Carrying firearms banned in DC--what about the 2nd Amendment

[kateyes]

The recent story about Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) aide being arrested for trying to enter a government building with a hand gun in a brief case mentions a point I was not aware of. It is evidently illegal to carry firearms within Washington D.C. I found this interesting because of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution :

Amendment II


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Does anyone know how DC managed to make a right (guaranteed in the Constitution) into an illegal act?

 

[Reverend Rick]

The people who enacted the anti gun laws took an oath to support the constitution of the United States. They violated that oath when they did this. They should be removed from office. It is a sad state of affairs when a senator cannot legally have a weapon. What is even worse is thinking we need a permit to carry. Where is that in the 2nd amendment? To give some people their rights and deny others is unconstitutional.

Our country is treating these rights like privileges!

Perhaps we need a free speech permit as well. If you are a bad boy, we will revoke your right to freedom of speech too.

 

[standing_alone]

While I have changed my mind on concealed-carry and now support it (though I think a permit and gun safety class should be requirements), it all depends on how one interprets the Second Amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

 

[Reverend Rick]

So many people said when the CCW laws were passed that things would become like the wild west. It just did not happen.

Another thing that gets my goat is people who think unlawful people are going to be affected by the law. The only people who obey the law is law abiding citizens.

Passing gun laws remove guns from people that are not the problem.

People who are afraid of guns should consider that they are safer in their homes not because they have a gun, just because they might have a gun.

I can understand why some folks don't want guns in their house. They might be glad that the neighbor has one when a rabid dog is chewing off your child's leg however.

Some people don't want to even think about unpleasant possibilities that could change your life in an instant. We fail to realize just how fragile our safety really is.

 

[Comprehend]

I wanted to clear up a few things.

1. A senator is allowed to carry a weapon in D.C., a senator's aid is not.

2. There are a few different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment going around the United States and it's courts. One view is that the right to keep and bear arms is a private right. Another view is that it is a collective right. Third is a modified collective view that is a little more involved so I won't bother explaining it.

3. There was a recent D.C. Circuit Court ruling (PARKER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA decided March, 9 2007) that essentially says that the 2nd Amendment is a private right and overturned D.C. gun ban. It will definitely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court so we have to wait and see what the supremes say but it looks encouraging for private right advocates.

 

[kateyes]

I wanted to clear up a few things.

1. A senator is allowed to carry a weapon in D.C., a senator's aid is not. Could you please give the source of this information--all the news blurbs I have read indicate carrying a hand gun is illegal--none of the articles say except for Senators. Webb has a license to carry a concealed weapon in Virginia--not in Wash DC.

2. There are a few different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment going around the United States and it's courts. One view is that the right to keep and bear arms is a private right. Another view is that it is a collective right. Third is a modified collective view that is a little more involved so I won't bother explaining it.

3. There was a recent D.C. Circuit Court ruling (PARKER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA decided March, 9 2007) that essentially says that the 2nd Amendment is a private right and overturned D.C. gun ban. It will definitely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court so we have to wait and see what the supremes say but it looks encouraging for private right advocates.

As I understand it the law is still in effect pending appeal of the 9March decision. Evidently the law has been in effect for 30 years--I was curious how it ended up being put into effect at all. I don't have an issue with requiring licenses and gun safety classes, I do have an issue with being told I just cannot carry a gun. Private rights vs collective rights is semantics as far as I am concerned.

 

[Comprehend]

As I understand it the law is still in effect pending appeal of the 9March decision. Evidently the law has been in effect for 30 years--I was curious how it ended up being put into effect at all. I don't have an issue with requiring licenses and gun safety classes, I do have an issue with being told I just cannot have/carry a gun. Private rights vs collective rights is semantics as far as I am concerned.

yes, the law is still in effect right now.

The reason why the law was put into effect in the first place is that a legislature wrote the law and a court interpreted the 2nd amendment to be a collective right and not a private one. I think it stinks too, NYC has done the same thing, they have an almost complete ban on guns there.

 

[nutshell]

Interesting to note that the places where guns are banned are the places with the highest crime levels.

 

[Comprehend]

Interesting to note that the places where guns are banned are the places with the highest crime levels.

yep, and I bet that if you asked those cities or states, they would say crime would be even higher if guns were legal, not lower... :cover: