Washington, D.C. Discovers Constitution

Friday's big news, which broke a bit late for H&R:

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The ruling also struck down a requirement that owners of registered firearms keep them unloaded and disassembled. The court did not address provisions that prohibit people from carrying unregistered guns outside the home.

The decision marks the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a portion of a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

That's huge. And one angle you probably won't hear: This is the direction DC public opinion has been moving toward for some time. Only one month ago Marion Barry, DC's statesman/punchline who now holds a city council seat, proposed a halt to the gun ban.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Norman||

    Good news, I guess, but hardly DC's most pressing problem. Perhaps someday they'll have similar luck getting somebody to recognize their right to representation in Congress. While I'm loathed to rank the order of importance of any of our rights, I think the right to have your interests represented in the body that governs you should be considered fundamental.

  • Armed and Hammered||

    Let's not get too worked up over this. It won't be long before this is ballyhooed by various and sundry leftist hacks as a naked attempt by the neocon-stacked judiciary to condone the unfettered shooting of minorities. After all - only racist white folk have any interest in RKBA, right?

  • ||

    Norman,
    I don't think there are any rights more important than the right to defend yourself.

    This is great news.

    My opinion of GW goes up a notch.

  • ||

    Umm... According to that article, Barry didn't propose a halt to the gun ban at all, he proposed a 90-day period in which people would have to register guns, after which the current ban is re-imposed. Sounds like yet another confiscation ploy to me.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I think that the right to self-defense is a fundamental part of the right to life. The second amendment shouldn't be needed, but obviously, it is. It would be nice if it stated specifically that the right is an individual one; "the people" is too easy to fudge.

  • ||

    "It won't be long before this is ballyhooed by various and sundry leftist hacks as a naked attempt by the neocon-stacked judiciary to condone the unfettered shooting of minorities."

    Well, the majority did cite Dred Scott in support...

  • Guy Montag||

    Norman,

    This is one of those rare cases that a bunch of fancy-robed folk did some real reading. They proved that 2 out of 3 judges can read, given the proper three judges.

    The one who can't read thinks that the right to keap and bear arms is not an individual right and does not apply to DC because it is not a State.

    On that Congressional representation thing, as soon as the States amend the Constitution in your favor then that right will exist. Until then DC has to settle for 3 electoral votes for president.

  • ||

    From the blog Guy mentioned:

    But her [Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson] other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

    So the Bill Of Rights doesn't apply to D.C. because it's not a "state?" I always thought a certian segment of D.C. population (i.e. politicians) lived by ignoring the constitution, but I didn't think it went THAT far.

  • ||

    EDIT: That third paragraph is supposed to be in normal text. I fudged up the closing italics HTML tag on the quote.

  • Guy Montag||

    Another Marrion Barry item: his protest against taxation without representation is not going as well as Wesley Nipes'.

  • ||

    While I'm glad that the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment is finally getting some play outside of the fifth circuit, this might not be as big a victory as we hoped.

    From reading the opinion, it seems that the judges are still open to a lot upholding a lot of gun control like mandatory registration, bans on certain kinds of weapons, etc.

    Emboldened gun control groups are certanly going to redouble their efforts in this regard.

  • Guy Montag||

    Akira MacKenzie,

    Actually, I am kind of amazed that some judge has not granted DC disproportional representation in the Congress under some silly taxation representation logic found on bumper stickers and license plates, not in the Constitution.

    We see statements like Norman's all of the time and they sound fair and nice. True, they are "fair" and nice wishes, but that pesky Constitution is in the way, expressly allowing representation in the House and Senate to States only.

    All sorts of other rights of the people are protected in the District and Territories, but representation in the Congress is no more a "right" in the District than it is in Guam.

    As for individual rights, all of those are supposed to be protected in the States and in the Territories, including the right t keep and bear arms. Yes, that is one that is walked over all of the time in the manner that you notice.

  • Guy Montag||

    before an oversite goes too far, I heard of this from a mediageek post yesterday afternoon on another Reason thread.

  • Guy Montag||

    David Weigel and Reason scoop the NRA by 2 hours:


    Subject: D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!
    Date: 3/10/2007 2:53:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
    From: NRA-ILA_Alerts.UM.A.1.2226@www.ilaalerts.org

  • ||

    Weigel is shilling for Marion Barry! (DRINK)

    The whole bit about DC not being part of "a free State" reminds me of Stephen Colbert's interview with DC Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

    Colbert: I checked your voting record; you've not voted once while you've been in office. You want to defend that?

    Norton: Well, our government is imposing taxes on us in the District of Columbia without giving us a vote in the House and the Senate.

    Colbert: Isn't that for states? You're not a state.

    Norton: We're not a state, it's in the Constitution --

    Colbert: But it's "We the people of the United STATES", what the Preamble to the Constitution says. You're not in the United States, you're in the District of Columbia; those aren't states. It's not "United States and a District", it's U--

    Norton: You are the first to suggest that the nation's capital is not in the United States.

    Colbert: I don't think it is.

    Norton: Oh my goodness! That's civics lesson #2. We are a part of the United States of America.

    Colbert: But you're not a state. Just by definition, aren't you not in the United States? You have to give me that.

  • ||

    Of course, though I haven't heard her reaction yet, I'm sure that Norton (and her taxpayer-financed gun-toting bodyguards) will line up behind the "DC isn't a free State" argument after this ruling.

  • Guy Montag||

    crimethink,

    She piped up about a proposed bill to guarantee the citizens of DC the right to bear arms saying that shopkeepers can already have handguns to defend their stores.

    I meant to go back and look that up, because I was a bit skeptical about the assertion. Something to do after I calculate my unconcionable federal incom taxes this weekend I suppose.

  • ||

    Guy Montag,

    The DC gun ban does exempt places of business, but of course that's not the main issue; the inability of people to protect themselves in their homes is.

    The bill passed the House, but loyal Republican Bill Frist refused to bring it up in the Senate, saying it would cause more important legislation (read: Schiavo, defense of marriage) to be delayed.

  • Guy Montag||

    crimethink,

    He is not shilling for Marion Barry, he is channeling Dr. Bernadine van Dohrn! (DRINK)

  • ||

    Weigel doesn't shill. Weigal shills. Get it rite, peeple!

    (I lurnd how too spel from a miletery loyer.)

  • Guy Montag||

    Actually, this ruling is just in time. If it takes a while to go through the rest of the court system the people of DC may be able to defend themselves from the Club G'tmo detainees that Rep. Jim Moran (C-VA) wants to scatter across the East Coast.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    David Weigel and Reason scoop the NRA by 2 hours:

    The NRA would probably have gotten the news sooner if it wasn't using the Weigel Filter.

  • Egon||

    A flood of guns! A bloodbath! Our streets awash in blood! What about the children!?

  • anonymous coward||

    Let's not get too worked up over this. It won't be long before this is ballyhooed by various and sundry leftist hacks as a naked attempt by the neocon-stacked judiciary to condone the unfettered shooting of minorities. After all - only racist white folk have any interest in RKBA, right?

    You've delayed the entry of joe into this thread, because you anticipated his first reaction.

  • ||

    Still, Weigal linked to the Washington Pravda article that attempted to minimize the ruling's significance, instead of to a real news source like the Volokh Conspiracy.

  • Guy Montag||

    Radley Balko has some comments on his 'blog.

    The money quote:


    I particularly like this line from the Post editorial:

    According to its myth, only criminals have had guns in the city and now law-abiding citizens will be able to arm themselves for protection.

    Um, isn't this "myth" true on its face? If guns are banned in the city, everyone in the city who owns a gun is a criminal. And if this ruling stands, law-abiding citizens would now be able to arm themselves for protection.



    How long will it be before that stupid DC $500 per round of ammunition fine is to be addressed?

    Kind of makes that decision to get or not to get a magazine extender for the Benelli Nova Pump easier, but not the method that I prefer.

  • ||

    For those who may be interested, the case is Parker v. District of Columbia (the WaPo article doesn't mention the name, as far as I can tell). It's not posted on the DC District Court's website yet: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/district-court-2007.html

    Volokh Conspiracy has a link to the opinion in the Mar. 9 post at 1:23 pm.

  • Guy Montag||

  • ||

    Gun lovers will be glad to know that the appeals court cited the Dred Scott decision as precedent. Here's the story, from the WSJ:
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/03/09/dred-full-decision/?mod=blogs

  • Guy Montag||

    Reason employees trapped in the District of Columbia: What personal protection firearm do you plan to purchase and carry when your freedom to do so is restored?

  • ||

    Vanneman,

    The point that was cited from Dred Scott is pretty uncontroversial, that citizens of the US do not lose their constitutional rights by living in part of the US that is not a state. Though it would have been wise to try to find a different case to cite...

  • Guy Montag||

    Alan Vanneman,

    Are you referring to this passage?


    "Although Dred Scott is as infamous as it was erroneous in holding that African-Americans are not citizens, this passage expresses the view, albeit in passing, that the Second Amendment contains a personal right," Silberman observes, before moving on to other precedents.



    I hope you are not opposing protected personal rights by any means necessary, to include tar and feathers.

