Federal Judge Rules DC is Liable for Post-Heller Wrongful Firearm Arrests

[Plainsman]

Yeah, we could turn the city of Washington into a state and put the nation's capitol somewhere else - possibly somewhere gun-friendly... .

I always thought a small chunk in the middle of the country with exactly four buildings no more! One for Congress, one for the supreme court, one for the new White House, and one for as a dormitory for everybody, except the President’s family to live! Then the Congressment will actually WANT to return home more than live there!

No places for lobbyists to have offices or congressmen to build homes or other extreme things like the cesspool DC has become!

 

[Tirod]

we could always make DC a state.

There was a better answer and it was being done - move each agency out of DC and place it closer to it's center of operations. Homeland to KC, Land Management even futher west, etc. It also puts the input of salary and other revenue spread over middle America, instead of fueling a high cost of living center of operations which then triggers even more expense. Decentralization is the better answer.

Also, by moving most of the bureaucracy as far from political manipulation as possible, then they concentrate on their job and less on aspirations to national office thru networking. Which is putting it politely. There would be better management. And the perspective of the Agencies and Departments would relate more closely with those Americans close at hand - not an echo chamber of policies promoted by America's enemies.

Fixing the problem with DC is best done by removing all the entanglements, not creating even more. Which is exactly the problem with the DC policies on handguns - they were promoted by those organizations which are concentrated there to push national policy in THEIR direction, not ours. So the situation would be even worse with DC as a state. What it needs is to be drastically downsized, not made worse.

It's been known as a Swamp because it WAS a swamp and it really does need to be drained.

 

[bdickens]

I wouldn't consider CATO to be non-partisan at all. They are absolutely nothing more than a neoliberal publication attempting to smear their garbage with the authenticity of pseudo enlightenment revisionism. So, I guess technically non-partisan in that they aren't directly affiliated with any party, but the conservative bias of their writing tells me everything I need to know about their work product. Big giant grains of salt required any time a Cato link is presented.

You are 100% wrong. The Cato institute is libertarian. That's small l. Not "neoliberal" and all the other cute little pseudointellectual buzzwords you're throwing around to try to impress everyone with your intelligence.

Libertarians have a hard time from both ends of the political spectrum. Liberals think they're conservative and conservatives think they're liberal when in reality they are neither. Nor are they centrists.

You're certainly free to agree or disagree with the Cato institute but you should do so on the basis of reasoned argument and not strawman attacks. Although you are certainly free to do that as well.

 

[Bfh_auto]

That would do far more harm to national politics than good. The framers made DC a separate entity on purpose so the federal government would not have sway as a "state" in Congress.

Yes it would. The framers of our country had a lot of bad examples to use for what not to do.
We also don't really want another liberal State.

 

[P5 Guy]

Give DC back to MD

 

[herrwalther]

Fixing the problem with DC is best done by removing all the entanglements, not creating even more. Which is exactly the problem with the DC policies on handguns - they were promoted by those organizations which are concentrated there to push national policy in THEIR direction, not ours. So the situation would be even worse with DC as a state. What it needs is to be drastically downsized, not made worse.

You can almost *see* the Founders intentions to have DC remain a district and not its own state, where it would cause problems. The Constitution limits DC to "not exceeding 10 miles square." DC was never intended to be a residential area with representation in Congress. DC already has too much pull in Maryland, Virginia, and national politics. Much of that pull is anti-gun. Now it has a population of just under 700K. The House is capped at one representative for every 750K or so. The argument to make DC a state would add at least 3 (2 Senators and 1 Rep) to Congress. As gun owners, that is something we absolutely do not want and definitely don't need during the current administration.

 

[Ivy Mike]

You can almost *see* the Founders intentions to have DC remain a district and not its own state, where it would cause problems. The Constitution limits DC to "not exceeding 10 miles square." DC was never intended to be a residential area with representation in Congress. DC already has too much pull in Maryland, Virginia, and national politics. Much of that pull is anti-gun. Now it has a population of just under 700K. The House is capped at one representative for every 750K or so. The argument to make DC a state would add at least 3 (2 Senators and 1 Rep) to Congress. As gun owners, that is something we absolutely do not want and definitely don't need during the current administration.

The US has one of the smallest legislative bodies relative to its population size in the entire world. What we need more than anything, is more representation in D.C., not less. And while we're at it, disallowing partisan gerrymandering and making it 100% illegal and criminal should be on the short list of to-do's. A much better option is to make large districts with multiple representatives. Instead of each district getting one, you set up large districts with a minimum of 3. Then you use a preferential voting method to select representatives. In doing this, you can have a representative delegation that more closely matches the makeup of the population in a district. For example, in a Texas district, you might have 3 representatives by population (X population block = 1 delegate) and a population who leans largely conservative. But you still have some liberal voters who would find themselves without representation under a single rep. In making the district large and having multiple reps, you no longer need to draw silly borders to cut out or fence in groups of people. So in our fictional TX district, the people vote and most select the two conservatives in order of preference. One of them receives an overwhelming number, but we use a transferable vote system, which means the 2nd choice of the people is also considered. The excess votes beyond the winning threshold (3 reps = 33% needed to win) go to second choices. So the two conservatives reach 33% of the vote and go to congress, but the third, liberal candidate manages to win 33% of the vote (or second choice votes from the less conservative of the conservative voters) and goes to congress as well. Now you have representatives who more closely match the voters in their area and you can always count on a representative who is friendly to your point of view. You don't get ignored because of party affiliation or single issues.
The lines for districts don't follow boundaries as we see them today. You just draw straight lines on the map to carve up areas. This might divide up voting blocks, but it no longer matters because you still get representation in congress proportional to your population size.You could run a district boundary right through Dallas or Manhattan and it makes no difference.


