In the wake of last week’s multiple-assassination attempt, a Congressman wants to do something common sense: Extend civil rights to the District. I’m pretty sure that DC’s current gun laws remain in violation of it. In fact, I wonder if a federal law requiring reciprocity across state lines would pass Constitutional muster?
8 thoughts on “The Second Amendment In DC”
Comments are closed.
J.D. Tuccille recently had a great article in Reason. Entitled “Carry a Gun Without a Permit,” it had a great tagline: “If you have to ask permission, it’s a privilege, not a right.” He advocates “constitutional carry,” where the Constitution is all the “permit” one needs.
I found DC Councilman Allen’s remarks to be disingenuous. “I think our focus should probably be more on the people who have been injured and who are still recovering from (Wednesday’s shooting), rather than trying to 24 hours later revive legislation,” Allen said. The Left (including Virginia’s governor) used the shooting to call for further gun control laws. It’s amazing how the first reaction of these people is to try to ensure that next time, the victims will be even more defenseless than there were this time.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be limited or undermined.
That is the supreme law of the land put into other words.
In order for the D.C.carry permit law to be constitutional it must interpret “good reason” so that it doesn’t infringe on that right.
Which proves my point that law is not about reason.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be limited or undermined.
That is the supreme law of the land put into other words.”
It is until some liberal appointed for life federal judge(s) decides the Constitution is just a “living document” to be “interrupted” according to said judges idea of whatever he/she thinks serves the public interest and/or their idea of whatever they believe the “right thing to do in their heart” is. This is why elections matter; those 120 unfilled federal judge posts I hope President Trump gets to fill from his list. Other than the SCOTUS appointments they are kind of “stealth” appointments that practically nobody it seems evens pays attention to. They (the federal judge appointments) might prove to be Trump’s most important legacy even if he succeeds in getting most of the other things (the wall, tax/healthcare reform, even bringing jobs back) done.
“living document”
Maybe I’m not being clear? Law is war by other means. It’s not math, reason or logic.
As war, it needs to be fought for righteousness. Too many on the right think it’s about being fair, when fair has nothing to do with it. To win, it’s not enough to win the argument. To win, you must remove the arguer from the field of battle. Otherwise their argument does not die, for any reason.
“Palin targets Giffords.”
“Minimum wage must be a living wage.”
“Women make less money doing the same work.”
Those that self identify by repeating proven falsehoods should not be tolerated and taken out to hold no more power than some dish washer or as close to that as can be achieved.
This isn’t a game. It’s our future.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law
And by my reading, any law that exempts a select few based on their position in government, as many “gun control” measures do, violates equal protection under the law.
“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law”
Can’t deprive people of their property without due process of law?
Tell that to the many thousands of people that have had their money, cars, property seized by law enforcement without trial, conviction, or in allot of cases even being charged with a crime. It is called “Civil Asset Forfeiture; they can seize the aforementioned with only the “suspicion” in their (law enforcement’s) mind that said personal property was the result of or used to “facilitate” some kind of crime/illegal activity. They (the authorities) get to keep what they seize; the burden of prove (and the legal expense thereof) is upon the citizen to fight to get their stuff back. Thank the WOD for that; far more than the 2nd Amendment is under assault.
Clarence Thomas Attacks Civil Asset Forfeiture, Lower Court Follows His Lead
Asset forfeiture “has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.”
“In March the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by a Texas woman fighting for the return of over $200,000 in cash that the police seized from her family. Although neither Lisa Olivia Leonard nor any of her relatives were ever charged with any underlying crime connected to the cash, the state’s sweeping asset forfeiture laws allowed the authorities to take the money.
The Supreme Court offered no explanation when it refused to hear Leonard v. Texas. But one member of the Court did speak up in protest. In a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear that in his view modern asset forfeiture law is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Yesterday, one of the most influential federal appellate courts in the country—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—signaled its agreement with Thomas’ assessment in a notable decision in favor of an innocent couple fighting for the return of $17,900 in cash seized by the police.
As Thomas explained in Leonard v. Texas, “this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.” For one thing, “because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” For another, this sort of police abuse disproportionately harms disadvantaged groups. “These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings,” he observed. “Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home.”
To make matters worse, Thomas continued, the Supreme Court’s previous rulings in this area do not line up with the text of the Constitution, which “presumably would require the Court to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation.” Those other doctrines, Thomas noted, impose significant checks on the government, such as heightened standards of proof, various procedural protections, and the right to a trial by jury. Civil asset forfeiture proceedings, by contrast, offer no such constitutional safeguards.
In short, Justice Thomas offered a searing indictment of modern civil asset forfeiture and called on the judiciary to start reconsidering its flawed approach.”
http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/21/clarence-thomas-attacks-civil-asset-forf