D.C. residents that live in the real "crime infested" neigborhoods. Also, if the police can't stop the violence, what makes you think that you can. The police already have guns DUH!

Posted by: Hill East Resident | June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Year after year DC proves it isn't the legal gun owners who are the problem, it's the thugs and druggies. Other municipalities, like Kennesaw, GA, prove year after year that gun violence decreases when law-abiding citizens are encouraged to own a gun for self defense in their homes. The Mayor's response: make gun owners go through as many hoops as possible, including telling good citizens they can only posess one gun. That will be challenged and overturned too. I love DC, but it's time the city government stopped playing PR games with gun ownership. The problem is the criminals, plain and simple.

Posted by: JHG_sec405 | June 26, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

This is Liability 101.

I think the ruling made clear, that you can own a gun; but you also carry a far greater liability, when you improperly use it.
Kids finding the gun, and playing with it..is no longer an 'accident'.

Posted by: Goof Ticket | June 26, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Gee,I wonder how many kids will die as a result of this ruling, how many of them know that there days are numbered.

Posted by: BANITAP | June 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Its funny to see all these anti-self defense people blaming this on Bush somehow. Now I don't like Bush, but the Bush administration filed an amicus brief against an individual rights interpretation. This ruling does very little to change the gun situation in the USA. It basically affirms the right of an individual who has not been determined by the courts to be mentally ill, and has not been convicted of a felony, to own some sort of firearm, handguns included, to keep loaded in their home, subject to registration and licensing. This ruling may prevent a locale from enacting an all out ban on firearm ownership in writing, but it leaves the door wide open for restrictions, including those designed to intimidate such as forced fingerprinting and dealing with resentful and suspicious police officers to apply for a license.

Posted by: Matt | June 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Goof Ticket -- you and I are on the same wave length!!

Posted by: BANITAP | June 26, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame that it took this long for the Court to reject the clearly unconstitutional DC handgun ban.

The police cannot be relied upon to protect me from predators. I rely on my dogs and my Glock.

Posted by: Kreplakistan | June 26, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

People have the right to have guns for their protection, if the fenty administration tries to take it from you, vote him out, stop going mindless when you see the (d) next to the name...vote anyone out that won't let you protect yourselves...

Posted by: Dwight | June 26, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

As a resident of the territory of DC, I would much rather not have to pay federal taxes (like Puerto Rico) than have congressional members. Why doesn't anyone ever advocate for DC residents not paying federal taxes?

Posted by: NWDC | June 26, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

To all the yuppies who wish to join the frey of walking the streets with guns. Ever ask yourself why are there so many murders in this area. They are not being committed by the same people that break in homes. So remember when you shoot that thug you become a thug and a target of all of his homies and family for retaliation. Now the drive by's will be for you and not little ray ray who lives near you. I guess when you and the wife and kids go for a stroll on a nice sunday the thug you shot family and friends will just let you walk on by. I hope you wanna be gun tot'n yuppies have crew to fight their crew because you one gun will not match up. Maybe they can pass a law saying you can legally have a yuppie gang to gang bang against the crew of the thug you shot.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Someone who's ashamed to give his name said, "And if we need them for self-defense, that makes it clear that the police can't protect us and we're all supposed to become vigilantes. That's great. I'm moving to Montana".

Hate to tell you, fella, but it's quite clear that the police can NOT protect you, and furthermore that they have no legal obligation to do so. Their job is to catch crooks AFTER the crime, thus "protecting" society as a whole. Protecting YOU is YOUR responsibility. Some people who have money (including some prominent anti-gun activists) hire armed bodyguards. For the rest of us, we carry a legal weapon.

Oh, by the way, if you think DC gun laws will be too lax, I'd strongly suggest that you NOT move to Montana, which has much looser control. Maybe next time you should check the facts before you spout off.

Posted by: Roy B. Scherer | June 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me that DC criminals have been served notice that it will soon be a bad time to be a bad guy in DC.

Wonder if we'll see a rush of home-invasion type robberies as the criminals try a last ditch spree before their victims get the means to start fighting back.

Posted by: Andrew | June 26, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

So now we can expect a raft of stories about bad guys shot and killed/wounded while trying to invade the home of a DC resident - right? Hmmm, one wonders. By any chance will there be stories about residents such as children shot by "defense" guns inadvertently? A great day for the Scalias and Cheneys of the world. A sad day for the rest of us. George Bush has had an amazing effect on the USA in a mere eight years!