We are hamstrung by an outdated method of assigning representation and have allowed corruption to run rampant. Strategic voting limits options for candidates to those who will toe party lines; don't push the platform and you get no party funding. I saw an interesting video where someone was asked to define his political ideology in one sentence. The man said 'I believe a gay married couple should be able to defend their marijuana farm with machine guns.' Do you think you'll find support for such a sentence in the wishy-washy milquetoast GOP or DNC these days? If your answer is no, you're hitting on why the US Congress barely represents voters and has an approval rating lower than any president in more than a century. The US population hates congress more than they ever hated Donald Trump or Jimmy Carter. You have to look back to Andrew Johnson to find a president so reviled and consequently, he's why we don't put the runner-up as the VP to the winner anymore.

 

[Megawatt maker]

The US has one of the smallest legislative bodies relative to its population size in the entire world. What we need more than anything, is more representation in D.C., not less. And while we're at it, disallowing partisan gerrymandering and making it 100% illegal and criminal should be on the short list of to-do's. A much better option is to make large districts with multiple representatives. Instead of each district getting one, you set up large districts with a minimum of 3. Then you use a preferential voting method to select representatives. In doing this, you can have a representative delegation that more closely matches the makeup of the population in a district. For example, in a Texas district, you might have 3 representatives by population (X population block = 1 delegate) and a population who leans largely conservative. But you still have some liberal voters who would find themselves without representation under a single rep. In making the district large and having multiple reps, you no longer need to draw silly borders to cut out or fence in groups of people. So in our fictional TX district, the people vote and most select the two conservatives in order of preference. One of them receives an overwhelming number, but we use a transferable vote system, which means the 2nd choice of the people is also considered. The excess votes beyond the winning threshold (3 reps = 33% needed to win) go to second choices. So the two conservatives reach 33% of the vote and go to congress, but the third, liberal candidate manages to win 33% of the vote (or second choice votes from the less conservative of the conservative voters) and goes to congress as well. Now you have representatives who more closely match the voters in their area and you can always count on a representative who is friendly to your point of view. You don't get ignored because of party affiliation or single issues.
The lines for districts don't follow boundaries as we see them today. You just draw straight lines on the map to carve up areas. This might divide up voting blocks, but it no longer matters because you still get representation in congress proportional to your population size.You could run a district boundary right through Dallas or Manhattan and it makes no difference.


We are hamstrung by an outdated method of assigning representation and have allowed corruption to run rampant. Strategic voting limits options for candidates to those who will toe party lines; don't push the platform and you get no party funding. I saw an interesting video where someone was asked to define his political ideology in one sentence. The man said 'I believe a gay married couple should be able to defend their marijuana farm with machine guns.' Do you think you'll find support for such a sentence in the wishy-washy milquetoast GOP or DNC these days? If your answer is no, you're hitting on why the US Congress barely represents voters and has an approval rating lower than any president in more than a century. The US population hates congress more than they ever hated Donald Trump or Jimmy Carter. You have to look back to Andrew Johnson to find a president so reviled and consequently, he's why we don't put the runner-up as the VP to the winner anymore.

Umm...just NO! We already have an oversized and expensive monster of a government. Expand it? You must be crazy my friend.
It's up to the states to decide how they wish to draw districts. The Gerrymander has been around a long time, and mostly as stood up to lots of court challenges. It may not be perfect, but it works well enough. It's a mechanic of federalism, and it needs left alone.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Umm...just NO! We already have an oversized and expensive monster of a government. Expand it? You must be crazy my friend.
It's up to the states to decide how they wish to draw districts. The Gerrymander has been around a long time, and mostly as stood up to lots of court challenges. It may not be perfect, but it works well enough. It's a mechanic of federalism, and it needs left alone.

It doesn't work well enough. The USA is not the same nation it was in the late 18th century.
When the wealthiest people and corporations can buy representatives and congress ignores the wishes of the voters who put them there, how can you possibly think it works? States and their budgets are even more susceptible to outside influence. How many times do you see companies seeking handouts in the form of tax breaks with the promise they will bring jobs? They want welfare from the statehouse and they want you to pay for it. Nestle is bottling California's water and selling it back to them despite it being treated for use by public funding. Energy companies leave massive coal ash piles all over the Carolinas and Tennessee which pollute groundwater and leave massive areas contaminated, and get tax breaks to do so.

