Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
Showing Original Post only (View all)District of Columbia [View all]
Continues to lose in court with respect to its draconian and unconstitutional gun laws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-one-gun-a-month-law-in-district/2015/09/18/137fa290-5e22-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html
In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. knocked down several provisions of the Districts Firearms Amendment Act of 2012, including requirements that gun owners re-register weapons every three years, bring their firearm with them to be registered and pass a knowledge test of local laws.
Writing for the court, U.S. Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee, said the District governments claim that limiting residents to registering one pistol every 30 days promotes public safety by reducing the number of guns on the street, does not justify restricting an individuals undoubted constitutional right to keep arms (plural) in his or her home.
He continued, Taken to its logical conclusion, that reasoning would justify a total ban on firearms kept in the home.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
60 replies, 10046 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That's an explicitly racist statement. Got any other racially based qualifications in mind?
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#39
That's an odd statement to make, why is it you only care about the safety and security
ileus
Sep 2015
#48
Selective acceptance of Supreme Court decisions: Not just for county clerks in Kentucky!
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#47
The problem with your quite reasonable statement, is that criminals do not always announce
guillaumeb
Sep 2015
#10
Why does the NRA (and most other gun rights groups) oppose a national gun registry?
branford
Sep 2015
#30
The utopia you seek is not acheivable - not while they are some who are intent on
jonno99
Sep 2015
#38
You've just inadvertently gave a resounding defense of policies such as "stop and frisk"
branford
Sep 2015
#23
so not a single comment on how you would make your version better than Canada's failure?
clffrdjk
Sep 2015
#44
The actual polling doesn't appear to support your claims for "reasonable" gun control,
branford
Sep 2015
#45
"No it's not that simple at all." On this you are exactly correct. However, there
jonno99
Sep 2015
#16
D.C.'s laws resonate with past Jim (large, raucous black bird) laws in the ol' South.
Eleanors38
Sep 2015
#9