Posted by: David A. Jewell | June 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Now gangs, muggers, rapists and thieves can't look at us and our homes as easy targets any longer. Like EVERY other area in history that has removed gun control restrictions, we will see an almost immediate drop in crime. It's a rare day that we get to enjoy the government returning some our rights back to us. Let's hope it lasts for a while.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The only difference now is that law abiding citizens will be able to protect themselves. Criminals who rob and murder didn't care about the dc ban anyway. Criminals dont' care about the law, that is why they are crimianls. Persons who wish to protect their homes and business will have a fighting chance. Police do their best but they can't be everwhere all the time. Gun bans and restrictions always sound good, but really only hurt law abiding citizens. It gives polticans something to make noise about so voters think they are doing something. If you want to reduce crime I think time and energy would be better spent on education, jobs, and drug treatment.

And or those of you who don't think the 2nd amendment has a place in modern times, look at New Orleans and the gulf area after Katrina. Heaven forbid another major disaster on the same or larger scale was to happen . You think the goverment is going to protect you. They can't provide bottled water and food to its own citizens, let alone protect you from criminals in that situation. IMO :-)

Posted by: Eric K. | June 26, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

One thing about shooting a perp... it practically stops repeat offenders.

Posted by: Wristtwister | June 26, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The law was overturned so why are gun advocates still arguing about the law? Why are you venting about Fenty? It no longer in his control. The law was struck down. Be happy and move on. Some of you just like to read your own words. You will went and argue about anything. Even when the issue is resolved you still argue over it. Find a new cause to vent about. This one is a done deal. There is always abortion. Its still legal in DC.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Concerning a statement made today in the NYTimes:

"... U.S. v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service."

I know that such weapons ARE used in the military. Could this mean that U.S. vrs Miller will be reversed?

Posted by: tkjtkj | June 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris in AZ: Nice try with your transparent attempt to diffuse the reality of the statistics that clearly show that the USA has a gun-related death rate that is twice that of any other country by talking about rates of "violent crime". The debate is about GUN-RELATED deaths, specifically. Of course urban poverty is a factor in violent crime statistics, but more liberal gun laws in the USA make firearms the weapons of choice for those who want to commit violent crimes.

Also, your comment about the "insignificant" (my word, not yours) number of children who are killed with firearms (as compared to those of criminals) is kind of cold. I doubt that the families of the kids killed at the Amish school in Pennsylvania, or at Columbine or Virginia Tech, or the others listed at: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html would take much comfort in your assessment. As a parent, I would argue that if tighter gun control would prevent the senseless death of even one child, it would be worthwhile.

Posted by: Joseph Bleaux | June 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

It IS a great time to be a bad guy in DC -- look at the republican criminals. The Democratic 'opposition' in congress won't do anything to stop those gangsters and I'm afraid all the guns in the country won't either.

Posted by: DC resident | June 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

1) I think all the folks who are predicting that crime will drop dramatically, and all the people who are predicting an explosion of crime, are talking out of your asses. We don't have enough evidence to predict what will happen in a place like D.C. We'll know when we know, and emotional outbursts on either side are not particularly helpful.

2) Gun advocates who think that no regulation is permitted at all under the 2nd Amendment are idiots. Lots of your constitutional rights are subject to reasonable limitation. Try to publish some top secret national security document and see how fast the government infringes your right to speak. Proposing and enforcing reasonable limitations on firearms is no more an attack on the constitution than it is for government to enforce a court judgment against someone for libel (which again, is a government action infringing the right to speak). The question of what those reasonable limitations are will now be subject to lots of litigation, but most of what I see the D.C. Attorney General advocating looks pretty reasonable to me.

(And Chris -- Congress never has given D.C. the opportunity to petition for statehood, and you are a fool if you think the current Congress would ever grant such a petition. I guaranteed you, D.C. residents would take that option in a heartbeat, so don't blame us for the lack of representation. And notwithstanding what it says in the Constitution about representation, the federal government has no moral authority to pass legislation regulating our lives without us having a vote in that legislation, and we would be as justified as the original 13 colonies if we declared independence and backed that declaration up with armed resistance.)