That's not Federalism, it's Plutocracy. Time to wake up and take responsibility.

 

[Megawatt maker]

It doesn't work well enough. The USA is not the same nation it was in the late 18th century.
When the wealthiest people and corporations can buy representatives and congress ignores the wishes of the voters who put them there, how can you possibly think it works? States and their budgets are even more susceptible to outside influence. How many times do you see companies seeking handouts in the form of tax breaks with the promise they will bring jobs? They want welfare from the statehouse and they want you to pay for it. Nestle is bottling California's water and selling it back to them despite it being treated for use by public funding. Energy companies leave massive coal ash piles all over the Carolinas and Tennessee which pollute groundwater and leave massive areas contaminated, and get tax breaks to do so.

That's not Federalism, it's Plutocracy. Time to wake up and take responsibility.

You think tripling the size will eliminate the money infulence?

Lol..I surely hope you dont really think it would. It would make the insanity far worse!

 

[Ivy Mike]

You think tripling the size will eliminate the money infulence?

Lol..I surely hope you dont really think it would. It would make the insanity far worse!

Hence the reason I mentioned allowing corruption as a massive problem. Along with making gerrymandering criminal, we need to outlaw lobbying.
Lobbying is nothing more than legalized corruption. Lobbying is why the NRA has turned into a money hungry s**tshow that is facing extinction; if not by legal means, then by the hemorrhaging of members seeking organizations who actually serve their member's interests.

 

[Milt1]

I'm beyond happy with this ruling! I hope the clarity of thought and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by this Judge will be the cause for other judges to do the same.

 

[bdickens]

we need to outlaw lobbying.

What do you think "writing to your representatives" is?

 

[herrwalther]

When the wealthiest people and corporations can buy representatives and congress ignores the wishes of the voters who put them there, how can you possibly think it works?

This is the result of a 2010 SCOTUS decision commonly referred to as Citizens United. In short, it allows corporations to be treated as "individuals" and donate to political candidates as much money as they want. Essentially "buying" that politician. This has nothing to do with representation in Congress. And, until someone brings an appellate court case up to the Supreme Court challenging the oligarchy of corporations having unlimited donations to politics, will unfortunately remain that way. You are incorrectly assuming that increasing the size of government will eliminate corruption, when it will have the exact opposite. The Roman empire had the same idea and they collapsed from bloated politics. But this is getting into the weeds and not related to firearms.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Frankly, Ivy Mike, the idea of turning the big cities into vote farms does not appeal to me.
It didn't work too well for the Romans, either... .

 

[Megawatt maker]

Hence the reason I mentioned allowing corruption as a massive problem. Along with making gerrymandering criminal, we need to outlaw lobbying.
Lobbying is nothing more than legalized corruption. Lobbying is why the NRA has turned into a money hungry s**tshow that is facing extinction; if not by legal means, then by the hemorrhaging of members seeking organizations who actually serve their member's interests.

I can use PA as an example that larger government DOES NOT WORK.

We in PA have the second biggest legislature, behind California. It is bloated, corrupt and inefficient as all get out. It's slow to respond to the wishes of the voters, and it spends way too much money because everyone has their own little pet projects they want funded...so the can say they brought home the bacon and get reeelected.

Bigger ain't better

 

[Ivy Mike]

What do you think "writing to your representatives" is?

I write on plain paper and don't include lavish trips or massive donations to PACs to fund campaigns.

 

[Ivy Mike]

I can use PA as an example that larger government DOES NOT WORK.

We in PA have the second biggest legislature, behind California. It is bloated, corrupt and inefficient as all get out. It's slow to respond to the wishes of the voters, and it spends way too much money because everyone has their own little pet projects they want funded...so the can say they brought home the bacon and get reeelected.

Bigger ain't better

Pennsylvania? You mean one of the states who had its district map thrown out because of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander?
The size of your legislature isn't the issue. The fact that political parties can hijack district maps for their own corrupt benefits is the problem. And who funds those politician's campaigns?
I think you're starting to hit on the problem here. Unless you're ready to overthrow the state itself and put control into the hands of the people (seize the means of production comrade!!), you need to make your government beholden to voters, not wealthy owners.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Frankly, Ivy Mike, the idea of turning the big cities into vote farms does not appeal to me.
It didn't work too well for the Romans, either... .

They already are vote farms. Why do you think Texas, California and New York always swing the way they do? The issue is that these states are basically unassailable by the opposition party because you can't break the stranglehold of the winner-take-all system which inevitably leads to two parties and restarts your vicious cycle.
That's one of the reasons for a preferential election method, to make the results match the districts. The single shortest line division method assists you in this by breaking up formerly large (in population) districts into sizes that respect the diverse nature of cities. Not everyone in New York is a liberal. Not everyone in Texas is a conservative, but you'd never know it because the gerrymandered system you're arguing in support of, ignores votes as a part of normal operation.

 

[hso]

This is why we can't have nice things.