  • ||

    Jess Bravin : Wall Street Journal
    as
    David Weigel : Reason
    ?

  • ||

    I think a lot of people will be surprised by how little reaction there is to this.

    You're just certain there are "gun grabbers" hiding under your bed, ready to take to the streets after this ruling. I doubt it.

  • ||

    joe,

    I sure hope they're not under my bed -- that's where my guns are!

  • ||

    More seriously, joe, your point is undermined by the editorials today in the NYT and WP, and the DC mayor's press conference about this topic. Those wheels all had to be turning within an hour of the decision, so it looks like the reaction is off to a strong start.

  • Guy Montag||

    crimethink,

    Let's hope this strong start is interrupted by a strong stone wall.

    (prediction: joe will call me homophobic for mentioning 'stonewall')

  • ||

    For those who may be interested, the case is Parker v. District of Columbia

    Since the only plaintiff found to have standing was Heller, not Parker, does the case name change if it goes forward to SCOTUS?

  • ||

    crimethink,

    I didn't say there would be NO reaction. Certainly, we can expect some noise.

    But I doubt anything meaningful will happen.

    I think libertarians have such little experience with victory that they're having trouble recognizing it.

    Gun control is over, man. Groups like the NRA are going to raise as many alarms as they can to keep their coffers full and absolutists will still have plenty to crow about, as they always do, but the legal and political gun control ediface built up in the 70s and 80s was stopped in its tracks a decade ago, and it being pulled down. This ruling is just the latest stage.

  • ||

    Guy,

    Tell you what, post the same comment under my name, and then rob can call you a homophobe!

  • ||

    Right now the decision's effect is limited to the District because its in the DC Circuit. If the Supreme Court takes it, if it upholds it on the same grounds as the DC Circuit, then it will be limited to federal law. States can do whatever they want. The DC Circuit explicitly notes in a footnote on p. 39 of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment is not incorporated against the states. That means states can make guns illegal if they want.

  • ||

    joe,

    From your keyboard to God's monitor.


    FingFangFoom,

    The footnote only says that the Supremes have not recently dealt with the question of whether the 2nd is incorporated against the states, and since DC is directly governed by the federal government, that argument doesn't matter in this case.

  • ||

    "After all - only racist white folk have any interest in RKBA, right?"

    True story: I was chatting with a young Brasilian fellow online once and I brought up the fact that I'm a supporter of the NRA. He then proceeded to inquire: "So I guess you're a member of the KKK, too." I shit you not.

    Granted, this is only a personal anecdote and he was only one guy, but I had no idea ANYONE thought that supporting the RTBA is racist...

  • ||

    andy: what do you expect from a stupid Brazilian?

  • VM||

    " | March 10, 2007, 9:54am | #
    andy: what do you expect from a stupid Brazilian?"

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL



    [runs off]

  • ||

    crimethink, that's what I said. Except that I said not/versus not dealt with. The Supreme Court just makes stuff up as it goes along. It doesn't derive its decisions from the platonic ideal of the Constitution.

  • ||

    I said not/versus not dealt with.

    That's a pretty huge distinction in constitutional law.

  • ||

    My uncharitable view of foreigners' views of the United States is that they tend to know more about the U.S. than we do about their country, but they don't actually know much. An American on the other hand might not know where Brazil is, but he won't act like he's an expert on it either.

  • ||

    Maybe that's because foreigners tend to be from god-forsaken shitholes that no one in their right mind would want to know anything about.

  • ||

    Actually, it says that it hasn't been incorporated:

    After citing precedents stating that only the federal government is constrained by the second amendment it states that:

    "Indeed, the Second Amendment is one of the few Bill of Rights provisions that has not yet
    been held to be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment."

    Then it dodges questioning precedent becuase it is in DC. Not that it would go against the SCOTUS anyways.

    I highly doubt the Court will hold, if it even grants cert, that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.

  • ||

    You're collapsing "has not been held to be incorporated" into "has not been incorporated" again. There is a HUGE difference between the two. The latter would force the Court to follow stare decisis, while the former does not.

  • ||

    not really

  • bj||

    This is a naked attempt by the neocon-stacked judiciary to condone the unfettered shooting of minorities.

  • ||

    So the black people are going to kill the white people in DC?

  • ||

    Yeah, and we'll attempt to condone your ass too if you piss us off! Consider yourself warned!

  • ||

    I think Joe at 9:44am probably makes a couple good points about both libertarians and the state of gun control these days.

  • ||

    Gun lovers will be glad to know that the appeals court cited the Dred Scott decision as precedent.

    That's okay, because gun controllers have been relying on the openly racist Cruishank decision for years....

  • ||

    I don't know about this being a nail in the coffin of gun control. I think this could be, if the SCOTUS were to find that the 2nd was incorporated against the states and/or RTBA is not predicated on the prefatory language, akin to Roe in that it creates a movement up against it. I don't think gun control laws are unpopular, but I do think people currently think less about them since the crime rate has dropped so much. This might change that. It could even be strong enough to get amendment XXVIII.

  • ||

    Gun control is over, man. Groups like the NRA are going to raise as many alarms as they can to keep their coffers full and absolutists will still have plenty to crow about, as they always do, but the legal and political gun control ediface built up in the 70s and 80s was stopped in its tracks a decade ago, and it being pulled down. This ruling is just the latest stage.

    I would agree. (Quick! Someone get the smelling salts for joe!)

    Gun control is a losing issue except in a few navy-blue states and cities. Deep down inside most people, when given the choice, would rather have a gun than not.

    That's why gun control always polls better before the election than it does on election day: People tell the pollsters what they want to hear, and then vote the opposite way.

    The biggest losers in this decision are the Democrats. Having this before the Supreme court in 2008 ensures that gun control will be a major issue in the next election.

  • ||

    aint we gonna needs guns to pertect our kinfolk when all the terrists get here after the dumacraps cut and run from Iraq? cause if we aint fightin em there we all know we gots ta fight em here.

    Wasnt Dred Scott a rasta fighting for the right to blaze 1 up in public? Part of a religious thing?(wink wink nod nod)

  • ||

    andy,

    You wrote, "True story: I was chatting with a young Brasilian fellow online once and I brought up the fact that I'm a supporter of the NRA. He then proceeded to inquire: "So I guess you're a member of the KKK, too." I shit you not.

    Granted, this is only a personal anecdote and he was only one guy, but I had no idea ANYONE thought that supporting the RTBA is racist..."

    The problem here is that "supporting the RTBA" isn't the same thing as "supporting the NRA." The NRA has aligned itself with some pretty hard-right groups and positions over the last decade and a half. It's the equivalent of opposing the war vs. supporting International ANSWER.

  • ||

    The 2nd Ammendment is America's original homeland security.

  • ||

    What in the Constitution distinguishes the 2nd Amendment from the rest, such that every other Amendment but the 2nd is incorporated against the states? I don't see it anywhere. It must be in those "emanations and penumbras" for which we ordinary folk need smart people, like Supreme Court justices, to see and understand.

  • ||

    What in the Constitution distinguishes the 2nd Amendment from the rest, such that every other Amendment but the 2nd is incorporated against the states? I don't see it anywhere. It must be in those "emanations and penumbras" for which we ordinary folk need smart people, like Supreme Court justices, to see and understand.

    Pretty much.

  • ||

    I highly doubt the Court will hold, if it even grants cert, that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.

    I bet the court will dodge this altogether. They'll stay narrowly focused on DC.

  • smartass||

    The 2nd Ammendment is America's original homeland security.

    I believe you meant "Ammendmment."

  • Guy Montag||

    David,

    So, are you going with a pistol or are you going to go all the way with a shotgun holder on the Segway :)

  • tomWright||

    Andy, et. al.:

    True story: I was chatting with a young Brasilian fellow online once and I brought up the fact that I'm a supporter of the NRA. He then proceeded to inquire: "So I guess you're a member of the KKK, too." I shit you not.




    I am not surprised. I have received the same sort of comment in Mensa meetings here in N.J.

    I told a member there once that I was an NRA member and his first response was: 'So how do you feel about blacks?'

    Being submerged in a political viewpoint has nothing to do with nationality or intelligence. It comes from being taught a viewpoint at an early age and having it constantly reinforced by the people and community around you, and never questioning or having your views challenged.

    In fact, in Mensa I have found the same set of ideas, from anarchy to communist, as elsewhere. They just use larger words to justify their prejudice.

  • ||

    "The NRA has aligned itself with some pretty hard-right groups and positions over the last decade and a half. It's the equivalent of opposing the war vs. supporting International ANSWER."

    Perhaps you can name them?

    Note that being in the same location as the ANSWER kooks, protesting the same war, is not equivalent to supporting their other positions. The NRA has aligned itself with NOW and the ACLU, too, in the last decade and a half.

    "Aligning" happens all the time with an advocacy group. It means little or nothing, when the alignment revolves around some specific issue like CFR, a gun control initiative, the Iraq War, public land access, etc. Attempting to smear by association is the tool of a talk-radio demagogue, and not even one who's good at it.

  • tomWright||

    FinFangFoom, et. al.;

    I highly doubt the Court will hold, if it even grants cert, that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.



