More anti-gun horse shit and shennagins from DC...

[-..__...]

Shot down: D.C. residents unable to register handguns


The ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee says the D.C. government should step in to help residents of the nation's capital make legal gun purchases --something they can't do now, even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the city's ban on handguns nearly three years ago.

"The city government of Washington, D.C. has a responsibility to make sure that every resident of D.C. can exercise their constitutional rights. And one of those constitutional rights is the individual to have a right to bear arms," Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) told WTOP.

More at link... http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2363345&pid=0&page=1

Fuck'em!

If they want to play their little Sith mind fuck games, then it's time for Congress to take action by reintroducing legislation that would strip
DC of it's "right" to enact gun control laws.

[beevul]

1. Yep.

"If they want to play their little Sith mind fuck games, then it's time for Congress to take action by reintroducing legislation that would strip
DC of it's "right" to enact gun control laws."

Spot on.

And it looks like they've stepped in it deep:

Alan Gura, the attorney who argued and won the case before the Supreme Court, says this may mean going back to court.

"This is a very serious problem," Gura said from his office in Old Town Alexandria. "It's something we are going to be taking a very close look at."




If I were them, I would be VERY worried that Gura was looking into it.

[-..__...]

2. Not this time.

Too late for that.

They've had more than ample time and opportunity to get with the program.

They've already demonstrated more than once that they're willing to circumvent/sidestep court rulings that don't go in their favor.

That... and the judicial system is too time consuming.

Time to go to plan B and place a boot in their ass.

[CreekDog]

44. Advocating violence? Classy. This is supposed to bring people to your point of view?

"boot in their ass"

[pneutin]

48. It means fire them

Not fire as in fire a gun. Just in case you will take that too literally as well.
Fire as in remove them from their job.
Hand them a pink slip.
"Boot" their "ass" out the door.

[-..__...]

52. Are you fucking kidding me?

"Advocating violence"?

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

58. You're so surprised one would think you advocate violence

Mr. Hello Kitty with the assault weapon.

Uh huh. Go on...:eyes:

[Union Scribe]

78. If you're threatened by that image

I weep for the terror you must experience on a day to day basis.

[frebrd]

99. +1

[Hoyt]

3. Let em go back to court -- might get a different result this time.

Although, I don't think the SC ruling was quite as far reaching as some of the gun folks like to believe.

[gejohnston]

4. it was not that far reaching at all

just closely read the previous SCOTUS decisions on the issue. Your collective rights theory never had any ground in legal scholar circles. In US vs Miller in 1938, the government pushed the theory without opposing council and was still ignored.

[Hoyt]

6. 1938's court is a lot different from today's, which might not view public toting with favor.

You just never know. Heck, maybe the most right wing judge on the SC might have had a run in with some fool with a shoulder holster in a restaurant the night before. Or, his mistress might have run off with a gun carrier who flashed it at the judge. Or maybe, the court will become more rational by the time the next pertinent case comes along.

[gejohnston]

7. had nothing to do right or left wing

and it had nothing with public toting. Do you realize that most if not all of these carry laws you like so much were written and passed by right wingers?

[one-eyed fat man]

10. Hell, the scumbags haven't paid their bills from the last time.

DC still refuses to pay the legal fees for losing the last time. As long as DC lets Josh Sugarmann of the VPC keep an FFL than their transparent attempt to use zoning laws close the one FFL the citizens of DC may use will fail.

A ban is a ban is a ban, no matter what twisted bureaucratic obstacles the District uses to circumvent Heller it will wind up back in court and they will lose....again.

http://fflgundealers.net/sugarmann-joshua-alan.html

[DonP]

11. No different from Chicago

Three days after the McDonald decision the city council with Daley's direction passed a new set of gun laws that they "know are constitutional" that require registration, expensive annual permits, training that require range time at City approved ranges and in the same law banned all gun ranges in the city.

DC and Chicago have no intention of following the court's decision which puts them in the same company as people like George Wallace.

They will keep stalling and appealing the legal bills and if they have to declare bankruptcy to get out of it. I wonder if they paid their own legal teams?

[one-eyed fat man]

14. I am sure for Chicago's bills

their legal team got paid. Weren't they all in the family? Daley kin, in-laws, outlaws and cronies?

[DonP]

16. Kin or the Duff family

The Duff family has quite a reputation for getting city contracts that run well into 8 figures. They specialized for years in getting large minority set aside contracts for trucking and construction projects, even though the family is as pasty white as a fish belly. But they have been Daley family friends for decades.

The Tribune finally noticed how pale the Duffs were and started asking why they were getting minority contracts. Their solution was make their wives the CEO, voila minority owned firms.

I have no doubt that the Chicago law firms were well and promptly paid. We just raised the City/County sales tax to 10.5% and the Income tax for the state got a 66% bump in the lame duck session of the legislature. They also added an out of state "internet" purchase tax too. Now they are talking about the need for a property tax bump too.

