• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

Harry Guerrilla

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws - Yahoo! News

A federal judge has upheld the new regime of gun laws passed in Washington, D.C., after the US Supreme Court invalidated the city’s handgun ban in a landmark Second Amendment ruling two years ago.

The plaintiff in the new case was the same man, Dick Heller, who brought the initial challenge to the handgun ban and won the historic 2008 ruling.
Click to expand...

In reaching his decision, Judge Urbina applied an intermediate level of judicial scrutiny. He decided against applying the toughest test, reserved for fundamental rights. He also rejected the city’s suggestion that he apply a highly permissive test.

The judge upheld a registration regime that gun owners complained was excessive and unduly burdensome. It includes requirements for a background check, fingerprints, and photos; a ballistic identification procedure that will allow the police to trace a spent shell to that particular weapon; and a declaration to police of how the weapon will be used and where it will be kept.
Click to expand...

In upholding the ban on assault weapons, the judge cited the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision. He said the court found a constitutional right to possess only those weapons in “common use” that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

The city council concluded that assault weapons are military-style weapons of war, made for offensive military use. The council further found that such weapons are “disproportionately likely to be used by criminals” and do not have any legitimate use for self-defense. Urbina quoted the council as saying that such weapons would increase the danger to law-abiding users and innocent by-standers if kept in the home or used in self-defense situations.
Click to expand...

An asinine law created without regard to facts, supported by a judge oblivious to facts.
 
Poor ole Matt Dillen. Hre didn't have the NRA around to tell him he couldn't make everyone coming into Dodge check theyr guns at the livery stable.:doh
 
The judge upheld a registration regime that gun owners complained was excessive and unduly burdensome. It includes requirements for a background check, fingerprints, and photos; a ballistic identification procedure that will allow the police to trace a spent shell to that particular weapon; and a declaration to police of how the weapon will be used and where it will be kept.
Click to expand...

This is overzealous...??:confused:

Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.

If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

Boo-hoo, I have to fill out paperwork.

Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun?
 
hazlnut said:
This is overzealous...??:confused:

Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.

If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

Boo-hoo, I have to fill out paperwork.

Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun?
Click to expand...

Do you support warrantless phone taps?

I've owned guns since I was 18, to date 0 people have been threatened or harmed by those guns.
And no I don't think I'm Rambo.
 
hazlnut said:
This is overzealous...??:confused:

Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.

If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

?
Click to expand...

So you would not mind submitting finger prints,photo and anything else to the cops exercise other constitutional right(of course the second you need permission then it is no longer right)? If you are not doing anything wrong then do not sweat it.

Boo-hoo, I have to fill out paperwork.
Click to expand...

Should you have to fill out paper to the government just to chat on online forums, go to church, write a letter, protest on a street corner, and so on?


Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun
Click to expand...

SO you support having to explain to the government why you need to write a letter, go to church, attend a political rally and so on?

Perhaps instead of being called a anti-2nd amendment loon you should just be called a fascist.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Do you support warrantless phone taps?

I've owned guns since I was 18, to date 0 people have been threatened or harmed by those guns.
And no I don't think I'm Rambo.
Click to expand...

They didn't have telephones, computers,tvs, radios, mass printing presses like the ones today, audio and video players. Perhaps Hazlnut things those things should be severely restricted or required that citizens ask the government permission to use those things.
 
jamesrage said:
They didn't have telephones, computers,tvs, radios, mass printing presses like the ones today, audio and video players. Perhaps Hazlnut things those things should be severely restricted or required that citizens ask the government permission to use those things.
Click to expand...

Of course, The Constitution is just an antiquated rag. :doh
 
I partly agree with the assault ban though, I mean other weapons I can understand, shotguns, pistols and such. Why "assault weapons?"
 
Cilogy said:
I partly agree with the assault ban though, I mean other weapons I can understand, shotguns, pistols and such. Why "assault weapons?"
Click to expand...

