In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
The D.C. Supreme Court Suit
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Many here probably object to the fact that I rarely offer anything but my opinion on various subjects. At least one member openly criticizes me for not doing research to support my opinions. Of course most of the "research" that he and other member do provide is often nothing more than other people's opinions.
But anyway, I do a kind of "research" on various subjects as I go about my daily life. And surprisingly I have found that the quickest way to get accurate data and only moderatly biased opinions to go to a source that is moderatly in opposition to your own position. Unlike most of the news media, the newsmagazine U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT is only moderately anti-gun. It also is certainly no friend of the NRA. So if I find news or facts in that newsmagazine that accidently offer support for the NRA, then I personally feel that information offered is most likely true and honest. In the March 17, 2008 edition there is a large article on gun rights and especially the DC Supreme Court lawsuit. In the article it mentions how it is quite possible that a ruling one way or the other will have little effect across America because the ruling will basically apply to the situation in DC and DC is not a city nor a state. In other words, you will not find the equivalent of Washington, D.C. anywhere else in America. So it is possible that even if the pro-gun side gets an overwhelming win before the SCOTUS, that win will only help you if you live in Washington, DC.
And if that were to happen, it would still be a good thing because it would at least give relief to and the 2A rights back to the residents of DC. But the question to ask is "Was it worth the risk of losing everything regarding run rights really worth it using the odd entity and odd circumstances surrounding the very existance of that odd entity known as DC?" and staking perhaps all our chips on the outcome of such a legal case using DC as the test case? In view of the fact that there is simply not another such similar place in all America?
When this DC lawsuit was first started, many said the NRA opposed that lawsuit. Because of that, many were angry at the NRA and claimed it was further proof that the NRA wanted to give our gun rights away. From what I read in U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT I feel that the NRA had at least a small legitimate reason to not want to see the DC lawsuit go before the SCOTUS.
But anyway, I do a kind of "research" on various subjects as I go about my daily life. And surprisingly I have found that the quickest way to get accurate data and only moderatly biased opinions to go to a source that is moderatly in opposition to your own position. Unlike most of the news media, the newsmagazine U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT is only moderately anti-gun. It also is certainly no friend of the NRA. So if I find news or facts in that newsmagazine that accidently offer support for the NRA, then I personally feel that information offered is most likely true and honest. In the March 17, 2008 edition there is a large article on gun rights and especially the DC Supreme Court lawsuit. In the article it mentions how it is quite possible that a ruling one way or the other will have little effect across America because the ruling will basically apply to the situation in DC and DC is not a city nor a state. In other words, you will not find the equivalent of Washington, D.C. anywhere else in America. So it is possible that even if the pro-gun side gets an overwhelming win before the SCOTUS, that win will only help you if you live in Washington, DC.
And if that were to happen, it would still be a good thing because it would at least give relief to and the 2A rights back to the residents of DC. But the question to ask is "Was it worth the risk of losing everything regarding run rights really worth it using the odd entity and odd circumstances surrounding the very existance of that odd entity known as DC?" and staking perhaps all our chips on the outcome of such a legal case using DC as the test case? In view of the fact that there is simply not another such similar place in all America?
When this DC lawsuit was first started, many said the NRA opposed that lawsuit. Because of that, many were angry at the NRA and claimed it was further proof that the NRA wanted to give our gun rights away. From what I read in U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT I feel that the NRA had at least a small legitimate reason to not want to see the DC lawsuit go before the SCOTUS.
Comments
According to you, if we win we gain nothing because of D.C's unique circumstance.
Somehow though, if we lose we lose everything.....
Either the chips are on the table or they aren't.
This is just another case of you attempting to rationalize the NRA's hosing of us on this issue.
You're making no sense....
According to you, if we win we gain nothing because of D.C's unique circumstance.
Somehow though, if we lose we lose everything.....
Either the chips are on the table or they aren't.
This is just another case of you attempting to rationalize the NRA's hosing of us on this issue.
I'm trying to say that the situation has the potential to go to either extreme. And it might have been better to wait for or look for a better time and place to stage what could turn out to be the biggest gun-rights showdown in the history of the USA.
And why don't you humor me and go into detail on what you mean about the "NRA hosing us on this issue"
Thanks largely to the GOP, we have the most conservative Supreme Court in a generation......
Thanks largely to the GOP selling out its base, we have the most conservative Supreme Court we'll likely see in a generation if ever again....
Its now or never.
Forgive me for not "going into detail" as to how the GOP is hosing us on this issue......I have several times already, as has Highball, lt496, WoundedWolf, and others.
I'm tired of repeating myself. If you must see the information again, the creators of this site have provided a handy tool that allows one to search the archives.
If it goes the wrong way I don't think I'll be around GB for a while.
I really doubt the SC will make a constitutional ruling.
I've already mentioned that DC is neither a city nor a state; it is a "district" created by congress. Because of that odd fact, it might cause, or give an excuse, for the SCOTUS to sidestep a ruling that would help us 2A people, or it might mean that even a decision in our favor will do us absoutely no good unless you live in DC. And while the event happening described in the latter part of the last sentence would still be good progress, was it worth the risk of things "going bad" on us for that relatively small and local gain? Plus if that does happen, won't that be proof that we should have searched for and found a better more representative example to take before the Supreme Court?
But some more oddities are the fact that, as I understand it, guns are not actually outlawed in DC. No, instead of an outright ban (apparently the meanies were/are trickerer and smarter than we thought), what they did do was in approximately 1973 passed a law saying that in order to own a handgun you acquired (or if you moved to DC after that date) after that date you first had to register that handgun with the government of DC. The tricky part is that DC refused to register any handguns. Kinda like saying that if you want to leave the country on a visit, first you must go to the passport office and get a passport. But the trick is that there is no passport office.
In regards to long guns (which are still allowed) they must be unloaded and either disassembled or locked up at all times making them usless for home protection. Think about that. Say you live in DC and before going to bed heard some strange noises in your yard. Knowing there had been some home invasions recently, you get your shotgun, unlock and load it. Then say after you are asleep, some goofey teenager (say 18, legally an adult) thinks he has his girlfriends house and sneaks in one of your windows. Hearing the noise and seeing an intruder in your house you pull your shotgun and hold the intruder for the police. Now what will probably happen is that the goofey teenager will probably get a fine and maybe even a short probation for trespassing. But it seems possible to me that you may get into serious trouble (maybe even jail time?) and diffently lose your shotgun because you obviously didn't have it locked up and unloaded or else you wouldn't have had time to unlock and loaded in the few seconds it took you to confront the intruder in order to try and protect you and your family.
Anyway, what I have been trying to show, and maybe what the NRA already knew, is that in almost all cases when you are the plantiff in a lawsuit, you want a case/situation that is as clearcut and as simply put in your favor as you can possible get. The more complicated it gets, the harder to unravel it gets, or the more dangling threads there are that on the surface make it look like you have no case (re:handguns aren't outlawed in DC) the worse it can get for you and your case.
In addition, you want to bring a situation before the Supreme Court that will hopefully generate a win decision for you that you can use far and wide. Not a decision that can only be used in one fairly small local such as DC.
Of course most of the "research" that he and other member do provide is often nothing more than other people's opinions.
I deal with facts, YOU deal with opinions.
If my facts are wrong, PROVE IT.
You want to sling accusations.
I am simply asking you to back it up.
Are you man enough, or just mouth?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Of course most of the "research" that he and other member do provide is often nothing more than other people's opinions.
I deal with facts, YOU deal with opinions.
If my facts are wrong, PROVE IT.
You want to sling accusations.
I am simply asking you to back it up.
Are you man enough, or just mouth?
+