There is a growing number of angry, frustrated citizens that are getting fed up with their usual antics in City Hall and Springfield.

[cleanhippie]

15. Uh, yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

Doesn't change the facts.

[DissedByBush]

5. Whoever set this up needs to go to jail, period

Planned mass civil rights violation.

[X_Digger]

8. Rather disingenuous of Councilmember Mendelson..

"We've known for a while that (Federal Firearms License) was a vulnerability, that there is only one FFL dealer in the District," Mendelson says. "That's not because of the law, that's because of the market."

Not because of a law per se, but because of DC dragging their feet for an occupancy permit for any FFL. The DC Council requires that before they grant a business license and occupancy permit, any prospective FFL has to be 'inspected' by the BATFE. So far, there are no other FFLs willing or able to jump through all the hoops required. That's not even for a gun store- those have been zone restricted into oblivion for a while now. (Or used to be.. check article below..)

http://dcist.com/2009/01/a_gun_store_in_georgetown_yep.php

The paper reported that the D.C. Zoning Commission has decided that gun shops will be allowed in all of the District's four quadrants, though they will be limited to industrial zones and commercial corridors not zoned for neighborhood retail. Additionally, no gun shop will be allowed within 300 feet of a school, library, home, playground or church.

That article was from 2009, and somehow, only Sykes was able to jump through enough hoops..

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/04/d-c-bans-handgun-registrations-59802.html

Even if Sykes were to find a new location, he is required to give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 30 days advance notice of his move, and then the ATF has 60 days to review and approve the new location. The move would also have to be approved by the Metropolitan Police Department and the District's Office of Zoning.

[one-eyed fat man]

18. The fundamental hypocrisy

is that the District of Columbia allows Josh Sugarmann of the VPC keep his FFL. Note carefully the address. Compare it with the zoning map in the article linked in the OP.

Sugarmann, Joshua Alan

1730 Rhode Island Ave NW #1014
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: [phone]


FFL directory

[madinmaryland]

9. I can't wait for DU3!

[cleanhippie]

20. Why wait? You can simply choose not to read or respond right now!

What is the point of posting a reply like that to a topic that you dislike anyway? Do you think any of us that do post here care in the least?

[PavePusher]

32. You know that finger you clicked the link with?

Smash it with a hammer and your problems are over.

[jpak]

12. GOP/NRA authoritarianism at its worst - NRA Nanny State horseshit

yup

[DonP]

17. So your OK with ignoring or obstructing a SCOTUS decision you don't like?

How very George Wallace of you.

[jpak]

21. Did the SCOTUS say the Holy 2A was absolute and trumped all? Nope

tray again

yup

[X_Digger]

22. Free clue.. if you can't exercise the right at all ('keep' as clarified in Heller)..

Then that's not being 'absolute' anything. If you set the preconditions for exercising a right at an impossible to attain level, that's infringement.

If I said that to open a church, you had to get a signature from the prime minister of mars, that would be infringing the first amendment as well.

[Logical]

23. All rights have limitations. n-t

[X_Digger]

24. Perhaps you can direct that to someone who claimed they didn't.

But a 'limit' that effectively means you cannot exercise it is not a 'limit' but an infringement.

[Logical]

25. Well, the law does not say you cannot, there is just no dealers? correct? n-t

[PavePusher]

31. If the rules are purposely designed to prevent dealers from establishing a shop...

it amounts to a ban.

You are being disingenuous for no purpose other than obfuscation and misdirection.

[X_Digger]

35. A different rule (zoning regulation) explicitly forbade gun shops

Now they have a new set of rules, but its so onerous as to be practically impossible to meet.

If I said that to get a driver's license, you had to be tested six times by six different district accredited examiners (and there are only five in the district)..

No the law doesn't say that you can't have a license- but the result remains the same.

[beevul]

33. Limiting a right to the point of inability to exercise it , doesn't count.

And wont fly.

[CreekDog]

45. you must be referring to voting rights in DC

which are so limited that they don't actually exist at the Federal Level outside presidential elections.

[beevul]

53. You must be...

You must be unable or unwilling to apply what I said to the context of this thread.

Oh, and regarding DC voting rights...


DC COULD have had voting rights, but the bill was yanked by Democrats in favor of gun control.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=148x3215


Priorities priorities priorities.


But I'm suire its the NRAs fault... :eyes:

[CreekDog]

56. yes, why should the black majority get a congressional seat without strings attached?

i mean you and i --we vote freely. but DC, they should have to give self determination up in order to have even half the voting rights we have.

and you defend that crap.

:eyes:

[beevul]

60. LOL.

"self determination"

Self determination being defined as ignoring the law of the land, in this case, convenient of you to ignore that.


The bottom line is they had a choice.


They chose the way they chose, and you are sitting here screaming at the top of your lungs and pointing fingers...


At everyone except those that made that choice.