Posted by: Jon | June 26, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

As a resident of Virginia, this decision doesn't really affect me at the moment, though it is a landmark. I beleive that there should be more rigid background checks for potential firearms owners, but no law-abiding citizen should be denied the right if they choose to own a firearm. I don't know who coined it but I agree with the saying, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I collect historical military firearms not often do they see the light of day (I don't hunt and rarely go target shooting), but I agree with a law-abiding citizen's right to own a handgun to defend their home.
I don't beleive that this ruling will positively or negatively affect the crime rate in DC. There will always be wackos and murderers in DC, no matter when. I'm still more likely to die in a car accident.

Posted by: VA Owner | June 26, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Everyone on both sides of this issue needs to cool it. This ruling will be no more effective in lowering the crime rate in DC (or any other high crime area) than any of the poorly written and enforced gun laws. Why not? Because most street criminals don't think logically or rationally. Of course they've been ignoring the gun laws for years. But they won't suddenly start thinking, 'Gee, I wonder if this guy has a gun?'. If they're inclined to criminal activity, they'll bring plenty of their own guns. Homeowners will be able to protect themselves, and based on that I think the ruling is correct. But homeowners protecting themselves against unwanted intruders is a pretty small portion of overall crime, so if you think crime is going down because of this ruling, I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you...there are way too many socioeconomic factors driving the crime rate, and this ruling doesn't change that.

Posted by: RealityCheck | June 26, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Beware all thugs, the yuppies are in town and they can have a gun in their homes!! Yep, the thugs are shaking in their boots at the thought of you yuppies having a gun in the house. Maybe that will stop all the killing in Trinidad. The crews will be so afraid of what the yuppies in the neighborhood will do now that they have guns in the house they will leave the neighborhood in fear. I love reading these post by yuppies who now feel they have the heart to take on criminals because of the gun ban being lifted. I can see it now, you get robbed at gunpoint on Friday at H St. and you end up shooting an unarmed person by mistake based on fear and frustration on Sunday at Eastern Market because he had braids and baggy jeans just like the guy who robbed you. Just remember when you pull that trigger you had better be right. You cant take it back. And you will be held accountable even more than the thugs because they will actually catch you. Maybe the judge or jury will understand that you were just trying to protect yourself. Keep you gun locked up or you will end up being Keith Washington.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

After reading some of the comments from people, I have come to believe that most Americans are NOT educated in the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment was created for the purpose of protecting the people from the government as well as to protect themselves from criminals, invaders, bears, wolves, etc.

Today's Gangster falls under the same lines as the above.

While I am not insensitive to those who have had family members killed by handguns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

And it has been proven that the DC police do NOT serve and protect.

It is a proven fact that crime in DC went up since the 1976 handgun ban was put into place.

The facts are. The founding fathers had just fought a war with an oppressive government. And made it so that the American government could NOT get out of control and allowed its citizens to be armed so that they would be wary about just coming into your home without cause.

As far as a militia goes. Militias, still exsist. And are ready to defend their states if the need arises.

The wonderful thing about this country is that WE THE PEOPLE are allowed to come together and form militia's.

Oh and to the person hollering black on black crime and culture. Its not just the black on black crime and culture. Its people who are greedy and make their money by drugs and kill for drugs. How about focusing on the real issues and leave your KKK racist attitude to your KKK meetings.

And yes I am WHITE

It was time for the Supreme Court to make its decision and they made it 5-4 which is what a LOT of SC decisions are.

If you come into my home uninvited I have the right to defend my home and my family. And if you come in without my permission, one of us is not going to walk back out the door.

Posted by: David | June 26, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The argument that accidental deaths caused by guns is significant is bunk. It is a simple matter of misperception caused by how the media reports the news. Approximately 1500 accidental deaths happen each year. Almost ALL of them are reported in the NATIONAL NEWS. By contrast, 2.5 MILLION crimes are prevented by the use of a defensive firearm each YEAR. In 750,000 of those cases, it is believed a life was saved by defending one's life with a gun. However, these are rarely news worthy stories, since reporters aren't usually on the scene of a break-in, mugging or armed robbery. So stop believing the gun accident myth and start supporting your right to defend yourself, your family and your property.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm still more likely to die in a car accident.

Posted by: VA Owner | June 26, 2008 1:28 PM

And the way is see Va residents drive in DC I think you are right. You are more likely to die from one of those bad drivers than a DC criminal.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

All of you complaining about congressional representation as a constitutional issue would do best to read said document again.

States get voting representation.

Districts created expressly to not be states don't.

