Obama didn't see Constitutional Conflict in sweeping DC gun ban

[WRL]

Barrack Obama supporting DC's sweeping ban on even handguns...

"The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC, The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution."

Barrack represents change alright...

For the record this was a sweeping ban that was ruled Unconstitutional, banning the sale, and requiring already owned firearms to be disassembled.

Here is a link on that...


D.C. Handgun Ban Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court (Update5)

By Cary O'Reilly

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington also threw out a district law requiring registered firearms to be kept disassembled...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=azTOCL.ZiDGM&refer =usBut that's the kind of 'change' we can expect with Barrack Obama...

[WRL]

Keep in mind the context of the quote. It was in reaction to a school shooting, and I think it goes a long way toward showing how he'll react, if such a crisis arises, should he become President.

[avatar4321]

would he? he sits on the left

[Hagbard Celine]

Keep in mind the context of the quote. It was in reaction to a school shooting, and I think it goes a long way toward showing how he'll react, if such a crisis arises, should he become President.

Gee, are you suggesting that Obama is a knee-jerk reaction kinda guy? Is that like invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or passing sweeping legislation that allows unconstitutional search and seizures and unconstitutional surveillance on US citizens? Is that the kind of knee-jerk reaction we're talking about here? :poke:

[avatar4321]

Gee, are you suggesting that Obama is a knee-jerk reaction kinda guy? Is that like invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or passing sweeping legislation that allows unconstitutional search and seizures and unconstitutional surveillance on US citizens? Is that the kind of knee-jerk reaction we're talking about here? :poke:

Of course not, because neither of the examples you cited were knee jerk reactions. I would invite you to try to prove that they are.

[Hagbard Celine]

Of course not, because neither of the examples you cited were knee jerk reactions. I would invite you to try to prove that they are.

Well, you're probably right about Iraq. I think that may have been on the agenda from the beginning--as in finishing unfinished family business. But I'm totally right about the Patriot Act. It was passed in the middle of the night and most members of Congress didn't even read it before it went through.

[avatar4321]

Well, you're probably right about Iraq. I think that may have been on the agenda from the beginning--as in finishing unfinished family business. But I'm totally right about the Patriot Act. It was passed in the middle of the night and most members of Congress didn't even read it before it went through.

Simply because something is done quickly doesnt mean it wasnt done with forethought.

[WRL]

Well, you're probably right about Iraq. I think that may have been on the agenda from the beginning--as in finishing unfinished family business. But I'm totally right about the Patriot Act. It was passed in the middle of the night and most members of Congress didn't even read it before it went through.

Iraq was 13 years of failed diplomacy. Hardly a knee jerk reaction. And the Patriot Act was passed. It's been subsequently re-passed. Neither of your points are accurate, nor do they address Obama's views on gun control. We have an individual right to keep and bear arms, and Obama can't make out the Constitutional conflict in a sweeping gun ban, it's not what we need, we don't need a rubber stamp, we don't need a super liberal trying to 'interpret' the Constitution by adding, or removing words.

[Abbey Marie]

I believe that B. Hussein Obama is scarier than Hillary, and trust me that is saying a lot. This quote about guns just confirms it. All the libs who are running around calling our currrent Patriot Act unconstitutional, will no doubt find this direct assault (pun intended) on the 2nd amendment to be just fine.

[WRL]

I believe that B. Hussein Obama is scarier than Hillary, and trust me that is saying a lot. This quote about guns just confirms it. All the libs who are running around calling our currrent Patriot Act unconstitutional, will no doubt find this direct assault (pun intended) on the 2nd amendment to be just fine.

I agree, we can't just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to follow, and the more I learn about his record, the scarier he gets.

[retiredman]

we don't need a super liberal trying to 'interpret' the Constitution by adding, or removing words.


how about neglecting words.... like the ablative absolute: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" which some would argue explains the context under which we are allowed to bear arms: to be a part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

[5stringJeff]

how about neglecting words.... like the ablative absolute: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" which some would argue explains the context under which we are allowed to bear arms: to be a part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

The militia, by law, includes all males between 18-60.

[retiredman]

The militia, by law, includes all males between 18-60.
by law, perhaps, but not by the constitution, however....

and how regulated is it? One way to regulate the militia might be to keep records as to their armory, eh?

[5stringJeff]

by law, perhaps, but not by the constitution, however....

and how regulated is it? One way to regulate the militia might be to keep records as to their armory, eh?

For the regulated militia, perhaps. For the unregulated militia, who have no armory, that would be a bit hard. Besides, there's no law stating that people can't form their own militias for common defense.

Moreover, the Constitution provides a "floor" of common rights - see the Ninth Amendment, which states that just because a right isn't listed in the Constitution doesn't mean the people don't have that right. States are free to grant even more rights to their citizens, and many do. Several state constitutions do not have a 'militia clause' when they talk about the right to bear arms.

[retiredman]

For the regulated militia, perhaps. For the unregulated militia, who have no armory, that would be a bit hard. Besides, there's no law stating that people can't form their own militias for common defense.

Moreover, the Constitution provides a "floor" of common rights - see the Ninth Amendment, which states that just because a right isn't listed in the Constitution doesn't mean the people don't have that right. States are free to grant even more rights to their citizens, and many do. Several state constitutions do not have a 'militia clause' when they talk about the right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment does not mention any unregulated militia. It would seem that gun registration would be a logical way for government to regulate the militia, n'est ce pas?

[5stringJeff]

The Second Amendment does not mention any unregulated militia. It would seem that gun registration would be a logical way for government to regulate the militia, n'est ce pas?

I don't speak French. Sorry.

The right to bear arms is a "right of the people," not a right of the militia, and the government has no need to know what kind of arms "the people" may or may not have. Therefore, gun registration is not a logical step towards regulating the militia - it is a logical way of regulating "the right of the people."

[retiredman]

I don't speak French. Sorry.

The right to bear arms is a "right of the people," not a right of the militia, and the government has no need to know what kind of arms "the people" may or may not have. Therefore, gun registration is not a logical step towards regulating the militia - it is a logical way of regulating "the right of the people."

according to the grammatical construct of the "ablative absolute", the rights of the people to bear arms are in the context of a well regulated militia.

[Monkeybone]

maybe it gives us the right to bear arms in case we need to make a militia? if there are guns bans, then no guns, no militia.