Guns At Home - But Not Carry? (DC)

This is a discussion on Guns At Home - But Not Carry? (DC) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; It doesn't sound right to me but it seems the D.C. argument is going to be for a right to keep guns in the home, ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Guns At Home - But Not Carry? (DC)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816

    Guns At Home - But Not Carry? (DC)

    It doesn't sound right to me but it seems the D.C. argument is going to be for a right to keep guns in the home, not the right to carry.

    http://cornellsun.com/node/24257

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Deacon51's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    238
    That is correct, the DC case is focusing only on the right to 'keep' arms and is making no attempt to overturn the ban on the right to 'bear' arms.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon51 View Post
    That is correct, the DC case is focusing only on the right to 'keep' arms and is making no attempt to overturn the ban on the right to 'bear' arms.
    Maybe so, but I've written the NRA to get their input, especially since they've sent a mailing asking for a donation towards this argument.

  5. #4
    Member Array Deacon51's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    238
    Please let us know what they say.

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    one step at a time, I say. Incrementalism can work for us as well as against us.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    4,148
    How is it that supposedly rational people can so easily separate (pick apart) a legal phrase that so obviously was intended to be represented TOGETHER? "...keep & bear arms"
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    one step at a time, I say. Incrementalism can work for us as well as against us.
    While this may be true, the decision needs to be clear concerning "keep and bear" arms. Not just a right to keep arms in the home. A decision of this nature will have far reaching implications in the future.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array PaulG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    While this may be true, the decision needs to be clear concerning "keep and bear" arms. Not just a right to keep arms in the home. A decision of this nature will have far reaching implications in the future.
    Unfortunately, the courts appear to be reluctant to answer a question that was not asked.

    I predict that if the SCOTUS does hear the appeal, they will attempt to limit their response to the "keeping" of the firearm.

    They won't address the gun grabbers "reasonable restrictions" arguments.

    If ruled in our favor, it will probably mean that DC citizens can keep loaded firearms in their homes but it won't affect Chicago's laws, NY laws, etc.
    fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulG View Post
    Unfortunately, the courts appear to be reluctant to answer a question that was not asked.

    I predict that if the SCOTUS does hear the appeal, they will attempt to limit their response to the "keeping" of the firearm.

    They won't address the gun grabbers "reasonable restrictions" arguments.

    If ruled in our favor, it will probably mean that DC citizens can keep loaded firearms in their homes but it won't affect Chicago's laws, NY laws, etc.
    I completely agree and that's why those speaking before the SCOTUS must include the argument for final decision. This is going to be quite the battle.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulG View Post
    Unfortunately, the courts appear to be reluctant to answer a question that was not asked.

    I predict that if the SCOTUS does hear the appeal, they will attempt to limit their response to the "keeping" of the firearm.

    They won't address the gun grabbers "reasonable restrictions" arguments.

    If ruled in our favor, it will probably mean that DC citizens can keep loaded firearms in their homes but it won't affect Chicago's laws, NY laws, etc.

    I agree and disagree. Yes, the court will shy away from the complete issue, "bearing" arms. The decision though is likely to shoot down outright bans on possession in the home (I hope). This will affect the suburb of Chicaog that has one and the NYC laws can be challenged as being an "unreasonable" restriction given the huger hurdles one must overcome to legally buy one.

  12. #11
    88m
    88m is offline
    Member Array 88m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    146
    Keep in mind that to keep in your home they want them taken apart and stored with the ammo in a diff location. Anyway that's the what i get out of the diff articles i have been reading as of late.
    “The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail... the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation.” Jeff Cooper

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    I would think that of all places, Washington D.C. would be one of the easiest places to show the need of law abiding citizens to be able to carry because of statistics in existance. Assault and other violent crimes have risen tremendoulsly since the ban went into effect. Law Enforcement in DC has clearly shown that it is incapable of minimizing the criminal element in our capital city even just blocks from the White House. Neither have they shown any ability to protect the law abiding citizens just blocks from the mall as it isn't uncommon to have up to a half a dozen assaults or armed robberies occur nightly by reports that I've seen.

    ****************
    "Repeal D.C. gun ban.(EDITORIALS)
    From: The Washington Times May 21, 2005

    It is time to repeal the District's gun laws. Just consider a few statistics: Five years before the D.C. Council banned nearly all firearms in 1976, the District's murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000 people. In the five years after 1976, the murder rate rose to 35 per 100,000 people. Between 1976 and 1991, the D.C. homicide rate rose 200 percent. The national homicide rate during the same 15-year period rose just 12 percent.

    According to the FBI, the District has the highest violent crime rate in the nation of any city over 500,000 ...
    ****************

    How proud D.C. Law Enforcement and the mayor must be to preside over one of the most crime ridden areas of our country, thanks to his gun control policies.


    GOOD GUN CONTROL Is Being Able To Hit Your Target!

    Last edited by P7fanatic; September 15th, 2007 at 02:07 AM.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    While this may be true, the decision needs to be clear concerning "keep and bear" arms. Not just a right to keep arms in the home. A decision of this nature will have far reaching implications in the future.
    Yep.

    If it can be successfully argued that the two are separate and individual in statement (as written), context (as interpreted), and thus lawful application then it would open a door for other states and localities to refute civilian non ploice/non militarized carry of any sort toward firearms. That would be a major step backward for America.

    As well something I did not know/learn until literally just now upon looking for the exact text of the Second Amendment to quote in this post I found the following as referenced at Wiki;

    Text

    The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, 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. ”

    The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
    “ 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. ”

    Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and hangs in the National Archives.

    Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution
    There in presents a troubling problem.

    Read both statement slowly and carefully.
    Their meanings can be construed as differing thanks to modification in punctuation and capitalization of the word 'M/militia' and P/people' even as they both use the exact same specific verbiage.

    The latter/second version is what I've always prior known and thought of. I didn't know (or had forgotten?) that the House and Senate passed a version different in capitalization and punctuation which to me is not an insignificant factor or fact.

    If Atty. Neily is on point toward his position that D.C is arguing simply whether or not it's constitutional for an individual, a citizen in specific aka 'People', to "keep and bear" arms (which does not explicitly mean firearm) in the home then that is one thing and I think they would not have much platform to stand on as based on what is stated in either version of the amendment.

    But...If they wind up arguing more complexly that version one of the amendment is truest and most valid as originally approved and from that that it does not allow for an individual, a citizen in specific aka 'people', to keep and bear arms then they just might have a leg to stand on. Reason being as the first reads inclusive of capitalization and punctuation it can be argued that intent and statement within the words are toward a "regulated Militia" in specific as in a formally organized group. And from that the argument that the right of the "people" (lowercase P) there in and member/associated to said capitalized M regulated "Militia" organization would then by extension have the right to "keep and bear" arms, which "shall not be infringed" as they are then agents of again the capitalized M regulated "Militia" organization.

    Quid pro quo...I'm not an English major.

    Hell I'm not an even a history major nor a constitution expert in any way or form.
    I'm just a 'Person' who went to public school in D.C. and MD and rather than Yale or Cornell I studied at the Univ. of MD, which is a good school but it's no Yale or Cornell.
    I did though have a excellent 4th and 5th grades teachers who at the time I despised equally, but by chance later in life I came to appreciate very much. They both were sticklers toward grammar.
    Mrs. Lodge of Lewisdale Elementary (P.G. county MD) and Mr. Speck of Fairland Elementary (Montgomery county M.D.). We moved around a lot year to year and I went to a lot of schools and had a lot of teachers that were largely forgettable and forgotten, but these two I'll recall until the Alzheimers kicks in and likely beyond. They were both huge history and English grammar nuts.

    As I recall from them when capitalizing a word such as 'Militia' and/or 'People' you are then indicating it is a proper noun. As a proper noun it is indicated as being specific not generic and/or in general.
    It's been 30 years since I left Mssrs. Lodge and Speck's classes so I went to the internet to check myself and look at what I found...



    First-Year English FAQs
    WHEN SHOULD I CAPITALIZE?
    by Kathy McLain, M.A.

    By reviewing the following list you may be able to solve your capitalization questions. If you should need more information about any of these subjects, you can click on a specific rule to get more information or examples.

    Capitalize the first letter of the first word in a sentence.

    Capitalize the pronoun "I" and the interjection "O."

    Preserve the original capitalization and line breaks as the poet presents them.

    Capitalize proper nouns, proper adjectives, and words used as essential parts of proper nouns.

    Capitalize the Roman numerals and the letters of the first major topics in an outline.

    Capitalize the first word of dialogue in a dialogue quotation.

    Capitalize the first word of borrowed material from a direct quotation only if the direct quotation begins with a capital letter and there is an interrupted quotation transition.

    Capitalize brand names, but not products.

    Capitalize titles when they precede proper names, but not when they follow proper names or are used alone.

    ...

    Capitalize proper nouns, proper adjectives, and words used as essential parts of proper nouns.

    The following rules are specific illustrations of the above general rule. If you need further examples or explanations, click on the specific rule.

    Capitalize a person's name or initial(s).

    Capitalize Mother, Dad, and other titles if you can insert the person's name and titles like Grandma and Major when they appear with a formal name.

    Capitalize days, months, holidays, and special days.

    Capitalize the historical events, documents, periods, or movements.

    Capitalize names of organizations, businesses,and institutions.

    Capitalize specific places, structures, or geographic locations.

    Capitalize the names of languages, races, and nationalities.

    Capitalize religions and their followers.

    Capitalize religious terms for sacred persons and things.

    ...

    Capitalize names of organizations, businesses, and institutions.

    Example: The American Red Cross, Southwest Airlines, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office


    Source - http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm
    The above is toward persons new to our language and/or in need of remedial tuning up.
    This is what I learned from Mrs. Lodge way back in 1976 and apparently is still taught today, as it was no doubt in 1776 and thereafter up to and beyond the drafting and approval of the Second Amendment.
    The Wiki entry makes note further down toward the oddity of the placement of the commas and their discrepancy between version one and version two but it's just a footnote of sorts. I wonder why it is no note toward the capitalization is made (?).

    Again I'm no expert on the subject and will not pretend to be.
    I wonder why it is I've not prior heard of anyone arguing this point toward 'M/miltia', 'P/people', in to to with the placement of the commas when reviewing the statement and it's meaning(s) as a whole.

    Maybe I'm totally off base and/or am not reading this correctly.
    I hope that is the case. Then at the end of the day I'd win and would be fine with that.
    But I wonder considering Adrian Fenty et. al. are not stupid people and they must know what they are up against and representing, as I read what I see it does seem to open a door toward interpretation which ion the face of things as I'm seeing it plainly, could in fact go against what we understand muchless hope toward.

    - Janq is not an attorney nor an English major, but I did once stay at a Holiday Inn Express
    "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

  15. #14
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    [QUOTE=Janq;478771]Yep.

    If it can be successfully argued that the two are separate and individual in statement (as written), context (as interpreted), and thus lawful application then it would open a door for other states and localities to refute civilian non ploice/non militarized carry of any sort toward firearms. That would be a major step backward for America.

    Remember that in the days of our forefathers, the militia comprised all able bodied men. Not an organized group like the reserves or guard. In fact, they had a mistrust of "standing armies". This is shown by the following statement made by James Madison: "As the greatest danger is that of disunion of the states, it is necessary to guard against it by sufficient powers to the common government; and that the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." And this by Alexander Hamilton: "Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equiped; This will not only lesson the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people." There is no doubt in my mind the forefathers meant the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.

  16. #15
    Member Array Deacon51's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    238
    Remember that in the days of our forefathers, the militia comprised all able bodied men.
    That is still the case today. Please review title 10 of the US Code.




    TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > §311. Militia: composition and classes
    (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
    Section 313 of title 32 expands the age of militia service to 64 years, if the citizen served in the regular armed forces.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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. Weird: Judge says man can't carry guns outside the home
    By paramedic70002 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 8th, 2010, 08:46 AM
  2. Guns in the home with children
    By Zach and Holly in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 27th, 2008, 07:27 PM
  3. Guns at Home
    By Hivoltage in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: January 10th, 2008, 06:00 PM
  4. Securing my guns at home.
    By wht06rado in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: December 13th, 2007, 11:25 AM
  5. First Guns Now You Can't Smoke Even At Home
    By ronwill in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: November 9th, 2007, 02:37 PM