Posted by: Read it again | June 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Read the amicus briefs, and the testimony you ignorant commies. "Well regulated," means equipped and ready to fight...not under the control of any governmental agency. Try, just try a little, to become literate and therefore perhaps somewhat reasoned in your opinions??

Posted by: Typical White Guy | June 26, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Funny how any criticism of minorities is construed as racist. But someone calling white people weak and cowardly yuppies is acceptable. Newsfash - any group expecting RESPECT, better first learn to give it. I'm tired of constantly giving every minority the benefit of doubt only to be smeared simply for having white skin. Minorities who have this attitude towards white people are only hurting their own cause. Peace.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Anybody want to bet the murder rate goes up a tad in the next year and then starts to go down once the lowlifes realize that the old lady they planned on burglarizing might be packing a 357?

Posted by: SW | June 26, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Joseph, I did not say overthrow a government with which I disagree. I said, per the constitution, to get rid of a government that fails to represent, as stated in the constitution. When that happens, torches and pitchforks will not get the job done, it will take guns.

We are as close as we have ever come. There are criminals in the white house, operating with impunity, and our elected representatives will not impeach them. What is our option in such a case? We elected the democrats to the majority in both houses to stop Bush, and they have not even tried. They have patently ignored the will of the people that elected them. We hover on a dangerous precipice, and our being a well armed population, is the only thing that keeps them from just blatantly abusing all of us.

Posted by: Hank | June 26, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"I beleive that there should be more rigid background checks for potential firearms owners, but no law-abiding citizen should be denied the right if they choose to own a firearm." Posted by: VA Owner | June 26, 2008 1:28 PM

Okay, that is a dangerous thing to say. Look at the NY city gun ban. Only the very wealthy and connected manage to get licenses to have guns in the city. So in that case, the government is controlling the masses by charging exhorbitant rates and leaving the decision to issue licenses to government officials. Be careful any time the government says they will control something for "your protection". It is usually for their protection, not yours.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Read it again, 2008:
"States get voting representation. Districts created expressly to not be states don't."

King George III, 1776:
"Parliamentary constituencies get voting recommendation. Colonies created expressly not to be parliamentary constituences don't."

Funny coincidence, that.

Interestingly enough, widespread firearms ownership changed minds in 1776. I take it everyone's cool with the District going that route? You know, now that we can arm ourselves to the teeth and form a guerilla army to fight against a colonial overlord who grants democracy in some areas while denying it in others?

Posted by: cminus | June 26, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"Look at the NY city gun ban. Only the very wealthy and connected manage to get licenses to have guns in the city. So in that case, the government is controlling the masses by charging exhorbitant rates and leaving the decision to issue licenses to government officials."

Where did I mention licenses? My referring to more rigid background checks in no way implied that I thought that fees to license your weapons should be enacted. I'm talking about 10 year criminal and mental health checks. Not fees/taxes. Please explain what you mean further if I'm not understanding you.

Posted by: VA Owner | June 26, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"It is a proven fact that crime in DC went up since the 1976 handgun ban was put into place."

It's also a "proven fact" that crime in DC went up since the issue of the bicentennial quarter, or the release of "Star Wars." There was a little something called the "crack epidemic" that probably had more to do with crime rates than a gun ban that was rarely enforced. And that's not just a "proven fact," that's a "fact."

(By "fact," I mean "something that is true." The "fact" is that DC crime rates have gone down since 1976. In 1976, there were 7,083.5 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2005, the last year for which full statistics were available, there were 6,162.5. See http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm for more)

Posted by: cminus | June 26, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the unattributed (you didn't provide a name) responding to my reference to "significant" incidents involving kids accidentally (or intentionally) shooting other kids, I repeat that I would favor more gun control if it would prevent the senseless death of even one child. I'm quite sure you'd be singing a different tune if such an incident affected you directly.

Also, I am so sick of hearing the NRA and its supporters referring to unsubstantiated statistics about numbers of crimes prevented by armed individual citizens, and the failure of the liberal media to report it. When the NRA's point man, Wayne LaPiere was on one of the Sunday morning talk shows a while back, and he was asked to validate these claims of armed citizens stopping crime, he could not. I'm no defender of the media, but if you've turned on your TV or opened a newspaper, you'd see occasional anecdotal stories about armed shopkeepers or homeowners confronting crooks - unfortunately, the story often ends with the citizen being killed with his/her own weapon.

