to say that "this could get interesting" is something of an understatement


PDA

alan
February 12, 2003, 05:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Lawsuit challenges D.C. gun ban
Action taken on behalf of residents who want firearm in home

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 12, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A civil lawsuit has been filed in federal court on behalf of six residents of Washington, D.C., who want their rights to have firearms in their homes restored, announced the Cato Institute.

Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies for Cato, and Gene Healy, the group's senior editor, are joined by two D.C.-based attorneys in filing the action.

"The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a handgun ... within the home," the complaint said. But D.C. officials "enforce a set of laws [that] deprive individuals, including the plaintiffs, of this important right."

A statement from the Cato Institute mentions that the think tank itself is not involved in the litigation.

Said the statement: "The D.C. city council, which is controlled by Congress and indisputably constrained by the Second Amendment, has enacted one of the most draconian gun bans in the nation. No handgun can be registered in the District. Even pistols registered prior to D.C.'s 1976 ban cannot be carried from room to room in the home without a license. Moreover, all firearms in the home must be unloaded and either disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock. In effect, no one in D.C. can possess a functional firearm in his or her own residence."

The lead plaintiff, Shelly Parker, resides in a high-crime neighborhood, explained the Cato statement, and has been threatened by drug dealers. She would like to possess a handgun in her home for self-defense, but fears arrest, prosecution, incarceration and fines because of D.C.'s gun-control laws.

According to Cato, a second plaintiff is a special police officer who carries a handgun to provide security for the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center. But when he applied for permission to possess a handgun within his home, the D.C. government turned him down. Other plaintiffs include a homosexual man who, according to the statement, has been assaulted because he is a homosexual, and the owner of a registered shotgun who cannot lawfully render her gun operational.

The plaintiffs want the federal court to prevent D.C. from barring the registration of handguns, banning the possession of functional firearms within the home, and forbidding firearms from being carried from room to room without a license.

"This is not about carrying a machine gun on the streets," said Levy. "It's about having a garden-variety handgun in your own home."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you enjoyed reading about "to say that "this could get interesting" is something of an understatement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ted Bell
February 12, 2003, 06:18 PM
I like the diverse group of plaintiffs. Not your average group of rightwing gun nuts.;)

Marshall
February 12, 2003, 06:48 PM
Someone please explain to me how this is not a direct violation of the constitution?

Are they getting around the 2cd Amendment by allowing shotguns and or rifles in the home?

What's the deal?

Blackhawk
February 12, 2003, 06:52 PM
Yep, and the legal team is doing this great public service at no charge. :neener:

Jeeper
February 12, 2003, 06:55 PM
Bob Levy - who is the lawyer for the cato institute on this, will likely be speaking at my law school in april about this and other gun issues. I am the president of my Law School's gun club and have been in contact with him. It should be very interesting. Anyone in Houston will be welcome to attend.

Dave R
February 12, 2003, 08:23 PM
'Bout time this happened! This should be a great suit. OK, where's the NRA or the GOA?

Waitone
February 12, 2003, 08:58 PM
There is another thread out there saying DC cabbies want the "right" to pack heat since they tend to be easy targets.

Standing Wolf
February 12, 2003, 09:01 PM
The founding fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights specifically to preclude the type of laws Washington, D.C. has enacted.

Washington the man would be horrified.

beckrodgers
February 12, 2003, 09:09 PM
ok, here we go. Lawsuits are fine. We as a people need to realize common-sense, and educate and support each other outside this so-called system. I challenge each and every one to buy and own any firearm they desire anywhere in this country regardless of what dickheads write on paper and call it law. It's real simple. We have to protect ourselves. The courts, nor anyone else, can give you permission to defend yourself. It has already been given to you and recognized. But we as a whole have to all do these things. Much has been written in the last 70 years on this subject. I think we are all missing the simplicity of it. Hey, Ghandi got it. So did Dr. King. So did Chesty Puller and many if not all of the Founding Fathers of this great nation.

4v50 Gary
February 12, 2003, 09:34 PM
Let us hope that those in Washington DC will be permitted to defend themselves.

.45Ruger
February 12, 2003, 09:42 PM
If this lawuit is successful it could do much to help people realize that they have the right to defend themselves and no city or state be it, D.C, Chicago, **********, Maryland or the PRNJ have a right to deny that right.

alan
February 12, 2003, 11:49 PM
Marshall wrote, asking:

Someone please explain to me how this is not a direct violation of the constitution?

Are they getting around the 2cd Amendment by allowing shotguns and or rifles in the home?

What's the deal?

I'm not expert in the law, and since I'm retired, I no longer practice any profession but I suppose that the answer to your first question might be as follows.

Any legislative body has the ability, meaning that the law says they can enact legislation, said legislation being good, bad or indifferent. Legislation doesn't "violate the constitution" until the judiciary says that it does, no matter how the thimng might appear to you or myself, or anyone else.

As to the sevcond part of ypour question, as I recall, no firearms are allowed, unless registered prior to 1976, and if they satisfy that requirement, they must be in inoperable condition, say with the bolt removed in the case of a rifle.

I didn't say that this foolishness made the least sense, I've merely "recited" the requirements of the D.C. law, based on memory and what might well be my imperfect or flawed understanding thereof.

El Rojo
February 12, 2003, 11:57 PM
I like the mix up of the plantifs! Hard to use the stereotypical balding white male whinning about being oppressed line on this one. Great selection.

If you enjoyed reading about "to say that "this could get interesting" is something of an understatement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!