Anything you say regarding this issue rings hollow, in light of that.

[CreekDog]

68. *THEY* didn't choose, the citizens denied this vote also did not vote on this

again --your contention is that if they have to give up authority in order to get the vote that you and i take for granted --you support that.

which is really sad.

[beevul]

75. Thanks, but keep your words out of my mouth.

As I previously said:

"They chose the way they chose, and you are sitting here screaming at the top of your lungs and pointing fingers...

At everyone except those that made that choice."


"They" obviously being the people that DID make the choice.

"your contention is that if they have to give up authority in order to get the vote that you and i take for granted --you support that."


No, my contention is that an opportunity for DC to have voting rights existed, and rather than allow it, some people chose to deep six the bill.

My contention is that you say not a peep about those that actually made that decision.

[CreekDog]

80. and which congressperson from DC voted against that legislation?

timber. :eyes:

[beevul]

81. Did someone say "a congressperson from DC voted against that legislation"?

You still aren't saying a peep about the people that deep sixxed the bill to give DC voting rights.


Why is that?

[CreekDog]

88. you kept saying the people who lack the voting rights CHOSE not to have them

offer some proof that all the people of DC who would normally have congressional representation and attendant voting rights --offer some proof that THEY MADE SUCH A CHOICE. when was this vote?

you're basically saying all those folks, majority black, deserve what they got (or don't got).

are you racist? i'm not saying that, you just don't give a crap.

[beevul]

89. No thats NOT what I said.

Its been explained to you at least two times what I actually DID say...


Maybe three times is a charm, well see:



"No, we call lack of congressional representation on the part of DC a CHOICE - in favor of gun control."

Note I said here, that the lack of representation was on the part of DC, not the choice.


Acribing to the words of others meanings which they do convey or intend to convey...and then claiming them falsehoods...

Thats what youre doing, you see.

Again:

Why don't you call those who DID make that choice and tell them how wrong it was.

On the other hand, if you agree with that choice, your complaints are hollow.

[CreekDog]

90. so what you're saying is that Republicans chose to oppose voting rights for DC?

yeah i guess they did.

[beevul]

91. Democrats pulled the bill.

Not republicans.

[CreekDog]

92. So, to clarify, you are not blaming DC residents who lack representation

this "choice" was the fault, in your view, of non-DC Democrats.

[beevul]

93. More or less yes.

"this "choice" was the fault, in your view, of non-DC Democrats."

I simply stated that the bill was pulled by a Democrat, which is factually true.

Done at the behest of another Democrat, in fact, because of "gun language" that was added by a third Democrat - Rep. Travis Childers.

[CreekDog]

94. then since this *happened* to DC residents

why was this only an issue to you because of its effect on gun possession in DC?

you've never expressed any care or concern for DC residents lack of voting rights --that concern is dismissiveley secondary to your concern, ostensibly about your right to carry firearms in DC. self serving in other words.

[beevul]

95. Noteworthy...

"you've never expressed any care or concern for DC residents lack of voting rights"

You have no idea what what I have expressed RE: DC voting rights.

Here on DU or elsewhere.


Noteworthy, however, is your pretense that you do.

Cute by half.


"ostensibly about your right to carry firearms in DC."

Um...I don't live in DC...in fact, I dont live ANYWHERE near DC.

And I don't carry a gun.



Now that I've answered your questions, and disposed of your mischaracterizations of me and blatant false assertions about me, how about you act in kind and answer mine:



Do you agree with the choice to pull the bill or don't you?

[CreekDog]

96. Were you under the impression that your posts were private?

:eyes:

[beevul]

97. Do you agree with the choice to pull the bill or don't you?

Please answer the question.

[CreekDog]

72. You keep saying DC "chose" to go without congressional representation

i'm calling that an outright falsehood.

you keep saying it and you won't back it up.

because you can't.

nice defense of your gun issue by the way --through the use of false statements.

[beevul]

76. Reading and context is fundamental...

Reading and context is fundamental, get some and perhaps you wont be accusing others of saying things they obviously didn't say, or ascribing meanings to sentences which clearly don't mean what you assert they mean. Perhaps...


"No, we call lack of congressional representation on the part of DC a CHOICE - in favor of gun control."

Note I said here, that the lack of representation was on the part of DC, not the choice.


Acribing to the words of others meanings which they do convey or intend to convey...and then claiming them falsehoods...

Thats what youre doing, you see.

Again:

Why don't you call those who MADE that choice and tell them how wrong it was.

On the other hand, if you agree with that choice, your complaints are hollow.

[jpak]

26. NRA talking points about SCOTUS 2A rulings grossly misrepresent them - the Holy 2A is NOT absolute

nope

[DonP]

27. Where has anyone said it is?

That's a classic straw man argument.

Nobody here has ever said that it's an absolute right, but I'd be happy to read any examples you could share?

Even your good buddies Scalia and Alito agree that it has limitations, but Scalia also said; "Reasonable restrictions? What's reasonable about a complete ban?" Such a smart man, no wonder you admire and agree with his thinking so much.

And I bet you are a big fan of poll taxes, reading tests, voter ID and other "reasonable restrictions" for voting too, right?

After all we've already established that you are a big state's right guy in terms of allowing local venues to make up their own restrictions as they see fit, for the exercise of rights. (Do you really have a Bull Connor tattoo?)

[jpak]

28. Classic Gungeon Dodge

yup

[DonP]

29. Yup, asking for facts and examples is one of our best "dodges"

One that you seem to have difficulty with every time it comes up.

Thanks for once again reassuring everyone that you are all mouth and no substance.

Now, fill all of the fans in on how that repeal of CCW in Maine and Florida is going for you? How many petitions do you have signatures on so far?

The NRA had 65,000 people show up in Pittsburgh. You should have no problem getting at least that many signatures for your repeals, right?

[jpak]

30. No - repeating NRA talking points ad nauseum then denying them when challenged is the Big Dodge here

yup

[DonP]

34. You're the one with all the NRA posts this week

Why don't you explain which particular talking points I used that are false. My talking points e-mail for today hasn't arrived yet.

Typical bullshit evasion from you.

No substance, no style and you continue to lose in the courts, at the polls and in public opinion.

[jpak]

13. Oh yeah - Grassley is a fucking GOP/NRA moran - why do we love him?

He's lying RW GOP douchebag that believes in "Death Panels"

Fuck him

yup

[Tejas]

36. uh, because he's right and the crooks in DC are wrong?

[iverglas]

37. I do find it amazing

how every right-wing dirtbag in the US manages to be wrong about everything else under the sun and yet right when it comes to gunz.

Every last one of 'em. Their clocks all stopped at the exact same time.

The coincidence really rises to the level of divine intervention.

The gods must be very playful. They made every progressive voice in the US right about everything else, and wrong when it comes to gunz.

The US must just be the gods' chosen people.

[Tejas]

39. Yes, rather odd how that works.

odd, almost weird that high profile Democrats such as Feinstein, Schumer, McCarthy, etc seem to be doing the Republicans dirty work. Think there's a connection?

[Atypical Liberal]

71. It's not amazing, it's just sad.

I do find it amazing how every right-wing dirtbag in the US manages to be wrong about everything else under the sun and yet right when it comes to gunz.

It's not amazing, it's just sad.

Republicans, and the right in general, have three major talking points: God, Guns, and Guts.

It doesn't matter that while they are talking about Jaysus and "family values" they are off fornicating with the best of them. And it doesn't matter how corrupt their nationalistic flag-waving imperialistic furor is, as long as it looks like we are "tough". And likewise it doesn't matter how friendly they are to keeping arms while they are simultaneously dismantling freedom in this country.

We all know that all of these things are smoke screens. They are pacifiers. Pablum to cater to people who hear a politician talk about God, Guns, and Guts and think that they must be OK in their book.

But this does not mean that the right to keep and bear arms is not a worthy thing, because it is. Nor does it mean that the Progressive movement, as a whole, is not on the wrong side of the issue, because it is.

Ultimately, the anti-firearm movement is about disarming people - everyone - in an attempt to stop the bad people from committing crimes with firearms. What this does is makes it so that every victim of every violent crime is left only with the gifts of their own body to survive. They can flee if they are fast enough to run away, they can submit if they are robust enough physically and mentally to survive submission, or they can engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker if they are strong enough to do battle.

This means that everyone, but especially the weak, the elderly, and the infirm, will be at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are who chooses to abuse them. The weak will be at the mercy of the strong.

This is the antithesis of the Progressive ethos.

[iverglas]

82. ah yes, "the weak, the elderly, and the infirm"

... the people to whom the right wing are so committed that they advocate universal healthcare, for instance.

I wonder what the ratio is of people who will face a life-threatening medical condition in their lifetime vs. people who will face a life-threatening crime.

The same people who are responsible for union-busting "right to work" legislation in US states. Workers' rights are attacked on every front in the US, but what does the right wing fight for? Workers' "right" to leave firearms in their vehicles on their employers' property.

I wonder what the ratio is of people who will face arbitrary discipline or dismissal or work-related injury vs. people who will face a carjacker on the drive home from work. Oh, and, of course, how many workers in the US cannot afford healthcare coverage.

One could go on. And on and on and on. The right wing certainly does, when it comes to guns.

The "progressive movement" is on the right side of everything except firearms control. The racist, misogynist right wing is on the wrong side of everything except firearms control. Virtually to a one, on both sides. It's an amazement that never ceases to amaze me.

[Atypical Liberal]

98. I agree with you.

The right wing in this country works directly at odds with the interests of most of the fools who continue to vote for them.