    If I recall correctly, when reading about this suit when it was first filed, one of the reasons it was done in D.C. was specifically to avoid the issue of 14th Amendment incorporation. This strictly challenges whether the 2A is an individual right. Since 14A questions are not raised, it is fairly certain that the USSC would not rule on that question, should the case make it that far.

    But that is a ways off, since D.C. has said they plan to apeal to an enbanc hearing of this court first, as happened in Emerson.

    The beauty of this ruling is that it is not dicta, as the discussion of the 2A was in Emerson.

  • ||

    Spare me, Barry. Those aren't NOW bumper stickers and ACLU buttons that get sold at every NRA conference.

  • ||

    "Note that being in the same location as the ANSWER kooks, protesting the same war, is not equivalent to supporting their other positions."

    No, but it certainly doesn't help your image - you know, the image people have the NRA? The subject of andy's anecdote? The one my comment was about?

  • ||

    joe,

    Are you implying that KKK bumper stickers and buttons get sold at NRA conferences?

  • ||

    joe, that's not what you said. You said "It's the equivalent of opposing the war vs. supporting International ANSWER." Not "having the image of being associated with ANSWR." You weren't impugning the NRA's image, but their substance.

  • ||

    "Spare me, Barry. Those aren't NOW bumper stickers and ACLU buttons that get sold at every NRA conference."

    Who is selling them and what are they selling?

    Never been to an NRA convention, myself. Have you? (You probably wouldn't call them "conferences" if you had. Even the VPC refers to them as "conventions.")

    "No, but it certainly doesn't help your image"

    As a gun-owning, organic-food-eating (and growing), pit bull rescuing, free-market-supporting 40-year-old surfer, I long ago grew out of giving a crap about being stereotyped. I especially grew out of believing that image=reality.

    News flash: Al Gore doesn't really care about the earth, and Britney Spears was no goody-two-shoes. Hence, the name of this site and associated magazine are "Reason", not "The National Enquirer."

  • ||

    crimethink,

    No, too far. Not KKK stickers, but the far right of the culture war. They've become so invested in guns as a cultural wedge issue that they've created a rather unfortunate brand for themselves.

    If anyone read my comment as implying that the NRA was allied with the Klan, that wasn't my intent.

  • ||

    crimethink,

    I was talking about image.

    Barry,

    "As a gun-owning, organic-food-eating (and growing), pit bull rescuing, free-market-supporting 40-year-old surfer, I long ago grew out of giving a crap about being stereotyped. I especially grew out of believing that image=reality."

    Well, you should. Or rather, the NRA should, if they want to do an effective job influencing public opinion.

  • Guy Montag||

    I just realized what this thread was lacking: GUN PORN!

    Yes, it has been a while since I was accused of being a 'blog whore, so I am actually posting a link to one of my own 'blogs.

    Saiga-12 details: 12 GA, auto-loading, 3" chamber, takes 5 rd. box magazine, 19" barrel threaded externally for chokes. Full choke on barrel in photograph.

    Benelli Nova Pump details: 3.5" chamber, 18.4" barrel, cylinder choke (not threaded), tube magazine with plug removed, mercury recoil reducer added (not really needed), ghost-ring sights (for slugs).

    Added bonus: Scary FOX news channel on TV in background! ooooooooooooo

    I hear that stupid KKK and hating black people crap at 2600 meetings all of the time. It does not have to be confined to NRA issues (lifetime member and it was not a gift, I bought it myself), just saying you are against marriage on an H&R thread will get you the same thing.

  • ||

    What is this constitution you speak of?

    I had no idea there was a state where guns were BANNED.

  • ||

    No, but it certainly doesn't help your image - you know, the image people have the NRA? The subject of andy's anecdote? The one my comment was about?

    Well, the thing is people don't really give a shit about what the NRA actually does. You know, when you've got an axe to grind. Take, for example, my favorite lefty blog TalkLeft.com . As defense layers they are pro RTBA. When New Orleans tried to temporarily outlaw gun ownership TalkLeft ranted for a week about the NRA's conspicuous silence. They were so convinced the NRA only cared about white folk's RTBA they missed the suit the NRA filed the day the ban was announced, and the subsequent public statements. The suit managed an immediate injunction and was ultimately successful.

    I was talking about image.

    Yeah, and the image is that the NRA is mostly white conservative men, so they must be racist.

  • Guy Montag||

    Ooops! The Benelli is 12 Ga. too.

  • ||

    just saying you are against marriage on an H&R thread will get you the same thing.

    I'm assuming you mean "...saying you are against gay marriage..."

  • Guy Montag||

    crimethink,

    Nope, just saying that you are against marriage is enough. I swear!

  • ||

    "Deep down inside most people, when given the choice, would rather have a gun than not."

    Project much.

    Egocentric views of the world are unproductive.

  • ||

    I'm against marriage.

    Guy, I support your right to own guns, but not to drink Bud Light.

  • Guy Montag||

    Guy, I support your right to own guns, but not to drink Bud Light.

    Then I must use my guns to defend my right to drink Bud Light, even though I stick to Foster's and heavy Bud. Stella when at Dragonfly.

  • ||

    The media response to this is interesting. The WaPo and NYT are freaking out, but I cannot find a lefty blogger who is against this ruling.

  • ||

    On the matter of DC's representation, I've come to the conclusion that the outlying residential areas of DC should be ceded to Maryland and Virginia and the city should eventually be reduced to the areas around the White House, the Mall, the Capitol, the Supreme Court Building, etc., and in exchange get some of Arlington containing various other monuments and government buildings. The final goal being that DC is nothing but government (and some business, restuarants, gas stations, convenience stores, etc) and has only one family living in it, and they aren't even residents.

  • Guy Montag||

    Oh, that box in the picture is full of computer parts; I did not consume the original contents :)

  • Guy Montag||

    Bobbo,

    Northern VA has plenty of government buildings already. Ever hear of the Pentagon, CIA, NRO?

    Give DC to Maryland. Keep it on that side of the river please.

  • ||

    joe,

    But can you find a lefty blogger who is for this ruling? Or is the lack of outcry just because it's a Saturday morning?

    Wait a minute...Dave Weigel is apparently for this ruling. You may have a point. ;-)

  • ||

    Bobbo,

    But DC really is a city unto itself. It's got its own downtown, urban neighborhoods - How can you split a city in half?

    There are a lot of potential answers - statehood, incorporation into MD, or an amendment specifically addressing Congressional representation - but the city of Washington actually exists.

  • ||

    crimethink,

    Matthew Yglesius is for the ruling. I know kos is for the ruling. On the other hand, the Boston Globe hasn't written anything about it yet, an you know they're going to weigh in, so it's probably best to give it a couple of days before drawing a conclusion.

    From what I've read so far, the score is about 2-0-8.

  • Guy Montag||

    joe and Bobbo,

    The part of DC that was once VA has already been taken back by VA. It is called Arlington County and is the only county in VA (that I know of) with no cities. It is mostly "city" anyway.

    Consult a map and look at the DC area. It is not an accident that Arlington County "completes the diamond shape" of DC.

    Also, the VA/MD/DC border is the only one I have noticed that is on the bank of a river, not down the middle. One can go to Gravelly Point park, step in the water and they are in DC.

    So, part off the rest to MD, it can be Washington, MD for all I care.

  • ||

    "But can you find a lefty blogger who is for this ruling?"

    http://guntotingliberal.com/archives/905

  • ||

    The MD border is weird because of the charter of the colonies of VA and MD made it that way. I think that other states all follow the international law rule which is down the middle of the navigable channel. What this means for the Mississippi with its oxbow lakes, I don't know.

    Just a factoid.

  • ||

    joe,

    None of the options you mention are politically feasible. Giving a <10 sq mi area two senators ain't going to fly in the heartland, and it's going to require a constitutional ammendment. Ceding the land back to Maryland might be easier, but it would require the approval of the MD legislature who will not be anxious to share their power with DC politicians. Also, come to think of it, that may require an ammendment, since the Constitution specifies that the "seat of government of the United States" is not to be established inside any state.

    A constitutional ammendment dealing only with representation in the House might have a shot, but anything that tinkers with Senatorial representation would be impossible even with a constitutional ammendment.

  • ||

    Matthew Yglesius is for the ruling. I know kos is for the ruling.

    How strange, then, that there's absolutely nothing about the ruling on their blogs. I tracked through hours worth of Kos kavetching about FoxNews hosting a Dem debate, though.

  • ||

    joe,

    I love when you're like this. Heck, I can only find one minor thing you've said that I even feel the need to comment on:

    Well, you should. Or rather, the NRA should, if they want to do an effective job influencing public opinion.

    I don't think the NRA needs to worry about influencing public opinion as much as they need to do what they have been doing very successfully: raising funds to challenge gun laws. If the success of the ACLU was predicated on their Q score they would have gone the way of the woolly mammoth in the 1980s.

  • ||

    Does Mayor Barry need some heat to protect his stash? Good enough reason for me. Property is property.

  • ||

    No need for the NRA to raise alarm bell, huh? Ever heard of the United Nations? If anybody hates armed peasants more than urban American Democrats, it is the UN.

