District of Columbia Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Gun Makers

Centre Daily Times ^ | Jan. 10, 2008 | Ted Novin

[AndyJackson]

The proper ruling from the court would be not to rule on the issue of machine guns

That is not an issue in controversy in this case and so no Court has jurisdiction to rule on that issue.

[AndyJackson]

The brief contains the lie that Machine Guns are unusually dangerous to the public safety

I believe in the constitution, and reluctantly believe that private possession of firearms is probably a good thing overall [I live in DC and the notion of the nutcases who work here walking around with guns is scary, but I concede the point on balance], but you gunnutters need to show some self restraint. Machine guns are unusually dangerous to the public safety as are 155mm Howitzers and nuclear bombs. When you overreach you scare folks who might otherwise be on your side.

[KDD]

Private possession of firearms is common here and carry conceal laws make an armed populace a fact of life that criminals have to take into account.

Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:

National

Washington, DC
Murder: 29.1

Tampa, FL
Murder: 7.5

I am surprised that DC has more murders then even Miami..Citizens in DC would appear to need armed protection worse then I do. We seem to draw the thieves and con artists in this part of the South.

[supercat]

Machine guns are unusually dangerous to the public safety

They are far less dangerous to safety than big-government anarchists (i.e. those agencies like the BATF who oppose lawful government)

[Atlas Sneezed]

Machine guns are unusually dangerous to the public safety

---

Please explain what facts justify this opinion of yours.

How many homicides per year were committed during 1934-1986 (before the ban the DOJ brief worries about being repealed), when one could go our and buy a new machine gun after a rigorous background check?

Or are you just basing your opinion on emotion, after seeing too many Hollywood movies?

[Atlas Sneezed]

That is not an issue in controversy in this case and so no Court has jurisdiction to rule on that issue.

---

So the DOJ is wrong to inject it, in an effort to goad SCOTUS into ruling on it.

[jwalsh07]

I believe in the constitution, and reluctantly believe that private possession of firearms is probably a good thing overall [I live in DC and the notion of the nutcases who work here walking around with guns is scary, but I concede the point on balance], but you gunnutters need to show some self restraint. Machine guns are unusually dangerous to the public safety as are 155mm Howitzers and nuclear bombs. When you overreach you scare folks who might otherwise be on your side.

The second amendment is pretty clear on the RTKABA's. And the justifying clause for that right makes it pretty clear that those arms are what one would need to be equipped for militia duty.

IOW's if the Second Amendment stands as is, it should be quite legal for Americans to arm themselves with M16's.

I do draw the line at Stealth Bombers however so I'm not a total nut.:-}

Just joshing, no right is absolute and the 2nd leaves plenty of room for regulation but no matter how one looks at it, we should be able to own the same weapon we were issued in Basic. See Israel.

[RetiredNavy]

Please provide a reference for your contention that President Bush (jorge in your juvenile attempt at disrespect)supports the DC gun ban and has actively been trying to find a way around “this as well”. I had not heard of his support before reading your post. TX for your help.

[William Tell]

AndyJackson said: "Second, all it requests is that the Supreme Court clarify the standard of review relevant to this case and remand back to the lower courts for rehearing under the rules established by the Supreme Court. This is neither unusual nor unreasonable."

I've posted several times pointing out how weak the US brief is and that it isn't much of a threat to us.

For correctness sake, however, it should be pointed out that the US brief specifically asks that the Supreme Court ADOPT a different standard, not just clarify, and that standard would permit the outlawing of an entire category of firearms, specifically machineguns. Unfortunately, the result of permitting the outlawing of machineguns would be a level of scrutiny that would permit outlawing of handguns.

As an example of the weakness of the government's brief, I point out that the brief contains the word "infringed" only twice; once when quoting the text of the Second Amendment and once when quoting an older court decision which found that banning concealed carry is not an infringement.

Adopting the standard requested by the government would be no different than treating the Second Amendment as if it didn't exist. If the only protection afforded is that of the pre-existing common-law right to defend self and community, then there would have been no need for an amendment to be ratified. "Shall not be infringed" cannot possibly be interpreted as "shall be reasonably regulated as Congress sees fit". It was intended, at the very least, to be equivalent to "Congress shall make no law ...".

[org.whodat]

See link in post 12

[William Tell]

AndyJackson said: "... but you gunnutters need to show some self restraint. Machine guns are unusually dangerous to the public safety ..."

Here's a quick test for you. Osama Bin Shootin enters your crowded church with an "assault weapon" and three full twenty round magazines. He is not specifically targetting YOU. Would you prefer that he be firing full auto or semi-auto? And why?

[Niteranger68]

LOL!!! FUDC!!!