Posted by: Joseph Bleaux | June 26, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

How is DC going to justify their registration requirement? Are they exempt from FOPA 86?

Posted by: Jeff | June 26, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Joseph Bleaux,

Regarding your absurdly self-righteous comment:

"I repeat that I would favor more gun control if it would prevent the senseless death of even one child. I'm quite sure you'd be singing a different tune if such an incident affected you directly."

I favor gun-ownership (and concealed carry by citizens) if it will prevent the rape, robbbery or murder (or all three) of even one innocent citizen...which it does, daily.


Posted by: Lowell Hein | June 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

@ Sandy5274:

You are funny!

Now, go back to your medication...

Posted by: TiredOfBadPolitics | June 26, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Joseph Bleaux , the if it saves one life is crap. banning cars and driving will save more than one life but I bet you aren't for that. Banning swimming pools in the backyard and candles in the home and football in school will certainly save more childrens lives than banning guns. Are you on board with those bans? No because its not really about saving lives is it.Its about your lack of faith in your fellow man to protect themselves and your unwillingness to protect yourself and your flawed belief that the police are there to protect you, ( even though the US Supreme court ruled in the Sullivan case that there is NO OBLIGATION for the police to protect and that they are by nature a reactionary force to investigate crime.) Grow up get out of your Disney world and start taking responsibility for your own protection. Put all this misguided energy to use in your local neighborhood watch. Get involved in community activities and lend a hand instead of wasting your energy trying to take someones defensive rights away. We got this right back now lets work on congressional representation. All of our rights need to be restored.

Posted by: informed | June 26, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

@"Joe Bleaux"

That is "Mike in AZ" not "Chris in AZ."

"The debate is about GUN-RELATED deaths, specifically."

No, the debate is about violence, and, among other things, the right to defend yourself from it. It could also be about hunting, or tyranny, or whether or not armed citizens deter crime.

"Of course urban poverty is a factor in violent crime statistics, but more liberal gun laws in the USA make firearms the weapons of choice for those who want to commit violent crimes."

That is not correct. In counties in the US with less restrictive gun laws, ALL forms of violence are lower. Homicide rates are lower, assaults are lower. The strong risk factors for violent death in the US, apart from "driving in a car," are poverty, drugs, illiteracy, and "urban living." Somehow, places with dense urban populations tend to be more violent than poor places with low-density populations. There might be some sort of underlying brain-wiring primate behavior 'perceived threat' stressor thing going on there, but we can solve urban violence one risk factor at a time. The least contributory risk factor is "legal ownership of firearms is allowed." Indeed, given that all forms of violence are lower where firearms are commonly owned, firearms ownership is not much of a risk factor at all.

" is kind of cold."

I think your willingness to throw my civil rights under the bus out of fear of something that is statistically unlikely is also kind of "cold."

"I doubt that the families of the kids killed at the Amish school in Pennsylvania, or at Columbine..."

Using your sort of emotional reasoning, one could surmise that some of the parents of dead children at Columbine, or VA Tech, *might* feel that the rules that prevented law abiding citizens from defending themselves from crazy people are also kind of "cold."

One can play the emotional card any way one wants. When one looks at the phenomenon of firearms deaths on the basis of risk (who is at risk of it and why), it becomes exceedingly clear that you and I are probably at very low risk (unless you are a criminal or live in a neighborhood disproportionately rife with criminals, or unless you are a substance-abuser).

"As a parent, I would argue that if tighter gun control would prevent the senseless death of even one child, it would be worthwhile."

I am a parent too. Using your logic, and reacting to the threat matrix empirically, there is a stronger case to be made for banning the ownership of automobiles. More children die in them each year than from firearms. More children are injured in them each year than from firearms. I have been around firearms for more than four decades. I must know 25 people right now who own firearms, and I've met hundreds. I've never met anyone who shot anyone, and never met anyone who has been shot. In contrast, I know (or rather, *knew*) people who have died because of misuse of motor vehicles.

Posted by: Mike in AZ | June 26, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

There could be an up-side to this ruling --

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/attention-supreme-court/

Posted by: Mike Licht | June 26, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I feel a real compassion for the people of DC that think this ruling is bad, they are worried that they may actually have to take responsibility for their own safety. They speak of the terrible things that are now going to happen to school children and old people because you can now exercise your constitutionally given right to bear arms. Wake up you you sheep we are the government the power is ours not the DC bureaucrats.