  • ||

    Guy Montag and FinFangFoom, I give you ILLINOIS v. KENTUCKY, 500 U.S. 380 (1991) on Findlaw.com.

    The original Illinois-Kentucky border was basically the Illinois shoreline on the north side of the Ohio River. You could be fishing from the Illinois bank in the Ohio River and be given a ticket by a Kentucky game warden for not having a Kentucky fishing license.

    And anyone living in DC who wants to vote for Senator or US Rep should feel free to move to one of the 50 places where this is possible.

  • Egon||

    Guy,

    Nice guns. I just got a Nova Pump in trade, but it's not the tactical version. (What am I going to do with a bird gun?) Also in the collection, a Mossberg 500 and a tacti-blinged Winchester 1300.

    If I had it to do over again, I'd start with an 870p, but I love my shotguns.

  • Guy Montag||

    JorgXMcKie,

    Cool! I used to live in IL but never knew that.

    More gun porn, this time with added hybrid juiciness.

    Shot 18/25 and 16/25 on the wobble range today :(

    Egon,

    My son has a Mossberg 590. Cool gun. I kid him that his is a "long barrel" (20") and he does not even need to bring shells to go trap shooting.

    When you strip that Benelli down to clean it you will love it. Seems to me that Mossberg uses too many loose parts. Might want to get a 1/4" punch for those trigger housing pins. The cap on the magazine of the Benelli has a tip for pushing the pins out.

  • ||

    I hate to throw cold water on this celebration, but I just read the decision. While seemingly upholding the Second Amendment, it effectively neuters it. Here is an excerpt:

    "That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols.... Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a 'well regulated Militia.' The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service."

    That's upholding licensing, registration, regulation, and restrictions. Just about every other gun law in the nation.

    Especially puzzling is this, from the summary:

    "To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
    Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
    depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

    The court seems to be saying the People have a right to defense from the "depredations of a tyrannical government," while at the same time giving that tyrannical government the ability to regulate how the People do so.

    Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

    Billy L. Roberts

  • Kap||

    Re the NRA & the KKK:

    The sad irony is that the NRA was actually founded in part to fight the KKK. Seriously.

    From hit #2 on the obvious Google search:

    * The Klan Act and Enforcement Act [which criminalized the KKK] were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant, who used their provisions vigorously.
    * Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, yet after Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.
    * After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.
    * The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.
    * During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.



    To which I add: the NRA is chartered in...wait for it...New York City.

  • Kap||

    Also, my snooping about on the related Daily Kos stories in the past few months has shown them to me to be surprisingly pro-RKBA.

    I think the anti-gun sentiment in the Democrats is largely a generational thing, prevalent only in the Baby Boomers. The young'uns grew up playing first person shooters and are quite OK with a nice hunk of polymer and steel.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Somebody sent me a really cool link to dozens of great photos of scary looking rifles and, of course, I can't find the dang thing. So, you'll have to make do with this:

    If guns were treated like cars

  • LarryA||

    Gun control is over, man.

    HR 1022.

  • ||

    Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

    The same part of "shall make no law ... abridging" in the 1st amendment that they don't understand.

    Considering the status quo, I don't think anything the Supreme Court does could possibly worsen the situation. Until the Supreme Court rules, there is, for all intents and purposes, no 2A right.

  • ||

    crimethink

    I guesss you missed this:

    http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/i_was_strapped_with_gatswhen_y/

    It's from this morning.

    kos hasn't mentioned the ruling yet, but regularly writes about opposing gun control.

  • ||

    I agree with Kap - it's a generational thing. That explains the divide betweent the blogosphere and the print media.

    LarryA, it's not going anywhere.

  • Ventifact||

    I'm from the videogame generation, or whatever we might call them (us). I did the typical head-off-to-college and lived among the infidels for 4 years and had the pleasure of a closeup view of their exhuberant orgy of "liberal" self-congratulation.

    They're not cool with guns. Sorry. (I really am...)

  • Guy Montag||

    Billy L. Roberts,

    So, I can keep ranting about gun grabbing Commies like Colin Powell and Rudie?

  • ||

    Guy Montag, I would. But, maybe I'm missing something. Everyone else seems pleased as punch about this ruling, while I think it will prove to be a disaster.

    Billy L. Roberts

  • Guy Montag||

    I think the issue with giving DC to MD is that there is some tradition that Baltimore must be the crappiest city in the State.

  • Guy Montag||

    But, maybe I'm missing something. Everyone else seems pleased as punch about this ruling, while I think it will prove to be a disaster.

    It is one of those progress things. Nobody expected the blind date to open the door, but a hottie answered in a smart dress and 5" heels.

    The question now is it Ann Coulter or RuPaul?

  • ||

    Giving a

  • ||

    Dammit, cut me off.

    Giving a 10 sq mi area two senators ain't going to fly in the heartland, and it's going to require a constitutional ammendment.

    They don't seem to have a problem giving the State of Wyoming two Senators, even though DC has about 40,000 more people. Frame it as a tax issue, and you'd have no problem picking up the needed states.

  • ||

    The question now is it Ann Coulter or RuPaul?

    Guy, Ann Coulter is just thousands of venomous spiders covered with a thin layer of skin. Where's the "good" option?

  • Guy Montag||

    Guy, Ann Coulter is just thousands of venomous spiders covered with a thin layer of skin. Where's the "good" option?

    At the last Reasonoid gathering I became known as "the Ann Coulter fan" (yes, singular), so pick your own hot chick for that.

  • anonymous coward||

    You're just certain there are "gun grabbers" hiding under your bed, ready to take to the streets after this ruling. I doubt it.

    and

    Gun control is over, man.

    Well, this guy was certainly ready a few days after the 2006 election:


    Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
    A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore

    9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.



    Except that I'm not sure where he's hiding, since he can't fit under my bed.

  • anonymous coward||

    Roe v. Wade didn't stop the evil patriarchal right-wingers from trying to oppress women's bodies and force them to be breeding stock.

    This ruling won't stop Schumer, Feinstein, Clinton, Brady, Moore, et. al from doing the Lord's work to save the children with reasonable, moderate, common sense, moderate, reasonable, gun-control^H^H^H^H^H^H^H safety laws.

  • ||

    "They don't seem to have a problem giving the State of Wyoming two Senators, even though DC has about 40,000 more people. Frame it as a tax issue, and you'd have no problem picking up the needed states."

    Nor do they seem to have that problem a problem giving the state of California two senators, even though CA has about 28,000,000 more people than DC. The entire west coast has... six senators.

    If DC residents had any more "representation" they would each have $90,000 in their freezer, and a crack pipe in their ashtray. Hey, that's kind of a catchy slogan.

    Guy, I have never been to a Reason gathering, and I probably never will attend one, but I am also an Ann Coulter fan.

  • ||

    Just FYI, the east coast of the United States has 26 senators. Twenty fucking six... More than a quarter of the US senate, and some of you (morons) are crying that you have no representation.

    California's population of illegal aliens alone should have six senators.

  • ||

    If DC residents had any more "representation" they would each have $90,000 in their freezer, and a crack pipe in their ashtray. Hey, that's kind of a catchy slogan.

    OK, I get why you would mention the crack pipe, because Marion Barry is from DC. But that $90k in the freezer thing is certainly a puzzling choice of imagery, given that the politican in question is a Lousiana politician. So, why did you associate that image with DC?

    And, FWIW, while the rest of the east coast is represented, DC isn't.

    Oh, and the East Coast has 28 Senators, not 26. There are 14 states on the East Coast: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachussettes, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

  • ||

    "But that $90k in the freezer thing is certainly a puzzling choice of imagery, given that the politican in question is a Lousiana politician. So, why did you associate that image with DC?"

    Just a snarky, corrupt politician image.

    I pulled up a map of the US and counted the US east coast states. I guess one was so small that I missed it, which just further strengthens my point.

    "And, FWIW, while the rest of the east coast is represented, DC isn't."

    If politics is "the art of who gets what" then DC is amply represented because DC has the biggest nipple on the sow firmly between its teeth.

  • Guy Montag||

    thoreau,

    The Virgin Islands are not represented either. So what?

    Now, if the territories are not taxed at all then there is a good argument to ending taxes in DC, but there is no good argument for them being represented as a Citystate.

  • ||

    FWIW, if politics is the art of the possible then a House member for DC is probably the way to go. Whatever one might think of the merits of giving 2 Senators to DC (I actually have no strong opinion), it won't fly. And MD won't take DC. So if DC can't be a state and can't be part of a state, then give it a meaningful House member by appropriate legal means.

  • ||

    T,

    I respectfully disagree. DC already gets more representation than it deserves from VA and MD congressmen.

    Besided, you guys already have Eleanor Holmes Norton, right?

  • ||

    Here is another snarky, but true observation. No state north of Virgina would qualify to be a large county in California.

    What really needs to be done is to consolidate every state north of Virginia into a single state and then send all those excess senators home. If that was done, the east coast would still have 12 senators; double what the west coast has.

  • Guy Montag||

    I propose that this thread be the weekend open thread.

  • ||

    Guy,

    I don't know if I can stand a whole weekend of abuse.

  • ||

    Besided, you guys already have Eleanor Holmes Norton, right?

