2nd Amendment Restored in D.C.

[WarEagle]

Washington, D.C.'s, 32 year old ban on gun ownership is over, so sayeth the United States Supreme Court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Okay, law abiding citizens of D.C., start packin'!

[Cutter]

I'm all about this. However, using their justification, wouldn't fully automatic weapons now be legal? Why stop there? Tanks? Why not?

[akhhorus]

I'm all about this. However, using their justification, wouldn't fully automatic weapons now be legal? Why stop there? Tanks? Why not?

If you read the ruling, they draw the line on these questions.

[Spence]

Thought I'd chime in with my legal thoughts.

This decision manages to be both momentous and, practically speaking, relatively insignificant. It's momentous because the Supreme Court so rarely hands down decisions on the 2nd Amendment. For reasons that are clear only to the various justices who have served on the court over the past 2 centuries, it's just something they have decided to largely avoid. Now we have a Supreme Court ruling on what the 2nd Amendment means and while the merits of the decision may be debated for many years, the meaning of it will not. We have an answer. That's a good thing and, in its way, momentous.

On the other hand, this decision changes almost nothing outside of the tiny confines of Washington, D.C. Outside of D.C., laws such as a complete gun ban are extremely unpopular, not to mention rare. Less sweeping, but still relatively stringent gun laws will still exist, as this decision does not touch them, nor challenge the rights of governments to enact gun control laws -- so long as those laws do not amount to a ban on all handguns. During oral arguments earlier this year, Justice Scalia [who wrote today's opinion] went out of his way to state that he saw no reason why governments could not continue to ban certain types of weapons entirely. [Scalia was referring specifically to a federal government ban on machine guns.]

Basically, the Supreme Court codified what already exists as a norm throughout most of the country. In that sense, for all the media attention devoted to this decision, almost nothing will change.

As for the District, it'll probably have new rules in place in about 30 days while a lower court hashes out the specifics of the Supreme Court ruling. The District already has gun regulations on the books, though those regulations have been rendered moot until now by the gun ban. It's very likely that all guns will have to be registered by their owners. We may very well see a limit of one gun per person, at least for some time. No one under 18 will be allowed to own a gun, I'd wager. Convicted felons and people who spent time in mental institutions within the last 5 or 10 years will probably be denied the right to own a gun. People who register their gun[s] will probably have to be fingerprinted and pass a test on gun literacy and/or safety.

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that in the next few years, crime will neither spike [as some gun control advocates have feared], nor drop much [as gun rights activists have insisted].

[shally]

Thought I'd chime in with my legal thoughts.

This decision manages to be both momentous and, practically speaking, relatively insignificant. It's momentous because the Supreme Court so rarely hands down decisions on the 2nd Amendment. For reasons that are clear only to the various justices who have served on the court over the past 2 centuries, it's just something they have decided to largely avoid. Now we have a Supreme Court ruling on what the 2nd Amendment means and while the merits of the decision may be debated for many years, the meaning of it will not. We have an answer. That's a good thing and, in its way, momentous.

On the other hand, this decision changes almost nothing outside of the tiny confines of Washington, D.C. Outside of D.C., laws such as a complete gun ban are extremely unpopular, not to mention rare. Less sweeping, but still relatively stringent gun laws will still exist, as this decision does not touch them, nor challenge the rights of governments to enact gun control laws -- so long as those laws do not amount to a ban on all handguns. During oral arguments earlier this year, Justice Scalia [who wrote today's opinion] went out of his way to state that he saw no reason why governments could not continue to ban certain types of weapons entirely. [Scalia was referring specifically to a federal government ban on machine guns.]

Basically, the Supreme Court codified what already exists as a norm throughout most of the country. In that sense, for all the media attention devoted to this decision, almost nothing will change.

As for the District, it'll probably have new rules in place in about 30 days while a lower court hashes out the specifics of the Supreme Court ruling. The District already has gun regulations on the books, though those regulations have been rendered moot until now by the gun ban. It's very likely that all guns will have to be registered by their owners. We may very well see a limit of one gun per person, at least for some time. No one under 18 will be allowed to own a gun, I'd wager. Convicted felons and people who spent time in mental institutions within the last 5 or 10 years will probably be denied the right to own a gun. People who register their gun[s] will probably have to be fingerprinted and pass a test on gun literacy and/or safety.

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that in the next few years, crime will neither spike [as some gun control advocates have feared], nor drop much [as gun rights activists have insisted].


i think you are absolutely correct in your last statements because career criminals dont care at all what the supremes say. they are going to get their weapons illegally, and have been doing so for decades regardless of what the DC gun laws were. as for guns preventing crime, i sincerely have my doubts about that except in rare circumstances.

the thing to look for is whether there will be any spike in spontaneous use of guns in domestic cases, or other crimes of passion.. my guess is it probably wont, but it bears watching

[Cutter]

No machine guns? But wait, didn't they just say it was unconstitutional to ban a whole class of gun (specifically: handguns)?

[akhhorus]

No machine guns? But wait, didn't they just say it was unconstitutional to ban a whole class of gun (specifically: handguns)?

The court said that you have the right to handguns for self defense and hunting, not that you have a right to unfettered access to all kinds of guns.

[The_Sonny_Of_Sammy]

I wonder if the Supreme Court can do something about allowing real fireworks to be sold in Virginia?:)