Posted by: TZAZ- Gilbert,Arizona | June 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse


It used to be the case that any of DC's street criminals had the certain knowledge that they could invade the home of any law-abiding citizen and find that citizen disarmed and defenseless.

Now they will no longer have that assurance.

That is good, and it is what this case was about: a security guard licensed to carry a pistol on the job was denied a license to carry a pistol in his own home. That's unconstitutional, and obviously so. The court could not possibly have ruled otherwise.

Posted by: klaatu | June 26, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Dear Lowell Hein: I'll grant you that my comment is (a bit) self-righteous if you will grant me that your claim that citizen ownership of firearms will prevent more rapes, robberies, or murders it totally unsubstantiated. And that, in fact, this ruling will make more guns available to those who would be inclined to commit rapes, robberies, and murders, and that it will likely result in more gun-related injuries and deaths of innocent people (including kids).

Dear Informed: Your (false) argument about outlawing swimming pools and candles reminds me of the SNL skit with Dan Akroyd as president of Mainway Toy Company, who sanctimoniously defends his company's manufacture of purposely dangerous toys, such as "Bag O' Glass" by claiming that all other toys are just as dangerous. The point is that we're not debating regulation of swimming pools or candles, and your relating these items with FIREARMS (HELLO!) demonstrates the desperation with which gun lovers attempt to defend the indefensible.

BTW: I'll look forward to seeing you and your kids at Disney World (that is, so long as you keep them away from swimming pools, candles, or firearms). And, I have been and will continue to be active in my community and will be lobbying to have the Constitution amended to nullify this unfortunate and misguided Supreme Court ruling.

Posted by: Joseph Bleaux | June 26, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

@ Read it again who spewed this stupidity at 1:43 PM

"States get voting representation.

Districts created expressly to not be states don't."

Consider that if DC residents don't have voting rights, then that's fine - just stop f*cking taxing us. We deserve, as Americans, AT LEAST the same consideration which afforded to Puerto Ricans.

You jack*ss.

Posted by: pfish | June 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm moving to D.C. now.

Posted by: John | June 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Thank you to all the leftist and rascists here come here and make fools of yourselves. Those of you that have an issue with the 2nd Amendment must also have a problem with the the other as well. You know, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, the right to be safe in your homes. If anyone thinks the crime rate will go up you're essentially calling someone who wants a gun for protection a "criminal" before a crime has been committed. Blame your police dept. and your mayor for not going after criminals and punishing them.

Posted by: Dirty Harry | June 26, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

As for the bogus comparisons to Vermont etc. -- the only valid comparisons are ones that look at what happens when gun laws change in a *specific place* -- there are too many other variables otherwise. Does anyone know the data from those cases?

Posted by: larry | June 26, 2008 11:29 AM
_________________________________________
Here's info on Kennesaw Georgia ('Gun Town USA').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Reports_of_resulting_burglary_rate_statistics

Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law.[3] Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime. (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners Foundation). Others have challenged this conclusion, however, citing data showing that the number of burglaries in the 10 years spanning the passing of the ordinance remains roughly the same, while burglaries dropped in the city of Morton Grove following their gun ban.[4]. These statistics are in turn refuted because the report in question lacked important considerations such as porpotions for the population and growth over time.

Posted by: Sane Person | June 26, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

DCism,

Interesting point, and just what cultures are predominate in those cities you mentioned? Hint, I know the answer, but don't want to copy Don Imus' remark the other day. Could it be that Obama will help unite all those cities into one "well-formed militia" that will attack the USA from within; After-all, he said he was inspired by activists, and went to an anti-white church for 20 years. I'm not racist, just looking at the facts, ignorance is a culture unto itself, and some cultures are more ignorant than others: Sorry, just stating the facts. Once they take God out of our system, "and the rights that only he bestowed upon us all", we will have laid the ground to do away with any individual rights, and the powers that be will control everything and everyone. Seems many of the Harvard educated today have truly been educated beyond their capacity to understand; they can name all of their tools, but don't have an idea of how to use them, or for what. What scares me is the 5/4 vote...what on earth were the other four thinking? They must have mental grid-lock with their huge brains.

Posted by: Yohanan | June 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf

Some of the posters here need this extremely bad.

Kudos to the USSC for upholding our individual right to self defense.

Posted by: RWC | June 26, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

@Joseph Bleux who said:
"I say it is time to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to REPLACE THE 2nd AMENDMENT with a clear, rational, national regulation of all guns and ammunition in the USA. Guns don't kill people...bullets do." BAN BULLETS - VOTE DEMOCRAT."

Are you trying to start a revolution?
Because if what you propose happens (not bloody likely) then over 200 million gun owners, including myself, will say, "Molon Labe".

If you hoplophobe socialists actually believe that less guns = less crime, then I'd love to see all of you put your money where your mouths are and put large signs in your yards or on your doors that say, "Proud to be a gun-free home."
My money says that you're all too chickensh*t to do it.

Hypocrites...

Posted by: Mother Batherick | June 26, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"If you hoplophobe socialists actually believe that less guns = less crime, then I'd love to see all of you put your money where your mouths are and put large signs in your yards or on your doors that say, "Proud to be a gun-free home."
My money says that you're all too chickensh*t to do it."

clap clap clap

I'm sure they're furiously 'Googling' hoplophobe right now.

Posted by: RWC | June 26, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Simple question - why do a lot of people here only want criminals to have guns? Seems kind of wacky to me.

Posted by: RWC | June 26, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

DC pols just don't get it - proposals for gun registrations and other inanities only play into the NRA's strategy. While the details may have to be fought out one state or law at a time, the Second Amendment is the law of the land. Thank you NRA!

Posted by: rinkeswa | June 26, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

That First Amendment is dated. It doesn't belong in a civilized society. Liberals should be muzzled at all times.

Posted by: JB | June 26, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Good Luck trying to limit ownership to just one gun by law. Do these people understand the law?

Posted by: Mike Van Austin | June 26, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Come on home my brethren!

John Smallberries
DC Council AT LARGE Candidate

Posted by: John Smallberries Esq., Republican Candidate, AT LARGE | June 26, 2008 10:46 AM

------------------

Is your name really "Smallberries?" Wow, I bet you got made fun of a LOT. That sucks. Must be why you feel the need to put "Esq." after your name, despite the fact that "esquire" is not an official title. Tool.

Posted by: D | June 26, 2008 11:57 AM

No, you are the first to mention it "D." An US attorney customarily uses Esq. after his name, but esquire is historically used as a title of dignity, which ranks above gentleman and directly below knight.

If you are still confused, you may ask my colleague John Bigboote for more assistance on this topic. He works at our campaign office here in Washington, DC.

Posted by: John Smallberries Esq., Republican Candidate, AT LARGE | June 26, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Still don't get it do you, you Reds out there? The debate is over. You violated our constitutional rights for over two decades. You should be put on trial for crimes against humanity, freedom and America. You'll soil yourselves over habeas corpus for anti-Americans and non-citizens, but you're yellow-spined hypocrites over the rights you don't care for, yes? Oh well, take heart. Once you've crowned Emeperor Hussein, he'll do away with that pesky Constitution and pack the court with anti-religious, anti-American, anti-Constitution liberals like you.

Posted by: LiberalsCaused911 | June 27, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

AAARGH!!! I hate ACTIVIST JUDGES!

Posted by: Obama4Pres | June 27, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

It's really simple.

It's a Constitutionally protected right. And that means that I don't have to give a DAMN what my neighbors think. No amount of "tyranny of the majority" matters when a natural human right is on the line. You can no more vote my firearms out of my possession than you can vote black people back into slavery or strip women of the vote... even if it's a 90% "will of the people".

Whine all you want, socialists. I don't care what you think. You can't take away my right to self defense with your cops, your votes, or your opinions. All three are irrelevant. Only the words that follow "We the People" count.

Posted by: Lance | June 27, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

If you DC citizens really think you should have the right to vote or have representation on "The Hill", you should read up on your American History and Politics. Maybe then you will understand why DC is the way it is. If you want representation with that taxation, move. Maryland and Virginia aren't THAT far away.

Now go buy a glock and defend yourself.

Posted by: The Man | June 27, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

I'm amazed at the sheer ignorance of some of the comments being posted here. Simple test for the simple minded - replace references to the Second Amendment in your reality-impaired arguments with references to the First Amendment and see how you like the outcome. After all, irresponsible public speech has caused catastrophic violence thruout our history. So obviously the outdated concept of free speech, framed when technology was limited to the human voice, the quill pen, and the manual printing press, must be discarded for the public good, right? The Founding Fathers never foresaw radio, television, or the internet, so free speech doesn't apply to them, right?
It's been said several times here already, but let's clarify: "the militia" means pretty much the whole of the people. "Well regulated" as understood at the time the Amendment was written meant "properly organized and supplied". The severely misinformed individual who's arguing that the fact that we have a standing army means that there's no longer a need for a militia is apparently ignorant of the entire body of human history. The militia concept exists as protection from a standing army, should that army be used against its own people.

And SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is self-explanatory. Or should be to anyone with a reading comprehension level higher than first grade.

Posted by: Lanzman | June 27, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here's some interesting reading . . .


James Madison's original intended proposal for the Bill of Rights:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Seems he put even more importance on the rights of the people over the militia.

What I'm advocating is responsible gun ownership. NOT gun registration -Jeez, the last thing I need is "Big Brother" taking any more of my hard-earned money for registration fees - and they've probably already got enough info on me now, thanks to George W's "Patriot Act". Store your firearms securely when not in use. Keep the ammo in a separate locked storage unit. If you must keep a firearm ready for "personal protection" keep it accessable for you - not a six-year old. Don't have kids? Got any neices or nephews? How about friends with kids? THINK!

Next, learn how to safely shoot, clean and maintain your firearm in top-notch condition. We're not talking rocket-science here - just good old-fashioned common sense. It's the irresponsible gun owner that gives the anti-gunner their ammunition.

Here's some more interesting thoughts on the subject . . . . .

Thomas Jefferson said: "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

James Madison said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."


George Washington said: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

And finally,

Walter Williams, writing on Ted Kennedy's Constitutional Ignorance, Jewish World Review - Jan. 24, 2001

"When the history of the 20th century is finally written, one of its key features will be the wanton slaughter of more than 170 million people, not in war, but by their own government. The governments that led in this slaughter are the former USSR (65 million) and the Peoples Republic of China (35-40 million). The point to remember is that these governments were the idols of America's leftists. Part of reason for these and other tyrannical successes was because the people were first disarmed."


Posted by: ProGunner | June 28, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Nice site! Where you get it?

Posted by: Lawotep | June 28, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm enjoying the heck out of reading these comments, particularly the one by the losing side...They deserve every minute of anger, anxiety, and anguish this SCOTUS ruling gives them, for willfully acting to strip citizens of rights explicitly recognized in the Bill of Rights.

Even more hysterical is labeling the conservatives "activist" judges for reading the amendment as virtually all legal scholars agree it is meant to be read--as one that refers to an individual right.

Liberals. Idiots.

Posted by: Not A Liberal Pinhead | June 29, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Wow, what a bunch of typical chickenlittlian "the sky is falling" nitwittery. The eeevil NRA and the SCOTUS didn't help criminals with this decision. They helped the citizens of DC. The criminals, you know, the ones who aren't obeying the "don't rob/kill/rape people" laws, weren't obeying the "gun control" laws either people. Only the law-abiding folks, you know, the ones that aren't the problem to begin with, were following them.

One of these days I honestly hope that the leftists in this country will start thinking with their brains instead of their hearts. Of course, that will be the day they stop being leftists.

Statistics show that the crime rates, however many times the leftist handwringers predict doom and gloom, goes down when the citizenry is allowed to defend itself and the crime rates go up when these "common sense" gun control laws are foisted upon the people.

As for moving to Montana, as one of the bright-bulbs early on suggested, yeah... good idea. They have a much more lax (read: much more intellectual and far less emotional) view on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms that will, no doubt, trouble the sensitivities of your average leftist to no end.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: outsidelookingin | June 29, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

But liberals can't NOT "think" with their hearts. It's all about feeling. I'm almost surprised by how many I've heard offer a comment like, "Your right to have a gun stops at my right to feel safe." Uh...no, it doesn't. They live in the delusional world where feelings are reality, where, indeed, feelings trump reality.

Posted by: Not A Liberal Pinhead | June 29, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I see DC officials aren't content with being ordered by the Court to restore liberties to its law abiding citizens. They are certainly not ashamed of the illegal gun ban that they imposed. DC officials are going to try to throw up every imaginable road block to infringe the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms by imposing limits, registration, and no doubt, waiting periods; all the old gun control schemes that never worked and were canned throughout most of the country; schemes that only aided the already armed criminal element.

Hey DC officials! Beijing is ... that way; not here.

Posted by: Back From Iraq | June 29, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company