    "You guys"? I don't live in DC.

  • Guy Montag||

    I don't know if I can stand a whole weekend of abuse.

    It is easier to endure if you don't pay extra for it :)

  • Nobody Important||

    I've posted this here before, but it's worth repeating:

    From "Absolutists Politics in a Moderate Package: Prohibitionist Intentions of the Gun Control Movement" by Gary Kleck (Journal on Firearms And Public Policy. Volume 13. Fall 2002. 1 MB PDF, HTML).

    Restrictive licensing of handguns can be every bit as restrictive as a handgun ban; under the Sullivan Law's restrictive licensing system in New York City, less than 1% of civilians have a permit allowing them to legally own a handgun (p.2)

    Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Mike Royko stated it more bluntly: "the ultimate goal of the anti-gun lobby is to ban the private ownership of all weapons. That is their ultimate goal, although the anti-gun people won't admit it. It would be foolish strategy." (p. 3)

    Accused of harboring prohibitionist intentions, they cite their organization's official current legislative agenda. For example, HCI Chairman Pete Shields seemed to deny any intent of his organization to push for stricter controls on long guns in future when he wrote: "Handgun Control, Inc., does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns." Two features of this phrasing are note- worthy. First, the statement pertained to what HCI "proposes," i.e. its stated policy agenda, rather than what its leadership ultimately wanted. Second, the statement was phrased in the present tense; it said nothing about what HCI might propose in the future. And in fact, within eight years, HCI did push for a ban on various rifles and shotguns. (p. 4)

    "This measure may not be much, but it's a good first step," thereby acknowledging their intention to follow an incrementalist strategy. For example, HCI Chair Pete Shields admitted in 1976 that "we're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition totally illegal." (p. 5)

    Likewise, Rep. William Clay (D-MO) described the Brady Act as "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." Similarly, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) was quoted in 1999 as saying that "Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." (p. 5)

    Thus, there is little serious dispute that gun control organizations, including HCI, are pursuing a step-by-step strategy, where attaining moderate controls facilitates gaining stricter controls. The only point on which disputants differ is how far this incrementalist path will be followed. While some of the preceding proponents openly acknowledged advocating an incrementalist strategy that they hoped would end in prohibition, other proponents, such as the leaders of HCI, do not currently admit to any plans to pursue controls that far. On the other hand, HCI's leaders do not say exactly how far they will pursue further controls, i.e. what their ultimate stopping point will be. (p. 6)

    HCI as an organization has never officially stated that it will never support banning possession of all guns or handguns, and it certainly has never said that it would actively oppose gun bans. Further, HCI has never in practice opposed a gun ban in its history. Quite the contrary, it has actively supported local and state proposals to ban handguns, and has actively defended existing handgun bans passed by local governments. When a ban on handgun possession was passed by the Village of Morton Grove, Illinois, and the ordinance was challenged in court, HCI filed an amicus curiae brief urging the appellate court to uphold the ordinance. (p. 6)

    Likewise, in 1978, HCI, under its old name of the National Council to Control Handguns, filed an amicus curiae brief in defense of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. More recently, in the 1990s, HCI President Richard Aborn urged other cities to adopt the same law.23 Thus, HCI at minimum supports local handgun bans. (pp. 6 - 7. See also my post at December 13, 2006, 5:08pm)

    HCI's support for handgun bans, however, has not been limited to local measures. In the Fall of 1976, under its old name of the National Council to Control Handguns, it contributed $16,000 to a state referendum campaign to ban the private possession of handguns in Massachusetts, providing nearly 30% of the campaign's financing.24 Thus, HCI has supported state-level, as well as local, handgun prohibition. It has never publicly repudiated this support. (p. 7)

    In contrast to HCI, other major gun control advocacy groups openly support prohibition. After HCI, the most prominent national gun control advocacy groups are probably the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, and the Violence Policy Center (VPC). CSGV, organized by the Board of the Church and Society of the Methodist Church in 1975, unambiguously supports prohibitionist controls.30 Its Web site states that it advocates "a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons." CSGV does not, however, admit to any intentions to ban long guns (aside from the subset they regard as "assault weapons") as well as handguns, so they too could harbor covert prohibitionist intentions that go beyond their advocacy of bans on handguns and "assault weapons."

    VPC also openly supports handgun prohibition, though a more indirect variant. It supports the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 920), which would grant regulatory authority to the Department of the Treasury that "would subject the gun industry to the same safety standards as virtually all other products sold in America."32 This does not sound much like a gun ban, until one knows how VPC anticipates this regulatory power being used. In a 1999 New York Times op-ed article supporting this bill, VPC's executive director, Josh Sugarmann, wrote that "any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns." (pp. 8 - 9)

    For example, Common Cause is probably best known for its efforts to reform campaign financing. However, in a 1972 statement presented to a House Judiciary Subcommittee, the organization endorsed a "total ban on the sale and manufacture of all handguns" as well as a proposal that "private ownership of handguns also be prohibited." Likewise the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Democratic Action, the National Alliance for Safer Cities, the National Board of the Young Women's Christian Association of the U.S.A., and the International Ladies Garment Workers' Union have all at some time endorsed banning the private possession of handguns. (p. 9)

    Even the leaders of HCI openly admitted their prohibitionist intentions at one time. In repeated public statements early in the organization's history, the long-time chair of HCI, Pete Shields, explicitly supported handgun prohibition, and even acknowledged that HCI was following an incrementalist strategy to attain this long-term goal. In July of 1976, Shields told a reporter for the New Yorker that his organization's ultimate goal was "to make the possession of all handguns totally illegal" (emphasis in original) and was pursuing an incrementalist strategy in pursuit of the goal. He repeated these points in an interview in September of 1977 with Parade magazine. (pp. 9 - 10)

    In his 1981 book, HCI Chair Pete Shields assured his readers that HCI had no intention of pushing for further controls over long guns, i.e. shotguns and rifles: "Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."... Yet, within a decade, as soon as the political opportunity arose to restrict "assault rifles" (which are no more concealable than other long guns), both HCI and CSGV began to lobby for a ban on "assault weapons," an amorphous category largely composed of long guns....This willingness to extend their control efforts to long guns undermines the credibility of HCI and CSGV promises concerning the limits of their future control ambitions. (pp. 16 - 17)

    There are also earlier precedents for moderate gun controls being expanded and made stricter until they reached the status of de facto gun bans. New York's Sullivan Law, passed in 1911, initially allowed almost any adult to get the required permit for possessing a handgun, but legislative amendments and progressively stricter police administration of the law in New York City eventually produced a de facto ban on the private possession of handguns. Likewise, Washington, D.C., initially required only the registration of handguns, but in 1976 passed a law providing that the District would no longer register handguns, effectively banning any further acquisition of handguns. This handgun "freeze" in the long run will become a handgun ban as registered handgun owners move out of the city or die.

    While neither Congress nor any state legislature has passed bans on guns or handguns, this is not because no such legislation has been introduced. Proposals to ban the private possession of handguns have been under consideration by the U.S. Congress since at least 1974. For example, Representative Jonathan Bingham had one version or another of a bill banning private possession of handguns under consideration from at least as early as 1974 to as late as 1981. This bill was supported by HCI, when it was called the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH 1974). More recently, Senator John Chafee (R-RI) introduced a bill in 1992 banning handgun possession, as did Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, NY) in 1993 (p. 17)

    And in 1999, the Attorney General of Maryland, J. JosephCurran proposed banning handguns in that state (p. 18)



    I don't think they're going to give up just yet.

  • Guy Montag||

    Nobody Important,

    Quite excellent! Especially liked seeing a Mike Royko quote in there.

    I don't think for a moment that they are going to give up a bit. They will keep passing and re-passing restrictive laws faster than the reasonable courts can knock them down, while their Leftist freedom hating court buddes ecpand these bans farther than the lawmakers can dream.

    In this case, even if this ends up being an end to the DC ban on ownership, they still have a crapload of laws that make only the rich able to own enough ammunition to own and load a gun.

    OT: Any DC area folks up for watching the Las Vegas race at Bailey's in Crystal City this afternoon? Coverage starts at 1600 on FOX.

    Probably can not get race sound with all of the basketball games going on. Meet up at the bar by whatever TV is showing the race. I am usually able to get it on TV1, but sometimes it is at the other end.

    Bailey's is located on the 2nd floor at the corner of S 20th & S Crystal Drive in Arlington, VA. About 2 blocks south of the Crystal City METRO. Free parking (take that Adam's Morgan!) look for the overpass on Crystal Drive near 20th, parking garage right there, another entry point on 20th also.

    That is not the only Bailey's in Arlington. Lots of people get that confused.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    I don't see how D.C. could constitutionally be given a voting member of Congress, and if the Supreme Court did uphold such action it would be the final death blow of federalism. Though I prefer forcing a re-ceding of D.C. into Maryland (which D.C. residents oppose as strongly as Maryland does), I'd be just as happy to see D.C. become a federal income tax free zone with the caveat that no elected or appointed federal official could establish D.C. residency for purposes of tax avoidance.

  • Guy Montag||

    D.A. Ridgely,

    A tax free zone would transform that blighted city into something worth visiting.

    I don't remember what residency requirements are required for federal elected officials. If they must maintain residence in the district that elected them, that should not be a problem.

    I don't see the business with appointed officials being a problem. If they want to live in the tax and gun free zone let them. Whenever the "for the purpose of" term is tacked on they can always find another "reason", like commuting time.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    Federal officials should be subject to federal income tax, including for example judges. The last thing you want is the people who make, interpret or apply tax laws to be exempt from them. That's what I meant, that merely by virtue of holding such federal office the office holder would be subject to income tax regardless of place of residence.

  • ||

    Since joe's now gotten so paranoid that I'll continue to point out his latent homophobic/racist/misogynistic tendencies that he's taken to pre-emptive posting before I'm even part of a thread, I feel I should do my best to make his paranoid fantasies as real as I possibly can. He's really wedded to that cross he pretends to bear...

    "Tell you what, post the same comment under my name, and then rob can call you a homophobe!" - joe

    Wow, STILL smarting about being called out of your closeted bigotry and taken behind the wood-shed! It's sad to see you flinching every time anyone says anything even remotely related. Of course, even a dog flinches when he sees a rolled-up newspaper if he's frequently been popped with it for making a mess on the floor, so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising.

    As for the topics at hand - both the ruling and whether DC deserves representation...

    This is probably a mixed bag ruling and celebrations from either camp would be premature. Although that quote where Michael Moore talks about not taking hunting firearms away is a perfect example of a guy with his head up his arse.

    As usual, throughout the thread, joe is wrong as usual on several points: 1.) that the NRA is somehow closely allied to far-right organizations rather than allying itself with whichever organizations happen to be going in the same direction on the matter at hand at that moment (this is a common fallacy about alliances - in reality, they never last forever); 2.) being to the right of joe is somehow synonymous with being a racist - (joe is a living, breathing example of how being on the left doesn't make one free of offensive prejudices); 3.) the belief that there aren't authoritarian jack-asses who very much want to enact legislation to ban fire-arm ownership (the strategies are available on the web, as is the proposed legislation, as has been pointed out to joe's sudden silence).

    One last thing, I contribute to the NRA and the ACLU every year. If either of them started to worry too much about their public image rather than the principles involved, I'd be far less likely to contribute. joe's concern about the NRA's image is truly touching, tho...

  • ||

    California's population of illegal aliens alone should have six senators.

    Well, since we've broached the idea of citing Dred Scott in a modern court case, maybe we need a new Three-Fifths Clause?

  • ||

    Here is another snarky, but true observation. No state north of Virgina would qualify to be a large county in California.

    East coast states north of VA:

    MA 6.4M
    NY 19.3M
    NJ 8.7M
    PA 12.4M

    Largest county in CA:
    Los Angeles 9.9M

  • ||

    Or, by area:

    Largest CA county:
    San Bernardino: 20,052 sqmi

    New York State: 47,213 sqmi
    Pennsylvania : 44,846 sqmi
    Maine : 30,861 sqmi

  • ||

    "Wow, STILL smarting about being called out of your closeted bigotry and taken behind the wood-shed!"

    Actually, no. You're just fun to play with. You so dependably rise to the bait, Sally.

  • ||

    Two things we've learned about wayne:

    1. all black politicians look alike to him

    2. he's passionately committed to the ideal of political representation for mountaintops, corn fields, deserts, and other uninhabited areas.

  • ||

    Joe,

    I figured one of you would eventually call me a racist.

    As my fifth grade friends used to say, "the smeller's the feller".

    Is the congressman who had the bribe money in his freezer black?

  • ||

    Joe,

    California ain't what I would call uninhabited.

  • ||

    Crimethink,

    I excluded Pennsylvania as it is not on the coast, close but not all the way there.

  • Guy Montag||

    California ain't what I would call uninhabited.

    It is the most densly populated area unfit for human habitation in the USA.

  • ||

    Guy Montag,

    You've obviously never been to DC in August...talk about unfit for human habitation!

  • ||

    Of course, once cheap oil becomes a thing of the past, SoCal will go back to being what it was in 1900...a couple of desert outposts. Admittedly, every part of the country has become dependent on oil in one way or another, but at least we Rust Belters have plenty of water and fertile soil nearby.

    San Francisco and northern CA are very liveable places, though.

  • Guy Montag||

    You've obviously never been to DC in August...talk about unfit for human habitation!

    It is right out my window, just beyond Reagan National Airport. I can usually handle it just fine even in a suit and tie. Well, when I keep my weight down and drink a lot of water.

  • Grotius||

    crimethink,

    Without lots of water from outside of its local environs S.F. would also be unliveable.

  • Robert||

    The entire Hudson R. is NY's. The signs in the middle of the Port Authority bridges & tunnels are bogus.

    I too would like to see contiguous residential areas of DC returned to a state. However, given the current political makeup of MD, I think the only way it'd get done would be to give equal populations to MD & VA, even though none of it was VA to begin with.

    But as to gun control, a question that's fascinated me for some time is one unfortunately not suited to Hit & Run's format: why? I'd like to see a really informed, non-hysterical discussion of the probable reasons the people pushing hardest for gun control do so. Is it just wishful thinking, as with liquor prohibition?

  • dhex||

    "Is it just wishful thinking, as with liquor prohibition?"

    to some degree, yes.

    some of it is fear, as well. maybe watching people drive makes them wonder if they're fit for owning weapons.

  • ||

    Guy Montag,

    Well then, you sir are a better man than I. A couple of years ago I spent the summer in DC, and by August it seemed that the atmosphere had taken on a liquid-like consistency and any movement was difficult. Then again, maybe the gods were just deceiving me so that I would not ascend...

  • Guy Montag||

    But as to gun control, a question that's fascinated me for some time is one unfortunately not suited to Hit & Run's format: why?

    From what I have read and the people I have heard in person, as well as what I used to believe, it is a mistaken notion that average folks can not restrain themselves properly to carry a gun in society.

    Much of this is reinforced in the press, like that myth that guns in the home are "dangerous", then tossing over an argument that you need to register cars and drivers, so it should be okay to do the same with guns. Not a slippery slope argument either, it is an argument for a bad policy with incremental bad logic. Just like that snow removal example I mentioned in this thread (or the next one).

    Now, when I hear this nonsense about cars and drivers being licensed I respond that they shouldn't be unless they are engaged in commercial transportation.

    Anyway, it is generally a bunch of busybodies trying to "protect" people, because of course, other people are not bright enough to take care of themselves. I even heard a federal cop say that VT folks should be "allowed" to carry guns and DCians not because that population is "much brighter" than the population of DC!

    Granted, this is quite anecdotal, but you asked a "why" question, so using the stated motivations of the people who support gun grabbing comes as individual experiences, not a data table.

  • Guy Montag||

    Well then, you sir are a better man than I. A couple of years ago I spent the summer in DC, and by August it seemed that the atmosphere had taken on a liquid-like consistency and any movement was difficult. Then again, maybe the gods were just deceiving me so that I would not ascend...

    In September of last year I was on a date (actually, smae suit, shirt and boots I was wearing at the Reason event last week) and we ended up on a park bench on The Mall for a while. It did not seem that bad out, but it was much higher humidity than I had sensed at the beginning of our walk.

    By the time I got back to Crystal City I was soaked through, including the portion of my tie under my collar. I stopped in at Bailey's for a beer and to cool off, but was too embarassed to take off my jacket.

    Otherwise it is not normally a big issue.

  • LarryA||

    But as to gun control, a question that's fascinated me for some time is one unfortunately not suited to Hit & Run's format: why? I'd like to see a really informed, non-hysterical discussion of the probable reasons the people pushing hardest for gun control do so. Is it just wishful thinking, as with liquor prohibition?

    The people pushing hardist? They believe in the "divine right of government." When Rebecca Peters was debating Wayne LaPierre she made a statement (unfortunately passed over) something like, "When you become part of a government you give up certain rights." As in the political theory that individual behavior is detrimental to good order and must be subjugated. The Japanese philosophy that the nail that sticks up must be hammered back into place.

    Such people have noticed that it's a lot harder to hammer folks into place if they can shoot back.

    Then there are those who have a personal reason; the Sarah Bradys of the world. You can't blame a madman for shooting her husband, so blame the cheap handgun he used. Get rid of all guns, and no one will shoot her husband.

    But based on personal experience, the vast majority of people who support gun control do so because they have no positive experience with firearms. One of the common reasons I hear from people signing up for a First
    Shots basic class here in our retirement community is, "The person I started dating keeps guns. I've never even seen someone shoot a gun, except on TV. My friend wants me to learn how to be safe around them."

    I can't count the number of times I've heard someone surprised say, "How can someone like you belong to the [shudder] NRA."

    These are the folks who, if you can get them to visit a shooting range, say things like:
    "This isn't what I expected shooters to be like."
    "Boy, you people are serious about safety."
    "This isn't as hard as I thought it would be."
    "Wow! This is fun."
    "Is there any more ammo?"

  • ||

    "This isn't what I expected shooters to be like."
    "Boy, you people are serious about safety."
    "This isn't as hard as I thought it would be."
    "Wow! This is fun."
    "Is there any more ammo?"
    =========================

    Bree Vandekamp Hodge needs to go back to the shooting range on a future episode of "Desperate Housewives."

    Also, I will keep those quotes in mind, if ever they resurrect the $100,000 Pyramid game show and the cagtegory is "things said at a shooting range." Can't miss with THAT ammo. (Well, I guess I might have to change "shooters" to to a different synonym, just to stay within the rules. ;-)

  • ||

    Well said. I have a friend in jail, right now, awaiting indictment on a federal gun charge. Richard Serafin sold an upper with an 11 1/2" barrel and a lower. The two were separated, and Mr. Serafin told the buyer (an ATF undercover agent) that, by law, they could not be assembled into one firearm. He was arrested immediately after the agent took possession of the items.

    He will be indicted on one count under 26 U.S. 5861d, Possession of a Firearm Not Registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. He was labeled an "anti-government extremist," and been denied bond.

    He faces five years in a federal penitentiary.

    It's not about the government being concerned about safety of the citizenry, or controlling crime. It is about the government getting rid of someone they don't like.

  • ||

    I forgot the first line in the above post:

    The people pushing hardest? They believe in the "divine right of government."

  • Guy Montag||

    Shots basic class here in our retirement community is, "The person I started dating keeps guns. I've never even seen someone shoot a gun, except on TV. My friend wants me to learn how to be safe around them."

    When my instructor/examiner for my CHP in TN began class he asked me what background I had with firearms and I started with BB guns. He asked me how I learned to shoot and I said "By watching where the BB went" when I was a kid.

    He told me that people around my age and older say pretty much the same thing, but people just a little younger than me have no background with shooting unless they were in the military.

    Something really strange was, at the time, I was dating a woman who was "against guns" but wanted to learn how to shoot. She did not want me to have guns, or get a concealed handgun permit, but if some guy bothered her in a bar she wanted me to shoot them.

    Added bonus: she worked for a property management company that specialized in developing property siezed by local governments under the takings clause.

    Never brought her to the range before I dumped her.

  • ||

    Then there are those who have a personal reason; the Sarah Bradys of the world. You can't blame a madman for shooting her husband, so blame the cheap handgun he used. Get rid of all guns, and no one will shoot her husband.

    I think this glosses over an interesting point; should a guy like Hinckley, a guy who was both demonstrably crazy and possessing a history of dangerous criminal behavior really be able to lay his hands on a gun?

  • ||

    wayne,

    Seriously, I don't know if you're a racist or not. But there are only so many lines that connect William Jefferson and the voters of Washington, D.C.

    crimethink,

    "You've obviously never been to DC in August...talk about unfit for human habitation!"

    Ah, Bee Season. Just pull the shades and stay inside until Columbus Day.

  • ||

    "Actually, no. You're just fun to play with. You so dependably rise to the bait, Sally." - joe

    What I think is truly impressive about you, joe, is your perserverance in the face of the facts. On every thread where you are proven to be wrong on the facts, your response is always predictably the same, and predictably lame.

    Anytime you want to respond to the numerous places on this thread where people have shown you to be demonstrably wrong, please feel free.

    Let's review the tale of the tape, where joe gets beaten like a piñata by various and sundry posters:

    BS Statement #1: "I think a lot of people will be surprised by how little reaction there is to this. You're just certain there are 'gun grabbers' hiding under your bed, ready to take to the streets after this ruling. I doubt it." - joe

    Corrected by a smack of the rhetorical "rolled up newspaper": "More seriously, joe, your point is undermined by the editorials today in the NYT and WP, and the DC mayor's press conference about this topic. Those wheels all had to be turning within an hour of the decision, so it looks like the reaction is off to a strong start." - crimethink

    BS Statement #2 (A refinement of the clearly refuted BS Statement #1 that is pure weaseling semantic posturing, and tries to make major press coverage out to be background noise, rather than just admit he was full of BS): "I didn't say there would be NO reaction. Certainly, we can expect some noise. But I doubt anything meaningful will happen."

    Never corrected, really. No one even bothered to respond to that level of blatant weasel-wording to modify his clearly refuted prior statement - probably because no one wanted to debate joe's self-serving re-definition of "meaningful coverage."

    BS Statement #3: "Gun control is over, man. Groups like the NRA are going to raise as many alarms as they can to keep their coffers full and absolutists will still have plenty to crow about, as they always do, but the legal and political gun control ediface built up in the 70s and 80s was stopped in its tracks a decade ago, and it being pulled down. This ruling is just the latest stage." - joe

    As Captain Holly points out, joe is mostly right here: "Gun control is a losing issue except in a few navy-blue states and cities. Deep down inside most people, when given the choice, would rather have a gun than not."

    But it's not for lack of Democrats trying, as pointed out by LarryA pointing out House Resolution 1022, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]. Not to mention the ongoing attempts by various PACs mentioned in the thread. The stinky bit is that joe's clearly inferred, but not explicitly spoken point, is that Democrats aren't likely to attempt to enact gun control legislation. That's obviously pure B.S., as pointed out by reference to HR 1022. But just because most Democrats have decided not to sacrifice any more of their power on their clearly losing pro-gun control issue doesn't mean that the attempt to push through legislation and powerful Political Action Committees aren't still trying to get gun control enacted. Besides, anyone who claims gun control is over is blatantly ignoring all of the gun control laws that are already/still on the books. (Like the Gun Control Act of 1968, for instance…)

    BS Statement #3: "The NRA has aligned itself with some pretty hard-right groups and positions over the last decade and a half. It's the equivalent of opposing the war vs. supporting International ANSWER."

    Called out by Barry, ("Perhaps you can name them?") joe just fires up the snark machine, because he has no actual facts to back him up and lamely tries claim that the NRA has not allied itself with NOW or the ACLU. Then he gets really smacked with the "rolled up newspaper" by Barry, who points out that "The NRA has aligned itself with NOW and the ACLU, too, in the last decade and a half."

    BS Statement #4 :"No, too far. Not KKK stickers, but the far right of the culture war. They've become so invested in guns as a cultural wedge issue that they've created a rather unfortunate brand for themselves." - joe

    Joe is already "modifying" his position here - ok, he's weaseling as fast as his furry little legs can carry him, because he's been caught out by his prejudicial belief that anyone to the right of him is secretly racist.

    "Granted, this is only a personal anecdote and he was only one guy, but I had no idea ANYONE thought that supporting the RTBA is racist..." - andy

    joe, in direct response, is obviously inferring that hard-right, racist, and NRA go together: "The NRA has aligned itself with some pretty hard-right groups and positions over the last decade and a half. It's the equivalent of opposing the war vs. supporting International ANSWER."

    Barry with the facts, yet again, puts it to joe by de-bunking the entire concept that the NRA is an inherently right wing, and therefore somehow vaguely aligned (at least as far as their public image goes) in the same side as racists BS:
    "Re the NRA & the KKK: The sad irony is that the NRA was actually founded in part to fight the KKK. Seriously." [Actual facts then followed.]

    Completely backed into a corner, and proven wrong in about as definitive a manner as possible, joe retracts his statement in such a way as to not have to apologize for trying to tar the NRA and everyone to the right of him with the "racist" paint brush in his BS Statement #5:

    "If anyone read my comment as implying that the NRA was allied with the Klan, that wasn't my intent." - joe

    No, his intent was to argue that such a ridiculous misconception is somehow understandable, rather than the product of nutty left-wing rhetoric.

    Finally, joe gets something right! "The media response to this is interesting. The WaPo and NYT are freaking out, but I cannot find a lefty blogger who is against this ruling." - joe

    Maybe the younger lefties who actually use the Internet have absorbed the idea that this one is unwinnable, which is pretty much the DNC strategy, anyway? Doesn't stop some Dems from trying, any more than it stops certain Republicans from trying to tromp on other firmly established rights…

    joe, of course, firmly believes he has proven himself right at each of these turns, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If someone had actually called him on his BS, he'd simply have declared "victory" and tried to accept the "surrender" of the people who corrected him.

    The funny thing is that there are posters at HNR who share none of joe's political leanings who defend him, despite his rhetorically slimy and intellectually dishonest approach to nearly every thread he posts on.

    "Seriously, I don't know if you're a racist or not. But there are only so many lines that connect William Jefferson and the voters of Washington, D.C." - joe

    If you're wondering about wayne, surely you understand why people have called you out on the same subject, right joe? (The sound of crickets...)

  • ||

    *burp* ahhhhhhh...

    he he he. Waiting around all day for me, like a puppy.

  • Big Picture||

    I find it amazing that Washington DC officials want to cherry pick which Constitutional Amendments apply to residents. Regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling, "Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state." Does this mean the 13th Amendment does not apply? How about the 4th or 1st?

  • Guy Montag||

    Big Picture,

    If you are trying to partly make a 'slavery was not outlawed in DC' argument there is a little historical hitch: slavery was outlawed, the slaves were freed and reparations were paid in 1862 by a Congressional act, signed into law by President Lincoln. It is celebrated to this day as Emancipation Day in DC.

    That bit about the 1st amendment, it only applies to the right reporters.