They only look scary.
Most guns used in crimes are hand guns.

Technically, the vast majority of people who own guns, don't own "assault weapons."
They relabeled semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" to make them sound a whole lot worse than what they are.

Traditionally, an assault weapon is fully automatic.
Those that are banned are not.

This is considered an assault weapon by their standards.
Ruger-1022.jpg
 
Cilogy said:
I partly agree with the assault ban though, I mean other weapons I can understand, shotguns, pistols and such. Why "assault weapons?"
Click to expand...

Because the definition of "assault weapon" used in the AWB was deceptive and inaccurate.

Properly an assault weapon is a weapon capable of fully automatic fire, using an intermediate size cartridge. The military version of the M16 and M4 fit this defintion.... and already require a Class III federal license to possess. (This is a special license, not that easily obtained. Not many people have one.)

The AWB banned semi-auto firearms (one shot at a time) based on cosmetic features that resembled military firearms. Basically "ban it because it LOOKS scary!"

It was hysterical. It also accomplished nothing, since it only banned certain specific weapons and there were many legal ways around it.

Nor was there any basis that the banned weapons were being used disproportionately by criminals. They weren't.

In short the AWB was an ineffective fantasy solution to a nonexistent problem. Good riddance.
 
The gun-totin bad guys are loving this!!
 
hazlnut said:
This is overzealous...??:confused:

Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.

If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

Boo-hoo, I have to fill out paperwork.

Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun?
Click to expand...

You can't violate my rights, just because I'm excercising my rights.
 
I bet the council was going with exactly the same definition of "assault weapon" that the media uses, which is anything that's not a revolver or musket.

Where's that picture of everything being labeled an AK-47?
 
Deuce said:
I bet the council was going with exactly the same definition of "assault weapon" that the media uses, which is anything that's not a revolver or musket.

Where's that picture of everything being labeled an AK-47?
Click to expand...


I believe this was posted on another thread before. 5 minutes and 31 seconds into the clip they show the difference between whats legally defined as an assault rifle and hunting rifle by changing the cosmetic parts.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0"]YouTube- The Truth about "Assault Weapons"[/nomedia]
 
Last edited:
Cilogy said:
I partly agree with the assault ban though, I mean other weapons I can understand, shotguns, pistols and such. Why "assault weapons?"
Click to expand...
"Shall not be infringed." To paraprhase. That is the most important statement in the second amendment.
 
LaMidRighter said:
"Shall not be infringed." To paraprhase. That is the most important statement in the second amendment.
Click to expand...

The difference of opinion comes from what you define as "arms." While I personally hate Reductio ad absurdum, it's the only way I can ever get this across to the really hardcore conservatives. (and for the record, I am not in favor of banning handguns or even so-called "assault weapons" that are actually single-fire hunting rifles)

If you define "arms" as any sort of weapon, you're talking about legally-owned nuclear weapons in private hands. Absurd, right? Clearly the founding fathers were not referring to the ability to level a city. They were talking about our right to defend ourselves, and nukes cannot be used in self-defense in any realistic scenario!

So this means you have to draw a line in terms of weaponry in what you consider to be "arms." We'll work our way up.

Pistol? Sure! Hunting rifle? Easily. Grenade launcher? Errr, pretty sketchy now. Anti-aircraft missile? Ummm. Tank? .....

A line needs to be drawn. You can do it locally, or you can do it federally. Take your pick. (DC is a special case because they're not a state, so there's some federal involvement in local laws there)
 
Deuce said:
The difference of opinion comes from what you define as "arms." While I personally hate Reductio ad absurdum, it's the only way I can ever get this across to the really hardcore conservatives. (and for the record, I am not in favor of banning handguns or even so-called "assault weapons" that are actually single-fire hunting rifles)

If you define "arms" as any sort of weapon, you're talking about legally-owned nuclear weapons in private hands. Absurd, right? Clearly the founding fathers were not referring to the ability to level a city. They were talking about our right to defend ourselves, and nukes cannot be used in self-defense in any realistic scenario!

So this means you have to draw a line in terms of weaponry in what you consider to be "arms." We'll work our way up.

Pistol? Sure! Hunting rifle? Easily. Grenade launcher? Errr, pretty sketchy now. Anti-aircraft missile? Ummm. Tank? .....

A line needs to be drawn. You can do it locally, or you can do it federally. Take your pick. (DC is a special case because they're not a state, so there's some federal involvement in local laws there)
Click to expand...
That was a bunch of long winded bull****. Arms are weapons period, the writings behind the second state that all arms in use by the military are rightful to the militia. These are defined as any weapons that can be carried by a soldier.
 
Deuce said:
The difference of opinion comes from what you define as "arms." While I personally hate Reductio ad absurdum, it's the only way I can ever get this across to the really hardcore conservatives. (and for the record, I am not in favor of banning handguns or even so-called "assault weapons" that are actually single-fire hunting rifles)

If you define "arms" as any sort of weapon, you're talking about legally-owned nuclear weapons in private hands. Absurd, right? Clearly the founding fathers were not referring to the ability to level a city. They were talking about our right to defend ourselves, and nukes cannot be used in self-defense in any realistic scenario!

So this means you have to draw a line in terms of weaponry in what you consider to be "arms." We'll work our way up.

Pistol? Sure! Hunting rifle? Easily. Grenade launcher? Errr, pretty sketchy now. Anti-aircraft missile? Ummm. Tank? .....

A line needs to be drawn. You can do it locally, or you can do it federally. Take your pick. (DC is a special case because they're not a state, so there's some federal involvement in local laws there)
Click to expand...


Arms as they relate to the 2A are best defined thus:
1. Any infantry weapon that may be carried and used by an individual soldier, which is useful for military service and other lawful purposes.
2. Any weapon useful for self-defense, hunting, sport, or any other lawful purpose.

Clearly this covers all firearms. Clearly it does not cover such ridiculosities as nukes or bio, which are WMD's that have no legitimate use by an individual. As for grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons and knee mortars... well, those we can debate. Currently many such "support weapons" can be possessed by those who have a special Class III license; personally I'm okay with that as a "compromise".

I believe the legality of government infringements on private arms should have to meet the "Strict" test of Constitutionality: that is, they should require an overwhelming societal intrest to justify the intervention; the restriction should be very narrowly targeted to address a specific problem; pre-emptive infringement should be avoided if possible (that is, restricting a law-abiding citizen just because he might commit a crime) and there should be good reason to believe that such a law will actually have beneficial effects in the real world, as opposed to simply "because some politicians want to do this."
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Because there are people out there that like to hurt others. I almost became a victim a few years back.
Click to expand...

Fair enough -- just fill out the proper forms, register the gun per your state/county laws, and no problem.
 
hazlnut said:
Fair enough -- just fill out the proper forms, register the gun per your state/county laws, and no problem.
Click to expand...
Or we could properly uphold the 2nd amendment and tell the gun control crowd to "go **** themselves", you know, since the second shall not be infringed.
 
hazlnut said:
This is overzealous...??:confused:

Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.

If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

Boo-hoo, I have to fill out paperwork.

Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun?
Click to expand...
Why do you need to live, I want you to fill out paperwork, and I want the govt to do a monthly anal check and then you have to fill out paperwork every month justifying your existence. Damn right abortion-supporter, you need to justify why you shouldn't be aborted.

I just applied your logic.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They only look scary.
Most guns used in crimes are hand guns.

Technically, the vast majority of people who own guns, don't own "assault weapons."
They relabeled semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" to make them sound a whole lot worse than what they are.

Traditionally, an assault weapon is fully automatic.
Those that are banned are not.

This is considered an assault weapon by their standards.
Ruger-1022.jpg
Click to expand...

Select fire. Intermediate cartrige, magazine fed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom