DC GUN BAN
Is unconstitutional and americans have the right to own guns for self defense ..
0
-
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=242614
Does this mean that the DC gun-ban will be in effect again?0 -
this is an intresting read a little long but good.
http://dcguncase.com/blog/0 -
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file.php
The United States Government has filed an amicus brief in the DC Gun Ban case.
And they ask the Supreme Court to REVERSE (REVERSE!!!) the DC Circuit's invalidation of the ban.
IMO George Bush is a traitor. He sold us out to the illegals and now wants to take away a right that many men have fought, bled, and died to preserve. If we have people in Iraq/Afghanistan fighting to preserve the so called "rights" that we have here in America, and our President is trying to take away those same rights.....then wth are we having these kids killed for???0 -
House Passes Bill To Repeal D.C. Gun Ban
-- Action now needed in the U.S. Senate
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Thank you so much for your activism!
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives opted to pass Representative Childers' D.C. gun ban repeal instead of the anti-gun bill sponsored by Del.Eleanor Holmes Norton -- which would have allowed D.C. to continue enacting gun control.
The bill now goes to the Senate, but unless there is a ton of pressure put on Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the bill will languish in committee.
Thankfully, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is spearheading an effort to get a vote on the House-passed bill. She is asking her fellow Senators to cosponsor a letter which she will then deliver to Sen. Reid.
The Hutchison letter points out that, "In DC v. Heller, the court affirmed that the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of handguns was an unconstitutional restriction on that right."
After noting that D.C. has continued to deprive its residents of their Second Amendment rights for more than 30 years, the letter asks Sen. Reid "to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes."
(Norton's bill was the original HR 6842, but it now contains the Childers pro-gun language instead -- thanks in no small part to your efforts.)
There are not many days left before Congress recesses for the remainder of the year, and Sen. Reid is expected to try to run out the clock on the D.C. repeal bill. That's why it's important to act quickly and contact your own two U.S. Senators.
This is the last chance we have this year to put some teeth into the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. Gun Owners of America will score the signing of this letter in its upcoming congressional rating.
ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and ask them to cosign the Hutchison letter to Senator Reid. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Senators at
202-224-3121 or toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Pre-written letter
Dear Senator:
I was happy to see that the House of Representatives voted for the Childers substitute language which will repeal the D.C. gun ban (HR 6842).
I recognize that there is not much time left in the legislative session, and so I hope you will do everything in your power to pressure Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring up HR 6842 for a vote.
Hence, I urge you to cosign by Friday the Hutchison letter which urges Reid "to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes."
Gun Owners of America will score the signing of this letter in its upcoming congressional rating. Please let me know how you intend to act.
Sincerely,
****************************
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web.0 -
Yes, it is still in effect.
Unlike abortion laws that are declared unconstitutional because they deprive citizens of their constitutional rights and are not enforced while working through the court system, this law, while unconstitutional, is still enforced.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Yes, it is still in effect.
Unlike abortion laws that are declared unconstitutional because they deprive citizens of their constitutional MADE-UP AND FICTITIOUS rights and are not enforced while working through the court system, this law, while unconstitutional, is still enforced.
fixed it for ya.[;)]0 -
thank you[:)]. I only had 3 hours of sleep today. My brain is still slightly disturbed. 0 -
Federal court will more than likily agree with the DC court, if they follow their past tends.
Going to Federal court is what we want. If they agree and up hold the decision. This could be a start to over turning other gun laws, such as the ones in California.
But if they disgree this could wake up the gun community. Which could be a good thing. Waking up pro-gunners that is, not losing the decision. I think we as pro gunners out number the anti gunners. We just need a wake up call to get to things started, to get us united.
I think anti-gunners know that if they lost DC they're better off. Than winning DC and waking up the gun community.
Just me 2 cents.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Yes, it is still in effect.
Unlike abortion laws that are declared unconstitutional because they deprive citizens of their constitutional MADE-UP AND FICTITIOUS rights and are not enforced while working through the court system, this law, while unconstitutional, is still enforced.
fixed it for ya.[;)]
What's made-up and fictitious about the right to be secure in one's person, property, and papers?0 -
While I hate to disagree with such a fine looking lady, the simple fact is, the gun owning communtiy will probally never wake up, and stick together. I'm of the sect that says all firearms should be legal, and completly despise those who support gun control (or any infringment of our rights). There are also those who are under the false belief that if we allow the "assult weapons" to be banned, hunting rifles will never be. Basically there are to many in the gun owning communtiy that support gun control.quote:Originally posted by Cutiegirlracing
Federal court will more than likily agree with the DC court, if they follow their past tends.
Going to Federal court is what we want. If they agree and up hold the decision. This could be a start to over turning other gun laws, such as the ones in California.
But if they disgree this could wake up the gun community. Which could be a good thing. Waking up pro-gunners that is, not losing the decision. I think we as pro gunners out number the anti gunners. We just need a wake up call to get to things started, to get us united.
I think anti-gunners know that if they lost DC they're better off. Than winning DC and waking up the gun community.
Just me 2 cents.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Yes, it is still in effect.
Unlike abortion laws that are declared unconstitutional because they deprive citizens of their constitutional MADE-UP AND FICTITIOUS rights and are not enforced while working through the court system, this law, while unconstitutional, is still enforced.
fixed it for ya.[;)]
What's made-up and fictitious about the right to be secure in one's person, property, and papers?
what's fictitious about it is the Fourth Amendment was NEVER intended to cover something as POLITICAL (as opposed to judicial or rights-based) as abortion. The constitution is silent on it as it is on many, many other matters and these things are all POLITICAL decisions to be decided at the polls, not the courthouses.0 -
quote:what's fictitious about it is the Fourth Amendment was NEVER intended to cover something as POLITICAL (as opposed to judicial or rights-based) as abortion. The constitution is silent on it as it is on many, many other matters and these things are all POLITICAL decisions to be decided at the polls, not the courthouses.One's person is not a political issue.
There is the argument that the 2nd Amendment did not foresee machine guns and that since machine guns were not around at the time of the Bill of Rights, they obviously weren't meant to be covered.
Right?
WRONG!
Just as we cannot and should not interpret the Second Amendment in such a narrow and bigoted fashion, neither should we interpret the Fourth or any other Amendment in any fashion other than that which will protect our freedoms.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
quote:what's fictitious about it is the Fourth Amendment was NEVER intended to cover something as POLITICAL (as opposed to judicial or rights-based) as abortion. The constitution is silent on it as it is on many, many other matters and these things are all POLITICAL decisions to be decided at the polls, not the courthouses.One's person is not a political issue.
There is the argument that the 2nd Amendment did not foresee machine guns and that since machine guns were not around at the time of the Bill of Rights, they obviously weren't meant to be covered.
Right?
WRONG!
Just as we cannot and should not interpret the Second Amendment in such a narrow and bigoted fashion, neither should we interpret the Fourth or any other Amendment in any fashion other than that which will protect our freedoms.
1.) It's not just ONE'S person that is at issue in any discussion of abortion. Try as you might, you cannot deny that "whatever" is aborted, and at whatever stage, is the precursor to every human that has ever walked the earth, including you. You can't have an a human, or an infant, without it first going through all the stages of development that it goes through PRIOR to that. That, my friend, is a person no matter which way you cut it.
2.) the Founders weren't aware of machine guns. But they were aware of abortion. If they wanted the Constitution to say something on abortion (one way or another) they would have put it in there. They didn't. Just as they didn't put about 96 billion other matters in there because they viewed them as POLITICAL decisions to be made by the polis at the state and local level, which was the very idea of federalism and the labarotories of democracy. The Constitution enunciates broad and at times ambigous principles of governance and federal structure. But if you truly believe that the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion, ask yourself why it took almost 200 years before anyone got around to litigating it. Virtually every state had some measure of protection for the unborn on the books from the founding up until Roe. Why was this right only announced after 200 years of the Constitution being in effect? If it was so clear to anyone who reads the constitution, why did all those state legislators keep passing laws cicumscribing abortion? Why did judges (who presumably read the Constitution at one point or another) routinely uphold and apply those laws? Why can't this right to privacy (which it should be noted, I support and agree with in most matters up until it comes to abortion) not be applied to things like local laws forbidding alcohol? Don't I have the right to drink? Me drinking affects only one person, at least in theory. Why can the state control what I consume and do to MYSELF but not what I choose to do with a fetus, which, after all is (or will be, given the chance) ANOTHER human, which is the traditional purview of behavioral regulation? why why why0 -
...ANY mindset that thinks the constitution is a "living" doc, is awarped mindset.
...The constitution was meant to lay down laws/rights, that were meant to be UNCHANGEABLE!
...The constitution was written in response to the fact that in Great Britain, their were basically NO written laws adhered to consistantly, changed on the whim of a nobleman or whomever. IF, there were any that were even actually written....
...The Constitution was meant to REMEDY a "living" doc that was changeable, ie; Great Britains...[;)]
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
14 comments