Majority of Hill Stands Against D.C. Gun Ban

[beevul]

Majority of Hill Stands Against D.C. Gun Ban
Members to File Friend-of-the-Court Brief in 2nd Amendment Case Before Justices


By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 8, 2008; Page A02

A majority of the Senate and more than half of the members of the House will file a brief today urging the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), who led the effort to file the friend-of-the-court brief, said her staff could not find another instance in which such a large portion of Congress had taken a position on an issue before the court

"This court should give due deference to the repeated findings over different historical epochs by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that the amendment guarantees the personal right to possess firearms," their brief contends.

"The District's prohibitions on mere possession by law-abiding persons of handguns in the home and having usable firearms there are unreasonable."

Hutchison and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who spoke at a Heritage Foundation event yesterday, said the court could find D.C.'s law unconstitutional without another trip through the courts and without endangering Congress's ability to pass other gun control legislation, such as banning assault weapons.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020703689.html

Interesting read.

Its a shame that assault weapons had to be mentioned though. Some folks just can't let it go I guess.

[villager]

1. wacky people -- wanting reasonable controls on assault weapons

n/t

[zanne]

2. Yeah--What were we thinking?

Oh, yeah---We don't want more innocent people to die! How unAmerican of us!

[Tejas]

34. what "innocent people dying" is this

that you speak of? Are there mass slayings occuring daily that haven't made the news? Is the blood knee-deep in the streets of your city?

[krispos42]

38. Interesting post there.

Exactly how the Repubs justify... well, everything, really.

[benEzra]

53. Except "assault weapons" are among the LEAST likely of guns to be misused...

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

That's for all rifles combined, not just "assault weapons."

Banning "assault weapons" isn't about saving lives. It's about restricting lawful and responsible ownership of the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America, in order to be seen as "doing something" about the criminal misuse of ordinary handguns...

[bossy22]

3. what is an assault weapon to you?

it has not real definition- it seems to be applied whenever someone wants to.

[villager]

4. ergo, gun apoligists refuse to apply it *anywhere*!

n/t

[ManiacJoe]

5. Exactly. It has no real definition,

so how can it be applied at all? In the Real World there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".

[villager]

6. Right! hence, light machine guns, which fall in to that category, are perfectly swell!

I bet one of your pals will be taking one to a mall, soon!

[DonP]

7. Is this enough?

Let's see, to get a light machine gun (about $20,000+ for a well used M-60) and that your state even allows class 3 weapons, and assuming you can even find one for sale ... you have to:

1. Get fingerprinted
2. Have a complete background check conducted by the FBI and the BATFE
3. Get permission to buy it from your local Chief Law Enforcmeent Officer
4. Pay a $200 Transfer Tax
5. Wait about 6 months for the paperwork to process once you've been cleared by the FBI the BATFE and your Local cops.

What other hurdles do you think would keep that light machine gun out of the hands of the bad guys?

Ignoring the fact that there has only been one murder committed with a legal automatic weapon since 1934 and that was a crooked cop, how threatened by these do you really feel?

[villager]

8. so we agree, conceptually, there are types and categories of weapons that should be banned

... or controlled.

Good. Welcome back to the light.

The negotiation comes over which weapons are designed solely for human carnage, and which have some legitimacy.

[jmg257]

10. The ones we are guaranteed by the Constitution are those "military arms in common use."

Even the USSC said so. If Miller had carried a BAR, and didn't croak before the case was heard, we indeed would have the proper right to M16s, M4s, M249s, and yes - M60s. Even w/o his presence, they agreed those arms specifically protected included military arms.

[enfield collector]

44. Miller used a short barreled shotgun AKA "trench broom". the use

of these was well documented in WW1, they were so effective the Germans tried to get their use outlawed. the real issue in the case was that the defendant didn't show and the SCOTUS did not want the .gov arguement challenged. I think it shows gross intellectual dishonesty on the part of the court.

[bossy22]

51. also

remember the lower court decision sided with Miller saying it did violate his 2A rights

[bossy22]

16. funny

i cant believe you buy into that whole assault weapons are designed for nothing but killing people mantra. In fact, many so called assault weapons are designed with a specific purpose- target shooting

http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=229

thought it may look like a machine gun- its actually a semiauto rifle designed for target shooting- as you can see it has a heavy barrel, match grade trigger, and a finish you would not want to ruin.

these weapons are nothing more than just look alikes with an M16, and are the most popular centerfire rifles in america. If you want to prevent gun violence-fine- but dont fool yourself in thinking that going after a gun type which has no real definition and happens to only really be used in less tan 5% of crime is going to do anything. Not to mention federally, we will probably never see the ban ever again.

