1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Seven Washington Citizens File Challenge To DC Anti-Guns Laws

Discussion in 'Legal' started by gun-fucious, Apr 16, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gun-fucious

    gun-fucious Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    centre of the PA
    Seven Washington Citizens File Challenge To DC Anti-Guns Laws

    Larry Pratt

    Shelly Parker is one of seven plaintiffs who has gone to U.S.
    District Court in our Nation's capital to challenge Washington DC's
    anti-gun laws which blatantly infringe the Constitutionally
    protected right of private citizens to keep and bear arms. In a
    sworn statement to the Court explaining why she wants to possess a
    functional handgun in her home for self-defense, Parker says, in

    I reside in a high-crime neighborhood of the District of
    Columbia.... When I moved into the neighborhood, I soon noticed
    my block was constantly beset by drug dealing and drug use. I
    started calling the police frequently and encouraging my neighbors
    to call the police as well. I organized block meetings to discuss
    the neighborhood's response to the drug activity at a church on my

    The drug dealers... identified me as an anti-drug activist and
    began threatening me whenever they would see me walking around the
    neighborhood. They also started threatening my neighbors very

    On June 12, 2002, the back window of my car was broken. The
    following month, a large rock came through my front window. I've
    also had a security camera stolen from the outside of my house.
    On one occasion, a drug user who sometimes acts as a lookout for
    the drug dealers drove his car into the back fence of my house.

    On the night of February 12, 2003, the date on which the
    Washington Times carried a front-page article about this lawsuit
    and my role in it, a drug dealer I knew as "Nanook" started
    banging on my door and tried to pry his way into my house,
    repeatedly yelling, "bitch, I'll kill you, I live on this block,

    But, of course, under Washington DC's anti-gun laws, among the
    strictest in the Nation, Shelly Parker cannot now legally have a
    handgun, even in her home, for self-defense. Among other things,
    these anti-gun laws punish a first offense by a fine of up to $1,000
    and imprisonment of up to one year (or both), and a second offense
    by a fine of up to $5,000 or a jail term of up to five years, or
    both. Even the movement of a handgun from one location to another on
    one's property carries a criminal penalty.

    To demonstrate just how absurd, outrageous and irrational Washington
    DC's anti-self defense laws are, consider the case of one of
    Parker's fellow plaintiffs, Dick Anthony Heller. Heller is a Special
    Police Officer who works in the District of Columbia providing
    security for the Federal judiciary. He is already licensed to and
    does carry a handgun on his job. But when Heller, who also lives in
    a high-crime neighborhood in Washington DC, applied for permission
    to have a handgun in his home this was denied!

    In any event, to no one's surprise, lawyers for the District of
    Columbia and Mayor Anthony Williams -- in an embarrassingly
    incompetent brief -- have asked the District Court to dismiss the
    arguments of Shelly Parker and her fellow plaintiffs.

    In opposition to the District of Columbia's pathetic Motion To
    Dismiss, the attorneys for Parker, et al -- Alan Gura, Robert A.
    Levy, Gene Healy and Clark M. Neily -- have filed what is arguably
    the finest, most concise and compellingly documented defense of the
    "individual right" view of the Second Amendment I have ever seen.
    Among other things, this excellent brief shows clearly:

    * That the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller did
    not adopt a "collective rights" view of the Second Amendment. To
    the contrary, Miller supports interpreting this Amendment as any
    other individual right.

    * That the District of Columbia's Circuit Court has read Miller as
    implicitly adopting the individual rights model of the Second

    * That none of the cases cited by those defending the DC anti-gun
    laws, and asserting the collective rights view, contain any
    meaningful analysis of the Second Amendment.

    * That the Supreme Court has repeatedly suggested that the Second
    Amendment secures an individual right.

    * That the framers of our Constitution intended that the Second
    Amendment guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    * That the text of the Second Amendment plainly establishes that
    individuals have a right to keep and bear arms independent of
    state service.

    * That to the extent the Preamble of the Second Amendment serves
    as an operative guide, it does not limit the rights of the people
    since the word "militia" is practically synonymous with "people."

    * That the people protected by the Second Amendment are the same
    people protected throughout the Bill of Rights.

    * That the "right to keep and bear arms" is the right to privately
    possess and carry ordinary firearms.

    I repeat: This brief is without a doubt one of the best I have ever
    read on this subject. You can read it and other documents pertaining
    to this case at http://www.alangura.com/parker on the web. I urge
    you to read it closely, print it out and keep it as a reference
    document. It is excellent and the attorneys who put it together are
    to be congratulated.
  2. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Is Washington, D.C. in the United States?
  3. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Good for them! :D
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page