As you note, people are far, far, far, more likely to need medical care in their lifetime than they will likely ever need to defend themselves with a firearm. And, as I've noted before, all the erosions of civil liberties we have endured have done far more damage than the bone thrown to their constituents in the form of supporting second amendment rights.

And, as you note, the right is completely against allowing workers to unite and compound their collective power in the face of hugely powerful corporate interests.

All of this is true.

It's also still true that without firearms, every single violent crime puts the weak at the mercy of the strong. They can run, submit, or fight - if they are strong enough.

There is no doubt that the right is on the wrong side of most empowerment issues. They continually pander to the interests of the wealthy, working to empower those who are already so massively powerful that they are exerting a corrupting influence on our government.

[spin]

19. Interestingly, since the Supreme Court decision, crime has fallen in D.C.

Opinion: Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Can Make Us All Safer
Jun 28, 2010 – 5:03 PM

***snip***


Yet D.C.'s murder and violent-crime rates plummeted after the court's decision to overturn that city's gun ban and its gunlocks.

Comparing crimes committed in D.C. from January to May 2010 to the same five months of 2008 shows 31 fewer murders -- a 43 percent drop.

During that same time period, Chicago, which had a gun ban in place, saw its murders drop by just over 5 percent.

In D.C., about 1,000 people now have permits to own handguns, and, with the gunlocks requirement removed, more than 70,000 people have permits for long guns that can now be used to protect themselves and their families. If 70,000 armed citizens can deter 31 murders and 327 violent crimes, imagine what can be accomplished if even more citizens are allowed to defend themselves. emphasis added
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/28/opinion-supreme-court-gun-ban-ruling-can-make-us-all-safer/

[iverglas]

38. c'mon, enlighten us

At present, as I understand it, permits are being issued only for possession in one's home.

So what part of the drop in the crime rate is attributable to a decline in crimes committed against people in their homes by non-household members?

Or is this just more evidence of the magical power of guns?

A gun in my nightstand in DC prevents you from being mugged on the street across town ...


Edit -- Oh, c'mon. Give the man his due.

The opinion in question is John Lott's!!!

And he's at his absolutely most dishonest. This is one for bookmarking:

If 70,000 armed citizens can deter 31 murders and 327 violent crimes, imagine what can be accomplished if even more citizens are allowed to defend themselves.

It truly is magic. There is just no other explanation.

[spin]

41. I found this article interesting ...

Violent Crime Rates Decrease in Washington, DC as Theft Charges Increase
March 31, 2011

According to an in-depth feature by Allison Klein of the Washington Post, the District of Columbia has experienced a major increase in burglaries and thefts while there been a reduction in incidents of violent crimes such as robbery, and guns or weapons offenses. Specifically, DC Metropolitan Police (MPD) is reporting a 20 percent increase in burglaries and a 23 percent increase in theft in Washington, DC. In Dupont Circle, burglaries are up threefold compared to last year at this time.

Many of the thefts involve personal property such as cell phones, iPads, and laptops being stolen right off the table at coffee shops and restaurants in the Washington, DC area. The burglaries generally involve thieves smashing in back windows or doors, running in, grabbing anything they can sell and running out. They are not exactly an elaborate and well-planned heists.
http://www.dc-criminal-defense.com/2011/03/violent-crime-rates-decrease-i.html

But then I found this one.

FBI: Violent crime incidents climb in D.C.

Violent crime in the District of Columbia increased by nearly 7 percent in the first half of 2010, while the rest of the country saw a decrease in violence, according to the FBI crime statistics released Monday.

***snip***

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier dismissed the FBI report, saying it doesn't reflect a true picture of the crime scene in the District. Lanier prefers to use the department's own crime calculations, which show a 7 percent decrease in violent crime.

Although the FBI report uses crime numbers provided by D.C. police, the report "is not a good measure of District crime," Lanier told The Washington Examiner. District police go by the D.C. Code to determine the city's crime rate and to make strategies for fighting crime.

The FBI and D.C. Code classify certain crimes differently. Under the D.C. Code, a punch can be considered a simple assault and not a violent crime. Under the FBI's definition, it's considered an aggravated assault and a violent crime, D.C. police said.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime-punishment/2010/12/fbi-violent-crime-incidents-climb-dc#ixzz1LQtk19gB

There seems to be a number of opinions and statistics on violent crime in DC.

It might be interesting to look at the statistics in a few years if DC dropped its resistance to allowing people to own and legally carry handguns. The same for Chicago.

edited to add comment

[Atypical Liberal]

73. Here is some enlightenment.

It could be that violent crimes occur inside homes, too, and people being aware of the potential for armed homeowners may have put a damper on such crimes.

But the reality is that violent crime is tied to many more variables than just firearm ownership.

So we can't say with any certainty that more firearms = less crime.

But one thing seems quite certain: more firearms don't equal more crime. We've had record sales of firearms and ammunition over the last three years and violent crime continues to decline nationally.

[iverglas]

83. it could be ...

It could be that violent crimes occur inside homes, too, and people being aware of the potential for armed homeowners may have put a damper on such crimes.

Well gosh, if that isn't exactly the question I asked:

So what part of the drop in the crime rate is attributable to a decline in crimes committed against people in their homes by non-household members?

Are there no statistics? Surely "home invasions" are broken out of crime figures.


But the reality is that violent crime is tied to many more variables than just firearm ownership.
So we can't say with any certainty that more firearms = less crime.

Whatever. What nobody can actually say, with respect to the actual topic at hand here, is that allowing people to have firearms accessible in their homes has affected "D.C.'s murder and violent-crime rates". That would be pretty much just horseshit, and you should feel quite free to say so.


But one thing seems quite certain: more firearms don't equal more crime. We've had record sales of firearms and ammunition over the last three years and violent crime continues to decline nationally.

And as long as gun militants can keep spinning that meme, they can avoid addressing anything that anyone actually does say about the relationship between firearms and crime and other negative outcomes. That's the idea, right?

[CreekDog]

46. it fell in New York too

why?

[iverglas]

84. why lookie here

As I was just saying in my post above:

And as long as gun militants can keep spinning that meme (more firearms doesn't = more crime), they can avoid addressing anything that anyone actually does say about the relationship between firearms and crime and other negative outcomes. That's the idea, right?

And here they are, avoiding. ;)

[iverglas]

40. Canadian go home!

!! Even with the incessant years-long chatter here about Heller and McDonald, I never saw this before.

amicus brief

In The Supreme Court of the United States

OTIS P. MCDONALD, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Respondents.

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit

BRIEF OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EDUCATORS AND TRAINERS ASSOCIATION (ILEETA), INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FIREARMS INSTRUCTORS (IALEFI), SOUTHERN STATES POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, TEXAS POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA, CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY, THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE, PROFESSORS CARLISLE E. MOODY, ROY T. WORTMAN, RAYMOND KESSLER, GARY MAUSER, DR. STERLING BURNETT, AND THE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

DAVID B. KOPEL
Counsel of Record

... Professor Gary Mauser
Gary Mauser is Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University. He has written extensively on gun control policy in Canada, the United States, and the world, for journals including the Harvard Journal of Law & Policy, Applied Economics, Chance: A Magazine of the American Statistical Association, Journal of Criminal Justice, Evaluation Review, Government and Policy, Political Communication, and Criminology, as well as in monographs from the Fraser Institute and the Mackenzie Institute.

Aren't you all, like, humiliated now?? Not to have such an obvious right-wing turd on your side; no, I know that won't do it. But ... a CANADIAN?? How awful for you.

[spin]

42. Two guys from Canada used to shoot at the pistol range I was a member of ...

before I retired.

They were there every Saturday religiously during the winter and would return to Canada for the summer. They were both quiet and polite and never discussed politics. Both were excellent handgun shooters.

[RSillsbee]

87. Canadians are evil incarnate NT

[CreekDog]

43. DC doesn't have Senators or Congresspeolple

have you ever complained about that?

[Euromutt]

47. What's that fishy smell?

Oh, it seems to be a rather large red herring that Creekdog has dropped into the discussion.

You're correct that DC doesn't have voting representation in Congress; that's because the federal District is not a state, and was expressly created to be distinct from the states. There were several reasons for this, including a perceived need for the national capital to be able to provide for its own defense after the Executive Council of Pennsylvania refused to intervene in the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783). There is also a certain logic to having the federal capital not be located in one of the states, thereby giving it prestige not enjoyed by any of the others.

The unfortunate upshot of that is that residents of the federal district don't get to enjoy certain rights, privileges and immunities not enjoyed by residents of the "several states" including Congressional representation. The residents of the District have been (understandably) complaining about this since 1800. The problem is that in the intervening centuries, nobody's been able to come with a satisfactory compromise that would provide the residents of the District with equitable representation (equal at least to that of the states of Wyoming, North Dakota and various others with populations smaller than DC's) while simultaneously preserving the "neutral" character of the District. It seems to me that the primary flaw in the setup of the federal district is that it seems to tacitly assume that nobody will actually live in the capital. I think the currents residents of DC should be represented in Congress, but that the most realistic solution is to shrink the area under federal jurisdiction to cover only the National Mall (including the Capitol, the Supreme Court building and the White House), and retroceding all inhabited areas to Maryland.

Be that as it may, the fact that residents of the District do not possess rights accorded to residents of "the several states" does not justify depriving them of rights accorded all U.S. citizens by the Bill of Rights, part of the "supreme law of the land."

[PavePusher]

49. Gawd, if you want the residents of the current D.C. area to have any gun rights...

damn sure don't give them to Maryland.

[CreekDog]

50. You call lack of congressional representation a "red herring"

somewhere less of a concern to you than gun rights.

by the way, do you get to vote for congresspeople and Senators?