[villager]

19. Here's a good rundown on what an assault weapon is:

"A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres".

much more at the link.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

That you want these weapons on the street tells me all I need to know about your public "safety" positions...

[HiDemGunOwner]

23. Too bad that's not what was banned with the AWB that recently sunsetted.

So, are fully automatic firearms the only ones you want banned? Or are there others?

[gorfle]

29. Those have not been on the streets for a very, very long time.

"A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres".

You realize that they are talking about machine guns, right? You realize that there has been something like one documented crime since 1934 with a machine gun, right? You realize that to buy one of the very few that are available to buy you are looking at a minimum of like $5000 and more like $10,000+, plus a background check, plus a $200 annual tax, plus permission from your local sherrif, right? You realize that in 2005, hands and feet killed twice as many people as all rifles, right?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

These weapons are not on the streets, and rifles in general are hardly ever used in crime.

[ManiacJoe]

32. That is not an 'assault weapon'.

That is an "assault rifle". Assault rifles are a specific class of weapons with a specific definition that accurately describes them and distinguishes them from other classes.

Assault rifles have been tightly restricted at the federal level since 1934 even though they were not even invented until the 1940s.

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon" as the phase is commonly used.

[SecularNATION]

33. villager, learn what it is you think you want to ban

"A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres."

The above is not what the assault weapons ban banned. The AWB banned civilian semi-automatic look alike versions of real full-auto assault rifles.

Watch this video and get an education - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c

[krispos42]

39. No, that's an assault rifle.

A shoulder-fired rifle selectable between semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire that is between submachine guns, which fire pistol ammunition like 9mm and .45 auto, and battle rifles, which fire full-power cartridges.

More specifically, it fires ammunition that is both powerful enough to be effective out to about 350 yards and has sufficiently light recoil to fire fully-automatic bursts in close combat.

Examples: M-16, AK-47, AK-74.

An assault rifle, being capable of firing more than one round per pull of the trigger, is classified as a "machine gun" by the BATFE and regulated as strigently as all other machine guns.



This confusion is precisely what the anti-gun people want.

[benEzra]

55. Possession of assault rifles is ALREADY a 10-year Federal felony...

outside of police/military/government duty, unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch has absolutely nothing to do with assault rifles, and everything to do with NON-automatic civilian rifles with modern styling, rifles that happen to be the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States.


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, small-caliber farm/utility rifle banned by name by H.R.1022


AR-15, small-caliber non-automatic rifle and the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, banned by name by H.R.1022


SKS carbine, the single most popular centerfire rifle in U.S. homes, banned by pedigree by H.R.1022

More people own "assault weapons," as defined by H.R.1022, than hunt. Run the numbers for yourself.

[zanne]

42. Target shooting! Target shooting!

That's so old and weak, you might as well say "Terrorists! Terrorists!" Of course, everybody with an assault weapon only uses it for target shooting!:eyes:

[gorfle]

45. That's all I ever use mine for...

>That's so old and weak, you might as well say "Terrorists! Terrorists!" Of course, everybody with an assault weapon only uses it for target shooting!

According to FBI statistics for 2005, there were twice as many murders by hands and feet than all rifles combined, let alone "assault" rifles.

I only use my SAR-1 at the shooting range.

[benEzra]

56. Well, we obviously don't use them for killing people...

since all rifles COMBINED account for only half as many murders as shoes and bare hands.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

"Assault weapons" are the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States, and more people own them (as defined by H.R.1022) than hunt. And despite their immense popularity, they are rarely misused, as the above numbers show (that figure is for all rifles combined, not just "assault weapons").

[bossy22]

59. thats

what the majority of them are used for. the gun control lobby lies when they say that the majority of people purchasing and possesing these weapons are terrorists are criminals.

[gorfle]

24. Except we are on to how the game is played.

The negotiation comes over which weapons are designed solely for human carnage, and which have some legitimacy.

Except we are on to how the game is played. Once we allow the conversation to move onto the slippery slope of which ones we are legitimate or not, we quickly find out the antis position is that none of them have legitimacy.

[krispos42]

40. "human carnage", as you put it, is a legitimate use.

That's what self-defense is. Threatening or causing "human carnage" at the human trying to hurt or kill you.

Of course, what defines "designed for human carnage" is typically convienence or ergonomic features. Like, say, pistol grips. This is a modern development, not something you could do two hundred years ago when the stock of a rifle was made from a single piece of wood. It literally goes against the grain and would likely break off. Not to mention that, back then, bayonet work was a lot more common than nowadays. Pistol grips don't work well for baynonet combat.

Folding stocks are another. Originally for paratroopers, now it is, for some people, a storage feature. Easier to transport when the stock is folded up, you see. Not easier to shoot, not easy to hide, but easier to pack. But, it's a militay feature, so people commence freaking out.

[zanne]

43. Self-defense? Of course! Why didn't I thing of that?!!

When somebody with bad intentions has means to harm you, they always warn you ahead of time so you can 1) Go get your gun 2) Get your gun out of your holster/pocket before they shoot. The "self defense" argument is full of crap and you know it.

[gorfle]

46. Really?

When somebody with bad intentions has means to harm you, they always warn you ahead of time so you can 1) Go get your gun 2) Get your gun out of your holster/pocket before they shoot. The "self defense" argument is full of crap and you know it.

In spite of short warning hundreds of people every year defend themselves with a firearm, many times without even firing a shot.

The self defense argument is not full of crap. Every month in my NRA magazine they publish some 10 or so examples in their column "The Armed Citizen".

[krispos42]

47. Ah, I see now

All violent criminals are ninja-trained ex-Navy-SEALs that always dispatch their victims completely by surprise. Nobody ever has any chance of fighting them off, ever. But, you will always have time to call 911, describe what is happening to you and where you are, and the police will always arrive just in the nick of time.

[gorfle]

49. Lol, good one!

But, you will always have time to call 911

Yeah, you'll never have time to defend yourself, but you'll always have time to dial 911 - and wait for the police to come to your rescue.

[L1A1Rocker]

48. Odd

I seem to remember many defending their homes and shops with just that type of rifle during the Rodney King riots. They seemed to be just the right weapon for the occasion.

[benEzra]

54. Those have been restricted for 74 years now...

the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch doesn't have a damn thing to do with automatic weapons, as you well know. It's about non-automatic civilian rifles with modern styling, and which are among the least likely of firearms to be misused.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

And those figures are for all rifles COMBINED, not just "assault weapons"...

[bossy22]

17. a light machine gun

falls under the catagory of NFA restricted weapon-machine gun because after all, its a full-auto firearm. An assault weapon is not full-auto, its a semi-auto which looks like its full auto brother- therefore its classification is a standard long arm and should be legal. Cosmetic features mean very little, and its stupid to legislate against something cause it looks mean.

[villager]

20. and you agree it should fall into a "restricted" category, yes?

n/t

[gorfle]

26. Of course not

Why would a semi-automatic rifle that simply looks like a fully automatic rifle be restricted?

[krispos42]

41. which "it" are you referring to? n/t

[benEzra]

58. If you're speaking of machineguns, yes.

If you're speaking of non-automatic civilian rifles like AR-15's, Ruger mini-14's, and my SAR-1, then not just no, but hell no.

All "assault weapon ban" proposals cover only civilian non-automatics, of course.

[SteveM]

25. I wouldn't, but a crim who could afford a machine gun might like a gun-free zone.

[virginia mountainman]

30. Villager, there is hope for you!!

Did you realize, that the AW Ban did NOT, ban a SINGLE "LIGHT MACHINE GUN"?????

Machine guns, of all types have been tightly restricted since 1934.

And I agree with the restrictions that are in place currently(for the most part) Machine guns, are defined by ANY weapon capable of more than one shot per trigger pull.

None of the rifles the SO CALLED Assault weapon ban, BANNED, did that.

[ManiacJoe]

31. No definition of assault weapon

used in any legislation (federal or state) ever included machine guns or assault rifles. That was all part of the bait and switch tactics. Both machine guns and assault rifles were always legal to own before, during, and after the federal "assault weapons" ban.

[krispos42]

37. Nope, sorry, try again.

Light machine guns are called, shockingly enough, machine guns. Unlike the term "assault weapon", "machine gun" actually has a both a technical definition and a specific legal definition in federal law.

[krispos42]

36. Gee, we're not falling into the trap of using the opposition's framing language

Just like pro-choice people don't say "partial-birth abortions" and anti-inheirented-wealth people don't say "death tax".

Not only is the term pejorative, it's flexable AND it's designed to be confused with the established, defined term "assault rifle".





Which one of these is an "assault weapon"?



A.








B.




Oh, wait, we need more ground rules. Which one of these is an assault weapon using the now-defunct 1993 federal Assault Weapons Ban definition? Wouldn't want to confusion with, say, the California definition. Or Connecticut, New York, or Massachusettes definitions.



Go ahead, pick one. A or B, and why.

[Dimensio0]

18. Please explain...

Please state what you believe are "reasonable" controls, and explain why you believe them to be reasonable. Also, define "assault weapon". Also explain the relevance of "assault weapons" when the some of the DC laws being questioned pertain to all firearms, not just a subclass of firearms.

[gorfle]

22. Such as?

What kind of reasonable controls would you suggest, and what constitutes an assault weapon?

[applegrove]

9. If any city needs a gun ban it is DC. One of many cities in the US that could

use some gun control.

[villager]

11. no, no, no -- those body counts are just "collateral damage" to keep NRA policies in place...

n/t

[HiDemGunOwner]

21. What body counts?

Where? And what type of weapon was used? Was it one of your previously defined "assault weapons?" You know, the fully automatic ones? Betcha it wasn't! Bet it wasn't even a long-gun.

Even the "Assault" weapons ban that just expired was based on cosmetic add-ons to a semi-automatic rifle to make it look more "military."

And since you seem to be once again spewing rhetoric and misinformation, and since you avoided answering the question in a previous forum ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x155596#155675 )discussion, maybe you would like to answer it now? Where do you live (something general, no need for your home address) now, with all the attendant gun violence you report? I'd like to know what type of gun control you have in your area since the crime rates are so high.

[benEzra]

57. Yes, D.C. is the poster child of NRA gun policies...

D.C., where it is a crime to possess any functional firearm, regardless of type, even inside your own bedroom, and armed self-defense is illegal unless you own a business or are wealthy enough to hire armed bodyguards...

[jmg257]

12. They have a ban for 30yrs. They also have a murder rate 8x the national. Not very effective is it?

DC:

DC - #1 Murder Rate, Maryland #2 - both get an A in Brady book.
Violent Crime - DC #1; Maryland #7 (A-); Delaware #9 (B+)
Robbery DC #1, Maryland #2, Illinois #7 (A+), Cali #8 (B+)
Aggravated Assault: DC #1; Delaware #10 Maryland #11
Property Crime: Hawaii #5, DC #6


Yep - ban those guns - create more innocent victims for the criminals!

[applegrove]

13. Not when anyone can get a gun in any of the states next door lickitty split.

But it is a start.

[jmg257]

14. Hasn't helped has it? Not a start at all - just another useless law which will be overturned soon.

[gorfle]

27. Isn't that illegal?

Wouldn't it be illegal to go into a neighboring state and buy a weapon and bring it back into DC?

If that's already illegal, how will more laws help?

[ac2007]

35. Yes

It is illegal for a DC resident to purchase a handgun outside of the District due to the registration requirement. Since a new handgun cannot be registered in the District, there is no way to stop a resident from bringing a gun in so they cannot purchase them at all in the neighboring states. I know dealers in both Maryland and Virginia will out and out refuse handgun sales to DC residents.

I can't speak to long guns with any degree of reliability. I believe they can be purchased out-of-state provided they are not disallowed under DC law (which would be a good number of long guns due to the District's messed up definition of what is a "machine gun" and hence prohibited) and they are immediately presented for registration. The DC code is a little tough to navigate on this,

[SteveM]

28. You might check www.georgiacarry.com Brief in support of Heller.

[krispos42]

52. And therein lies the problem.

DC's gun ban first and foremost inhibits people who are inheirently law-abiding, people who respect the law and fear a trial and prison.

And it affects least and last the people that are the problem, the inheirently law-breaking, violent, career criminals that do not fear trial and prison.

Disarming the former to arrest the trickle of their guns that go to the latter is a ready-made formula for failure.

[pipoman]

15. DC has almost total gun control and it hasn't changed a thing

only less incidents when the dead person is the assailant and more innocent victims.

[virginia mountainman]

50. It could be easily and successfully argued that...

Gun Control has ENABLED the high crime rate in DC.

Be insuring that the law abiding, are disarmed in the face of a well armed criminal element.

[jody]

60. Neither Hillary nor Obama joined the 55 senators in submitting the brief. The Repub candidate will

use that along with their known support for gun-control against them in the general election.

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE 55 MEMBERS

ON EDIT ADD FROM THE BRIEF SUMMARY:
"In sum, historically Congress has interpreted
the Second Amendment as recognizing the right of
law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms. This
Court should give due deference to the repeated
findings over different historical epochs by Congress,
a co-equal branch of government, that the Amendment
guarantees the personal right to possess firearms.

The District’s prohibitions on mere possession
by law-abiding persons of handguns in the home and
having usable firearms there are unreasonable per se.
No purpose would be served by remanding this case
for further fact finding or other proceedings. This
Court should affirm the decision below, Parker v.
District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007)."

[L1A1Rocker]

61. Yep

You're 100% right.

[pipoman]

62. McCant is no friend to gun owners..to point this out in our candidate is hypocrisy

[jody]

63. Repub hypocrisy, you bet but the message will be believed and IMO McCain will become pro 2nd. n/t