The Heller case and gun ownership in D.C.?

This is a discussion on The Heller case and gun ownership in D.C.? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I was wondering something about the Heller case and that is being this case reaffirmed he 2nd amendment as an individual right,does this mean that ...

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: The Heller case and gun ownership in D.C.?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array 1911luver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,104

    The Heller case and gun ownership in D.C.?

    I was wondering something about the Heller case and that is being this case reaffirmed he 2nd amendment as an individual right,does this mean that the people who live in Washington,D.C. can now legally purchase and own a handgun for personal defense? Also whats the chance of this ruling helping the residents of Chicago to overturn that city's handgun ban?
    Snub nose revolvers,the original concealed carry guns.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,335
    NRA is working on a case right now in Chicago I gaurantee they will win based on the heller case.

    The NRA is doing more than just what heller vs DC proved. Go read up on it. It has been posted several times.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198
    Those that rule DC have tried every trick and manuever possible to stall, delay and obstruct the sales of firearms. It looks like Congress may have to step in.......again.
    In Chicago it's basically the same thing. The NRA is taking the city to court because of their refusal to comply with the Heller Decision.
    Both these battles are a clear indication of what the anti-gun movement is all about. They refuse to obey the law, even when the highest court in the country tells them to do so.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,767
    That will be decided by the Supreme Court. Yes, D.C. residents are allowed to purchase and own handguns now. But D.C. is a Federal enclave. The Constitution restricts the Federal government from infringing on our Rights. The argument before the court is going to be based on "incorporation" of the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment. If the court finds in favor of incorporation, state and local governments would also be prohibited from banning handguns. The courts may allow "reasonable restrictions" that will probably be loosely defined (if at all) so those restrictions could be created at the state and local level. If they don't find in favor of incorporation state and local governments would still be able to ban handguns.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #5
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    Even if DC is halted from their illegal prohibitions, how would a resident manage to buy a new firearm?

    No gun shops in DC.
    And it is a violation of Federal law for A dealer in Maryland or Virginia to sell to a non-resident.

  7. #6
    New Member Array wickedrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    SE, VA
    Posts
    9
    I think that the Heller case was a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court in favor of the right to own firearms for self defense. That is why so many people are concerned about Sotamayors appointment. She could be the swing vote the other way.

  8. #7
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by wickedrider View Post
    I think that the Heller case was a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court in favor of the right to own firearms for self defense. That is why so many people are concerned about Sotamayors appointment. She could be the swing vote the other way.
    No, because she is replacing one of the four dissenters.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array lance22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,032
    Chicago will say that the state, city, county, or municipality may make any law it deems fit to completely ban weapons.

    Regardless of what is said in 'Heller', the antis continue to believe that the 2A says that states have a right to maintain their own armies (national guard). They believe the 2A limits the Fed, not the states. Since then they believe that there is no limit upon how state, city, county, or municipality may impose 'reasonable regulation' they may reasonably say that you may not own weapons of any kind, not even in your own home. And they believe it so strongly that they are willing to take it all the way.

    Then it will go to the Supreme Court, and they will make a decision as to whether the Constitution is a handbook for the Fed, or whether it is the supreme law of the land that over-rides and limits all lesser powers.

    I always wonder how come they don't pull this crap with the other amendments. LOL that the Fed cannot limit free speech but the state can. That "free speech" doesn't apply to certain kinds of speech, such as political speech. That you have to get special permission to exercise free speech. What a bunch of hypocrites. Two years ago they were saying that the 2A only applies to states and therefore DC is exempt. Now that they found out that DC is not exempt, they have turned completely around and say that the 2A does not apply to states, but only to the Fed. LOL. Of course they never admit that they change their tune quicker than a politician on the campaign trail.

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,169

    Antis

    Quote Originally Posted by lance22 View Post
    Chicago will say that the state, city, county, or municipality may make any law it deems fit to completely ban weapons.

    Regardless of what is said in 'Heller', the antis continue to believe that the 2A says that states have a right to maintain their own armies (national guard). They believe the 2A limits the Fed, not the states. Since then they believe that there is no limit upon how state, city, county, or municipality may impose 'reasonable regulation' they may reasonably say that you may not own weapons of any kind, not even in your own home. And they believe it so strongly that they are willing to take it all the way.

    .
    Yes, and we have vociferous antis here who talk out of both sides of their mouth. They claim they support gun rights, but take such a narrow antiquated view of Federal-State interaction that they OPPOSE almost anything that might enhance gun owner's rights and options; they argue against the BOR being applied to the states; they argue against national legislation that would grant recognition of licenses issued by a resident's state to recognition in all other states.

    They claim they are constitutional purists. They are not. They are antis in "conservative" costume, hiding behind 19th century rulings made to perpetuate Jim Crow laws.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    What gets confused is what part of the BOR that applies to the states, and what applies to individuals. Liberals love to pick and choose which right applies where. Even conservative minded people do this from time to time, depending on the right in question.

    For instance : To a liberal, the right to free speech is inviolate even if that free speech ruins someone's life or career and is completely untrue. The second amendment only applies to the states concerning militias and with a modern army we simply don't need our guns anymore....And on and on and on....

    If you read history and what men like Jefferson intended in his writings, you read something else entirely. They all love to talk about being free and having all those rights until they get to the parts they don't like, then they change their colors on the spot. I point to Jeffersons writings concerning inalienable human rights, and chief among those are the rights to life and liberty and self defense. I have posed this question to liberals repeatedly, and they still cannot answer this logical question, do you or do you not have a right to defend yourself when attacked?
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  12. #11
    Member Array boerep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    73

    Guns in DC

    Waddya mean? There are plenty of Gun Owners in DC.

    Regards
    Rick
    "Fail Your Way To Success"
    "A Goal without a Plan, is Just a Dream"
    "Age and treachery will win over Youth and Enthusiasm"

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,169

    slander and libel

    Quote Originally Posted by edr9x23super View Post
    What gets confused is what part of the BOR that applies to the states, and what applies to individuals. Liberals love to pick and choose which right applies where. Even conservative minded people do this from time to time, depending on the right in question.

    For instance : To a liberal, the right to free speech is inviolate even if that free speech ruins someone's life or career and is completely untrue.
    Slander and libel are not protected free speech, and even the most liberal minded judges will enforce these laws. I've no idea why you think liberals or progressives or anyone else thinks slander and libel are O.K. And there has been plenty of it here in DC with regard to
    lies about The President not being a US citizen by birth; and several other comments. The purveyors of this stuff are fortunate that political figures can't sue to protect their names.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198

    Liberals and slander........

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Slander and libel are not protected free speech, and even the most liberal minded judges will enforce these laws. I've no idea why you think liberals or progressives or anyone else thinks slander and libel are O.K. And there has been plenty of it here in DC with regard to
    lies about The President not being a US citizen by birth; and several other comments. The purveyors of this stuff are fortunate that political figures can't sue to protect their names.


    I got the idea that liberals think libel and slander are O.K. from watching 8 years of character assassination by the liberal media against Pres. George W. Bush.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

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. Maine joins federal case on gun ownership
    By boricua in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 11th, 2009, 08:29 PM
  2. D.C. gun ban case (Heller v. D.C.) - D.C. Files brief
    By KenpoTex in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 5th, 2008, 01:52 PM
  3. Variations on a Theme: The Heller Case in the USSC
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 21st, 2007, 11:42 PM
  4. For Non-Gun Owners: The D.C. vs. Heller Case
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 15th, 2007, 12:39 PM