Believe it or not, that was one of the arguments that caught the attention of the justices. The right to protect your home/person in high crime areas.ishkabibble wrote:As a DC resident, I really hope they overturn the gun ban. Nearly all of the criminals on my block have guns, while almost none of the other residents do.
Think that the DC gun ban is working to curb crime?Washington Post wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/...b=newOff-Duty Officer Shoots Robbery SuspectAn off-duty District police officer early this morning fatally shot a man who attempted to rob him at a gas station in Northeast Washington, police officials said.
The suspected robber was pronounced dead after being transported to a Washington hospital, police said in a statement. His name was not released, pending notification of his relatives.
The shooting occurred around 12:30 a.m. at a gas station at 905 Brentwood Rd., NE, said Officer Dietra Cordell, a police spokeswoman.
Cordell said the officer was still in uniform, and filling up his personal vehicle at the gas station, when the man approached and allegedly pulled a gun. The officer responded by drawing his weapon and firing several shots, police said.
The officer, who is 53 years old and has 33 years on the force, was not injured. His name was withheld by the police department. In accordance with department policy, the officer was placed on routine administrative leave with pay while the circumstances of the shooting are investigated.
Police said detectives recovered a weapon at the scene of the shooting, but no further details were immediately released.
The shooting is being investigated by the Force Investigations Team from the department's Internal Affairs Bureau.
Nothing from or for that matter, even around San Francisco is relevant to the real world. California secretly hopes for the big one that liquefies SF and slides it off into the ocean. No one in SF should be allowed to own a gun, or even a knife. Seriously, the safest place to be is where they are aiming.Cold_Zero wrote:Also,San Francisco Prop H was struck down by the The California State Supreme Court. Basically the San Francisco Gun Ban is dead.
It makes the perfect case that not just the police be armed. Had he picked on a citizen, not a subject, the outcome could have been very different. Had it been me, he would have had a hell of a fight on his hands. Poor woman.rn79870 wrote:The bottom line is that the 8 year old is certainly a innocent victim. This is going to cost SD a ton of money. Thoughts?
The link to the Washington Post is in the quote, just above the Title of the Article. Cam and Company was talking about the article last night so I looked it up on the Washington Post.budRepo Man wrote:Have you got a link to a news story on that one Bud?
I should have stated that the California Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the San Francisco Gun Ban being ruled unconstituational according to the California Constitution.rn79870 wrote:
Nothing from or for that matter, even around San Francisco is relevant to the real world. California secretly hopes for the big one that liquefies SF and slides it off into the ocean. No one in SF should be allowed to own a gun, or even a knife. Seriously, the safest place to be is where they are aiming.
i may be splitting hairs here, because i don't disagree with anything else you say, but the first national guard units were actually founded over a century before the Bill of Rights came into existence:Repo Man wrote:To that I would say, uh, sorry, but there was no National Guard when the Bill of Rights was written.
Which why during the deliberations British Law was discussed. Laws which predate the discovery of this nation._dk wrote:but the first national guard units were actually founded over a century before the Bill of Rights came into existence:
"The militia, later" yeah MUCH later called the National Guard. Although the Modern National Guard draws it's heritage from the Old Militias, it is a far cry to say that the National Guard, paid for by the State and the Federal Government, is/was the same as the first Militias, Today's National Guard is more akin to the Colonial Militia.1636 First Muster wrote:In 1637, the English settlements in North America were a tiny fringe along the Eastern seaboard. As settlement pushed west into the interior, the institution of the militia, which the colonists brought with them from England, went with them. The militia tradition meant citizens organizing themselves into military units, responsible for their own defense. The militia, later called the National Guard, has fought in all the nation's major wars, as it fights today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its oldest units, like the one pictured above, are the oldest units in the United States military and among the oldest military units in the world.
Quote »In announcing the opinion, Scalia specifically mentioned that some restrictions on owning and carrying a gun are valid, such as denying the sale to felons or the mentally ill, or restricting the possession of guns in "sensitive places," such as schools.Washington Post wrote:Scalia wrote that the Constitution leaves the District a number of options for combating the problem of handgun violence, "including some measures regulating handguns."
"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table," he continued. "These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
The court also held unconstitutional the requirement that shotguns and rifles be kept disassembled or unloaded or outfitted with a trigger lock. The court called it a "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
WINRepo Man wrote:Or just the opposite if the Court upholds what anyone with a brain knows to be true.