[beevul]

54. No, we call lack of congressional representation on the part of DC a CHOICE...

No, we call lack of congressional representation on the part of DC a CHOICE - in favor of gun control.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=148x3215



Why don't you call those who MADE that choice and tell them how wrong it was.

On the other hand, if you agree with that choice, your complaints are hollow.

[CreekDog]

55. so you approve of the lack of congressional representation -- a form of apartheid

in our own country.

whereby a community within our borders, predominantly racial minorities whose ancestors came because it was a free city --are denied full representation in our government --you approve of that.

and noting such approval, expect me to complain about their gun laws --when you won't even complain about their lack of voting rights, the very cornerstone of free people.

hmmm.

[beevul]

57. So you still beat your dog.

"so you approve of the lack of congressional representation -- a form of apartheid in our own country."

Perhaps you can quote exactly where I said or implied anything of the sort, or retract that false filthy implication.


I pointed out that A choice was made, in favor of gun control over voting rights.


And Now I'm pointing out that youre ignoring that fact, and attacking me instead, and saying NOTHING about those who made the actual choice.

[CreekDog]

59. would you approve congressional representation without that compromise?

:shrug:

[beevul]

61. Yes, I would.

Do you condemn the choice not to have voting rights with it?


If not, maybe its just not as important to you as gun control.

[CreekDog]

64. I condemn not having voting rights

it shouldn't be conditional.

[beevul]

74. I answered yours.

"Do you condemn the choice not to have voting rights with the amendment attatched?



Thats a simple yes or no question, just like the one you asked me, and I answered.



Now won't you answer it, since I answered yours?

[Euromutt]

63. "Apartheid"? Don't be so melodramatic!

It's not as if the federal District is some "township" in which blacks are forced to live while having citizenship of some made-up bantustan foisted upon them. Legally, there's nothing to stop a resident of DC from moving to Maryland or Virginia and being able to vote for a congressman and senators there. Moreover, bear in mind that the reason Washington DC was a "free city" is precisely because it's not part of any state. It's not as if anyone made a conscious effort to disenfranchise the District's residents; they're just the victims of a rather clumsy constitutional arrangement.

[CreekDog]

65. You're melodramatic --but only about unfettered access to guns

federal representation for other people, most of them black in DC --come on now, let's not get too excited. :wtf:

:sarcasm:

[Euromutt]

66. That's funny; I seem to recall making a suggestion in post #47...

...as to how residents of the city of Washington could receive voting representation in Congress, without even having to amend the constitution, by the simple expedient of shrinking the federal district.

But hey, you found a stick to beat the pro-RKBAers with, and since it's all you've got, you want to keep using it. Even though it's broken.

[CreekDog]

67. It's because you've never posted about DC statehood on DU

the only time you even mentioned was to flog a gun issue you wanted to flog.

it's pretty clear you don't give a sh*t about the actual voting rights of DC citizens, except as antecedent to gun issues.

:shrug:

[Euromutt]

69. "Sh*t"?

You have no compunction about implicitly accusing me of racism, but you shy away from fully spelling out the word "shit"? You have some fucked-up (excuse me, "f*cked-up") priorities about causing offense.

Oh yes, remember I mentioned "circumstantial ad hominem" several posts ago? Do us all a favor and read the link, including the following paragraph about "poisoning the well," and try to understand it. Here's that link again: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem

[CreekDog]

70. When did DC residents vote down congressional representation?

you keep saying they had a choice in the matter.

tell us when DC residents voted their preference.

and regarding racism --it's not about being racist, i have no idea whether you are or are not. it's about telling a whole city of American citizens that the lack of representation is somehow their fault --when it has always been subject to the whims of others who don't actually live in DC.

and again, you never have posted one single thing supporting DC statehood or equivalent representation until now and only as a means to support your gun issue. you have no record here of one statement of concern about the voting rights of DC residents --except you seem to suggest they voted on the issue of congressional representation (fail).

so when you say that you care or that it is something you're concerned about, your actions and statements make it clear that you only care about the gun aspect of the issue. if the gun issue weren't involved, you could not care less about DC statehood/representation. and that's not a crime, so why not just admit it? That is that your statements here are self serving of your own issue.

[Euromutt]

79. Do you have me confused with someone else?

Because I don't recall repeatedly saying the residents of the DC "had a choice in the matter." I did say there was no legal impediment to stop them from moving to Maryland or Virginia and gaining the ability to vote for congressional representatives that way; that doesn't mean it's necessarily a practical option (though it is what a large number of African-American residents have been doing the past few decades), but blacks under Apartheid were denied such an option by law.

and regarding racism --it's not about being racist, i have no idea whether you are or are not.

You certainly appeared to insinuate it. I refer you to your post #65, in which you said:

federal representation for other people, most of them black in DC --come on now, let's not get too excited.