  • ||

    "Seriously, I don't know if you're a racist or not."

    That is OK, Joe. I figure it is just reflex on your part to leap to the "racist" thing.

    Let me give you an alternative interpretatio of my comment: All crooked politicians look alike to me, and since power corrupts, all politicians look alike to me. Based on logic, this is a better reading of my comment since I made no mention of race, but there was an obvious connection to sleaze.

  • Guy Montag||

    Wondering if those old ladies who were brutally mugged in NYC could have maybe defended themselves with a pistol.

    The again, from the "evidence" on the other thread, they would have been involved in shootouts with each other long before the mugger came along.

  • ||

    wayne,

    "Let me give you an alternative interpretatio of my comment: All crooked politicians look alike to me..."

    Except you didn't jump to Duke Cunningham. You didn't jump to Bob Ney. Or Sprio Agnew. Or Dan Rostenkowski.

    Nope, you were going for a certain image.

  • ||

    The old women that were mugged were sadly unarmed. Someone needs to hunt that sorry,worthless piece of shit down and kill him dead.

    can I get an amen?

  • ||

    Joe,

    Duke Cunningham might have come to mind, the others would not have. Using Duke in my metaphor would have been difficult though. What would I have said, "an inflated offer for real estate from defense lobbyists in every freezer"?

    I know of Rostenkowski, and I am certain he was a crook as he was a Chicago Democrat, but I am not certain what his particular crime was, nor am I certain what the other's particular crimes were. Searching for a politically correct set of corrupt politicians is something you apparently want to spend your time on, but it is a low priority for me.

    Face it Joe, you are just another weepy, guilty white guy, of what you are not sure but convicted none the less by your skin color. Seeing a Klansman under every bed seems a peculiarly Liberal trait, even reformed Liberals often can't shake it. It must be difficult attoning constantly for the sins of others. There is probably a twelve step program that will help you, but the first step is admitting you have a problem. We love you Joe.

  • ||

    You got me.

    I only object to black people being stereotyped because of guilt.

    There is not other possible reason. None.

  • ||

    "Searching for a politically correct set of corrupt politicians..."

    Yeah, that's another thing - exactly which D.C. politicians have been receiving bribes, so that a comparison to William Jefferson makes sense?

  • ||

    Indeed, the Second Amendment is one of the few Bill of Rights provisions that has not yet
    been held to be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment.


    Based on some research that I did a number of years ago, all the SCOTUS comments on this issue are dicta (I'm thinking maybe half a dozen?), and all (or maybe all but one) support incorporation.

  • ||

    Seriously, I don't know if you're a racist or not. But there are only so many lines that connect William Jefferson and the voters of Washington, D.C.

    The one I immediately think of is that they're Democrats. Are you projecting again, joe?

  • ||

    Ah, "You're a racist if you noticed that a comment was racist."

    C'mon, only an anti-semite would notice that Pat Buchanan only mentions Jewish names when discussing globalism and wealth.

  • ||

    Joe,

    You have to admit that the freezer full of bribe money is perfect: it is brief, undeniably sleazy, and a perfect visual image of what politics in America is about. It makes me think of that movie "Scarface" where Tony Montana's biggest problem is how to deal with the torrent of cash.

    Joe, I only want what is best for you. Accept that you have a problem and you are half way to a cure. You can't help being a racist, it's part of your identity, but we can get you a new green card and change your identity.

  • ||

    Friday's big news, which broke a bit late for H&R

    What is this, the CBS Evening News? How can any news break late for a blog?

  • mediageek||

    "The two were separated, and Mr. Serafin told the buyer (an ATF undercover agent) that, by law, they could not be assembled into one firearm. He was arrested immediately after the agent took possession of the items.

    He will be indicted on one count under 26 U.S. 5861d, Possession of a Firearm Not Registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. He was labeled an "anti-government extremist," and been denied bond."


    Your friend was guilty of constructive possession. The feds have ruled that you can be in possession of a weapon that violates the NFA even if it's not assembled.

    It's a stupid law, but one that's easy to obey if you don't want Judge Dredd kicking your door in.

  • mediageek||

    "joe | March 10, 2007, 12:44pm | #
    Spare me, Barry. Those aren't NOW bumper stickers and ACLU buttons that get sold at every NRA conference."


    Joe, just what sorts of bumper stickers should I expect to see at the NRA Conference. I'm planning on attending the annual conference in St. Louis in a few weeks and would like to prepare myself.

  • Guy Montag||

    What is this, the CBS Evening News? How can any news break late for a blog?

    It broke after all the stories were loaded in the server for timed release while the staff was at Friday night Happy Hour :)

  • ||

    "Your friend was guilty of constructive possession. The feds have ruled that you can be in possession of a weapon that violates the NFA even if it's not assembled.

    "It's a stupid law, but one that's easy to obey if you don't want Judge Dredd kicking your door in."

    By that same reasoning, almost all of us would be guilty of the "constructive possession" of bombs and explosives, considering what most of us have lying around the home. And, possession of bombs is included (by court precedent} under 26 U.S. 5861d, so this argument is not entirely academic.

  • mediageek||

    "By that same reasoning, almost all of us would be guilty of the "constructive possession" of bombs and explosives, considering what most of us have lying around the home. And, possession of bombs is included (by court precedent} under 26 U.S. 5861d, so this argument is not entirely academic."

    Indeed.

  • ||

    To clear the air a bit...

    1) GW had nothing to do with this..
    2) The NRA had nothing to do with this..
    3) The bill that Frist stooped would have killed this action in it's tracks as there would be no ban to remedy. The bill was backed by the NRA-ILA who's own suit was tanked with no standing and have taken every opportunity to submarine this lawsuit.


    Mark

  • Libertreee||

    I know I am late to these posts, but I must say that there are some misconceptions I believe in the federal jurisdiction concepts expressed in previous posts.
    1. Yes, you can be denied your "constitutional rights" if you live in Washington, DC (or the other "states of (ie belonging to) the United States (in its limited local jurisdiction. It is called an accident of birth. See how new Libertarian Bob Barr overturned an entire election with a vote of Congress!

    2. Some folks have it just the opposite of what it is in fact: Washington DC IS the income tax zone, it had an income tax since before the 16th Amendment (called in the Title 26 the "Normal Tax"....

    3. It is the 50 States that are the income tax free zones, for most people anyway. Pollock and other cases still rule that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power of taxation. The income tax as it is fraudulently collected by the feds if you do not voluntarily pony up money for the wonderful things the national government does (Iraq, Patriot Act, EPA, DEA, etc cannot be a direct tax on your wages because of the US Constitution.
    4. However, the Constitution truly does not apply to Washington DC or the federal territories like US Virgin Islands (as pointed out above) Guam, Northern Marrietta islands, etc. So the income tax can and does apply to those critters. It is the 50 states that are, lawfully, the no income tax zones.

    5. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS takes this dissenting argument up. If they agree with the dissent, the income tax honesty movement will have a major victory, and the gun rights movement will have to wait for a case originating in the 50 states.

  • Guy Montag||

    By that same reasoning, almost all of us would be guilty of the "constructive possession" of bombs and explosives, considering what most of us have lying around the home. And, possession of bombs is included (by court precedent} under 26 U.S. 5861d, so this argument is not entirely academic.

    Kinda Billy, but I don't think reasoning has much to do with this.

  • ||

    "But DC really is a city unto itself. It's got its own downtown, urban neighborhoods - How can you split a city in half?"

    Then let it all go to Maryland like Guy says. I'm fine with there being a Washington, Maryland. I just want to reduce the District of Columbia itself to the section around key government buildings with no population to ever bitch about needing a rep or senator. I consider it like how no one ever dies in Vatican City because the ambulance carts the corpse to Rome before they declare death. Well, no one but the President and maybe some hobos live in DC proper.

    The upside is the city of Washington, Maryland no longer has to worry about things like the scare Orrin Hatch put in them when he threatened to do the same thing to the gun ban with a Congressional override.

  • Guy Montag||

    But DC really is a city unto itself. It's got its own downtown, urban neighborhoods - How can you split a city in half?

    So, East St. Louis gets 2 Senators and St. Louis proper gets 2 more?

    What about Chicago? They were having Cuban style elections before Castro "ran" for his first election.

    Memphis should be easy.

  • Big Picture||

    Guy Montag - your quote
    "If you are trying to partly make a 'slavery was not outlawed in DC' argument there is a little historical hitch: slavery was outlawed, the slaves were freed and reparations were paid in 1862 by a Congressional act, signed into law by President Lincoln. It is celebrated to this day as Emancipation Day in DC.

    That bit about the 1st amendment, it only applies to the right reporters."

    I am not at all interested in maintaining the concept of slavery - it is hideous; however, according to the Judge sitting on the US Court of Appeals, DC could be out of luck with regards to any Freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights. I'm still not sure how DC officials get to cherry pick what parts of our Constitutional system (and by default, ammendments to said Constitution) they will support.

  • ||

    "(The sound of crickets...)"

    Yup. I'm getting better and better at predicting you all the time, joe. Too bad that even before you became totally predictable you were trite and boring.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement