Congress Urged to Move Carefully on DC Gun Ban

This is a discussion on Congress Urged to Move Carefully on DC Gun Ban within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Congress Urged to Move Carefully on DC Gun Ban Cybercast News Service ^ | 3/23/07 | Randy Hall Attempts by "well-meaning members of Congress" to ...

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Congress Urged to Move Carefully on DC Gun Ban

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,776

    Exclamation Congress Urged to Move Carefully on DC Gun Ban

    Congress Urged to Move Carefully on DC Gun Ban
    Cybercast News Service ^ | 3/23/07 | Randy Hall

    Attempts by "well-meaning members of Congress" to repeal the 1976 Washington, D.C., gun ban could backfire by keeping the case out of the U.S. Supreme Court, said attorneys representing six D.C. residents in a high-profile Second Amendment case.

    "We appreciate that the Second Amendment's many friends in Congress want to express themselves on the D.C. gun ban, and there are ways in which Congress can have a tremendously positive impact," said Alan Gura, lead counsel in Parker v. District of Columbia, which challenged the 1976 D.C. gun ban.

    But "Congress has to act very carefully," Gura told Cybercast News Service after a panel discussion of the case.

    "A congressional repeal of the D.C. gun ban right now could erase the recent court victory," he said, referring to the March 9 ruling by U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    "All of our hard work would be wasted," Gura warned.

    "We have to work with the members of Congress to make sure that if they want to express themselves legislatively on the D.C. gun ban, they can do so in a way that preserves the issue for litigation, Gura said.

    Second Amendment supporters have waited many years for the right case to bring before the U.S. Supreme Court. Their goal is for the highest court in the land to interpret the Second Amendment in a way that reinforces the constitutional right of individuals to own guns.

    Gura said Congress can "implement the Parker decision without killing it" by allowing interstate handgun sales and forcing the District to accept normal instant background checks.

    Robert Levy, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, noted that Parker v. District of Columbia "considered the question that has divided Second Amendment scholars for decades: Does the right to keep and bear arms belong to us as individuals or does the Constitution merely recognize the collective right of the states to arm their militias?"

    Levy, who is also senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, stated that the "D.C. government has been totally ineffective at disarming violent criminals, but at the same time, the government has done a superb job of disarming decent and peaceful residents."

    Noting that he and Gura represent "six plaintiffs who live in the District, pay their taxes in the District and obey the laws in the District," Levy stated that "D.C. says if somebody breaks into their house, their only way to obtain remedy is to call 911 and hope that the police arrive on time."

    "That's not a good enough remedy," he added. "The right to keep and bear arms includes, of course, the right to defend your property and your family, and most of all, your life.

    "There have been more than three dozen challenges to the D.C. ban," Levy said, but "mostly, they've been filed by criminals who are serving longer sentences for gun possession."

    Gura agreed that "the history of Second Amendment litigation brought by criminals is very poor compared to what we have achieved. The question is not whether the Supreme Court will decide the issue, but whether it will do so with our case -- or the next common criminal who's presenting the Second Amendment in an unfavorable light."

    "It's sad, I think, for us to have a basic, fundamental right defined within the lens and context of a criminal proceeding," Gura added.

    'The Constitution is on our side'

    As Cybercast News Service previously reported, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision on Friday, March 9. Senior Judge Laurence Silberman and Judge Thomas Griffith stated in their opinion: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

    "We could not have asked for a more unequivocal and explicit statement," Levy declared. "The Constitution is on our side."

    Looking to the future, Gura said he expects the District of Columbia to ask for review of the case by the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. "We're not super concerned about this being overturned by the full court, and of course, we're fairly confident and hopeful that the Supreme Court can read the Constitution as well," he noted.

    Levy added that those involved in the case "want the problem to be solved nationwide," another reason they are against Congress repealing the gun ban in the nation's capital. "That would do nothing outside of Washington, D.C.," he said.

    Gura noted that he and Levy "have been spending a lot of time on the Hill meeting with people" about the need for careful action by Congress, "and we think the message is getting through."

    Gura said that he and Levy met on Thursday with leaders from the National Rifle Association, "which had been pushing this legislation" to eliminate the D.C. gun ban, but "we believe that they've seen the light. They've given us their assurances that they are not interested in ruining the case."

    "And [NRA President] Wayne LaPierre told us we can take that to the bank," Gura said.

    However, "the anti-gun people are a different story," he stated. "We have gotten word that at least one group is now trying to push for a legislative appeal because, frankly, they don't want this in the Supreme Court, and the reason they don't want this in the Supreme Court is because they're going to lose."

    But the optimism expressed by Gura and Levy on Thursday apparently didn't extend to Capitol Hill, where Democrats sidelined a bill that would have granted the District of Columbia voting rights in the House of Representatives because it contained a measure repealing the D.C. gun ban.

    Instead of moving ahead, Democrats indefinitely postponed a vote on the entire package. Supporters of D.C. voting rights accused Republicans of injecting a poison pill (the D.C. gun ban) into the legislation.

    Levy had some advice for Americans who believe that an outright gun ban is necessary for public safety. "The way to go about that is to change the Constitution. We cannot simply ignore the Constitutional provision and act as though the document does not exist.

    "As a nation, we have chosen to have a written Constitution, and it has served us well for more than two centuries," he added.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,741
    It's sad when we don't want Congress to completely kill this so we can go to the Supreme Court to prove our point. Oh, well. It's politics, I guess.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  4. #3
    Member Array RTC1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    42

    Duh-Uhh . . .

    It's too bad the antis suffer from the illusion that SCOTUS has never ruled on the non-existent "question" of the 2nd Amendment pertaining to the Individual right versus a collective States' Right.

    SCOTUS simply hasn't elected or agreed to consider a case where that is the primary issue at bar. They have in fact ruled on cases where this "question" arose and was addressed as a secondary issue inter-related with a differing primary issue. In fact, SCOTUS has made such rulings no less than at least 33 times, if memory serves me right.

    No, it hasn't been unanimous, but in the vast majority of such rulings, the presiding Justices have supported the "Standard Model" interpretation of an Individual right as opposed to a collective "militia" or States' Right.

    To say nothing of the fact that nowhere within our Constitution or Bill Of Rights is a "Right" ever granted to government. Rights are granted to individual citizens & individual citizens alone. Only "Power" or "Authority" is ever granted to federal and state governments. The distinction as such is made for a very obvious, definitive and valid reason, even by the founding-father Framers themself. Duh. I can't believe how some of these facetious "questions" can even exist and thrive. Apparently non of the "antis" have ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers.

    If anyone wants a copy of the constitutional scholar's treatise summary article re the 33 SCOTUS rulings I referred to, PM me with a regular email address & I'll email it to you.

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array Steve48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    St. John, Kansas
    Posts
    777
    Same ole politic's in play here!! Steve48

  6. #5
    Member Array denverd0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    388
    Don't confuse a ruling with an opinion. The Supreme Court has many times included comments in their published opinions that relate to this issue. Most recently, that I'm aware of, was in an opinion written by Clarence Thomas where he said "the 'right to keep and bear arms' is, as the amendment's text suggests, a personal right." But a comment in an opinion that indicates that they believe it is an individual right is not the same as a ruling. Not even close. Opinions don't carry the weight of law and they don't establish clear-cut precedent for other cases.

    The fact is that the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Nor have they specifically ruled that it is not. So far they have avoided ruling either way, even though have offered opinions on the matter many times. If the DC gun ban case goes to the Supreme Court it will give them the opportunity to specifically rule on that issue, if they want to.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Yep ^^

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Russians urged to smoke, drink more
    By GunnyBunny in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 1st, 2010, 09:09 PM
  2. Please read Carefully
    By steve-o in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 20th, 2008, 06:32 AM
  3. Good: Vancouverites urged to release inner vigilante
    By kazzaerexys in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 15th, 2008, 12:12 PM
  4. Take this poll really good one. Do Not Vote before reading the Question carefully
    By Rob99VMI04 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 10th, 2008, 10:11 PM
  5. Choose your doctors carefully
    By deadeye72 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: March 20th, 2008, 11:46 PM

Search tags for this page

randy hall congress cybercast

,
randy hall cybercast
,
randy hall cybercast news service congress
Click on a term to search for related topics.