Emphasis in bold mine. Why include that "most of them black" bit, if not to imply that my supposed indifference to DC residents' lack of congressional representation is racially motivated? (That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.)

And ultimately, the fact is that DC's lack of voting representation in Congress is, as I said before, the result of a rather clumsy constitutional fix to a legitimate concern. I like having the centers of the three branches of the federal government housed outside any state, so I don't like the idea of turning DC into a state, not to mention the fact that it would be unconstitutional without an amendment (which was, in my opinion, a fatal flaw in the DC Voting Rights bill). Again, I'd prefer to shrink the federal District to exclude the populated areas of Washington.

The thing is that these two questions aren't comparable on a constitutional level. The constitution provides for the members of Congress to be elected "by the people of the several states" while creating the federal District "by cession of particular states," thereby stripping residents of the District of representation. But in that regard, it is no different than the incorporated organized territories that used to exist in the 19th and early 20th centuries. And as in those territories, while their residents may have been denied congressional representation, the Bill of Rights still applied (arguably more than in "the several states," prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment). Thus, the question of gun rights in DC is significantly more clear-cut than the question of congressional representation.

[Euromutt]

62. "Red herring" doesn't mean I don't care (as much); it means it's irrelevant to this discussion

Red herring: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#herring
The validity on one's opinion concerning the RKBA within the boundaries of the federal District is irrelevant to one's stance on according the resident of the District voting representation in Congress.

by the way, do you get to vote for congresspeople and Senators?

Why do I feel a circumstantial ad hominem coming on? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem)

Yes, I do get to vote for a representative and senators, because I live in the other Washington, i.e. the state.

[one-eyed fat man]

77. You give them a good smack there....

It is ironic that it takes a NATURALIZED citizen to remind native born what they slept through in their middle school civics and Aemrican history classes.

It has been held that an American high school graduate would be unable to pass the citizenship test.

[-..__...]

51. Yeah...

what about it? :shrug:

Euromutt it explained quite nicely.

Anywho... FWIW, DC had it's opportunity to be granted representation in Congress, but they chose to stubbornly cling to their outdated
beliefs rather than take the deal that was offered to them...

Read it and weep...

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/38982/how-the-gun-lobby-shot-down-dcs-congressional-vote-the

So now... fuck'em.

The cards are off the table and we'll accomplish what we set out to do either through the Legislature or courts if that's what it takes.

[iverglas]

86. uh ... who "we" ...

... and you know what Tonto said to the Lone Ranger next.

From your link:

The catch? The bill would also disembowel the District’s gun laws.

For more than a year, nonvoting D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton had tried to delete the armament provisions. Congress’ pro-gun contingent, backed by the ever-influential National Rifle Association, was adamant about overturning the city’s gun restrictions as a condition of giving Washington a voting member of Congress.

Enlighten a benighted foreigner.

You say:

So now... fuck'em.

The cards are off the table and we'll accomplish what we set out to do either through the Legislature or courts if that's what it takes.

... and I ask in all ignorance:

Who are these 'em?

And who are these we?


Is there some other jurisdiction in the US where the residents' right to representation in your Congress is subject to the NRA's approval of its local legislation?

[Euromutt]

85. This story, incidentally, illustrates a more general point re gun laws

Namely why gun rights organizations like the NRA fight tooth and nail against regulation that its proponents characterize as "reasonable, common-sense" and which might even, on the face of it, be quite reasonable. It's because such regulation sets criteria which, all too frequently, can be exploited by the executive branch of government to impose a de facto gun ban, via the expedient of making the criteria impossible to meet.

In this case, the law requires DC residents to take delivery of their firearms via an FFL, and now there aren't any in the District willing to provide that service.

D.C. Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who helped write the District's new gun laws after the Supreme Court ruling, says the problem is not due to regulations.

"We've known for a while that (Federal Firearms License) was a vulnerability, that there is only one FFL dealer in the District," Mendelson says. "That's not because of the law, that's because of the market."

"Because of the market," Councilmember Mendelson? You want me to believe that the limited viability of operating an FFL dealership in the District has nothing to do with the fact that it takes $558.69*, "a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam" to legally acquire a handgun in the District (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836.html)? That a set of regulations "believed by some to be designed to intentionally thwart gun ownership" have nothing to do with the comparatively low demand for the services of an FFL in the District?

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining, Councilmember.

(I guess they're called "councilmembers" because they're a bunch of pricks.)

And as DonP rightly noted above, one of Chicago's dodges is to require time at a city-approved range, while ensuring there are no city-approved ranges. The potential for such dodges is endless, which is precisely why many pro-RKBA activists are vehemently opposed to allowing any regulation under which such stunts might be pulled. And the evidence continues to mount that their suspicions are not misplaced.

* - Not counting the retail price of the firearm; the original article said "$833.69," which apparently included the $275 the author paid for a Taurus .38 Spl revolver.