Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘Heller v D.C.’

… Busted !! [#Miz Hillary][#gun rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,October 9th,2016

.. these days , you should assume any ” mike ” is hot ..

.. also , you may want an event not to be recorded . Whoops . Assume that it will be recorded . If you don’t , you will regret it ..

.. Miz Hillaary just got a reminder of that . You can guess , she got burned the hard way ..

.. she went on an one – minute plus rant against guns , the N.R.A. , and the 2nd Amendment . She went on and on about how she hates all three ..

.. Whoops , dummy ! It was recorded , Miz Hillary ..

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. nice going , you idiot !! ..


Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Clear Ruling on Gun Rights in D.C. [#not a big surprise]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,May 26th,2015

.. Federal District Court Judge Frederick Scullin strikes again ..

.. and , once again , the political leadership in the District ends up looking like a bunch of damn fools ..

.. a new case came up . No , it is not the original one [Palmer v. D.C.] , which struck down the District ‘ s clear gun rights ban . This one is much different . It was brought by 4 individuals , each of whom wanted to own a gun in the District of Columbia . As you might expect , the District ‘ s P.D. [under the new restrictive ” may issue ” gun law ] refused to issue each of these individuals a license to own a gun …

.. Big problem for the District , however . The U.S. Constitution allows for individuals to own and ” bear ” arms . Plain and Simple . Also , no ” Mother , may I ” about it …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog news post ..

.. so , Judge Scullin struck down the District ‘ s ” good reason ” standard , stating …

“This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the District of Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and manner restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public,” Judge Scullin said in his ruling. “The District of Columbia’s arbitrary ‘good reason’/’proper reason’ requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Well, that was the point. The district’s establishment wants to make it impossible or very nearly so for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights in the nation’s capital, and they calculated this law to leave themselves enough room to guarantee it. This particular effort was so bad, though, that it was doomed to failure, and should embarrass everyone associated with it. The law essentially said that constitutional rights can be rationed by government only on the basis that government sees a “good reason” to allow it. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind with the Bill of Rights.

The city tried to argue that the “good reason” requirement was connected to public safety, but Scullin rejected the argument :

While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting). Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good 12 reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime.

.. first Palmer , now this case . It is only a temporary injunction , but it is an injunction . To get one , you have to show  a very strong likelihood that you will ” win on the merits . ” This one may well skip the D.C. Appeals Court , and go right to the U.S. Supreme Court ..

.. I certainly would hope so ..

Posted in 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Great News on Gun Rights [#Peoples Republic of D.C.]

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,August 3rd,2014

.. yes , it is free .

.. our nation ‘ s capital is now no longer a gun free zone ..

.. for many years , the District of Columbia has had one of , if not the fiercest gun grab laws in the country . You simply could not carry a gun on the streets of the District for ANY reason , for more than 50 years ..

.. [h/t — LegalInsurrection]..
.. [link] to the legal opinion ..

.. it will be interesting to see what the D.C. city government decides to do . This case is in federal court , not the captive courts of the District , and would go up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals , where both Heller and McDonald originated . I think that the government wants to appeal this , and maintain their precious gun ban , but the gun grab groups may well be having second thoughts ..

.. First , this one has to go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals . It now has a more stacked 7to4 democrap majority , but Heller and McDonald are binding precedent . They just may well try to mess with them, surprisingly enough . Doing so , though , would piss off the Supremes ….

.. Heller and McDonald were decided 6 to 3 , not 5 to 4  , so they are not slim majorities . The gun – grab groups may not want to risk setting a nationwide case precedent . Drake v. Jerejian might be one case . Moore v Madigan might be another case . Palmer just may be a case were  the gun grab groups are stupid enough to push it up the way , and have it blow up in their faces  ..

.. especially when the definition of ” bear ” arms comes from , not a majority opinion , but a dissent , and of all people , from Justice Ginsberg in a dissent in another case …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, legal opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… What Part of Court Precedent does the City of Chicago not Understand [gun rights / gun sales]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 8th,2014

.. I am talking about court precedent , such as Heller v DC [gun rights] , McDonald v City of Chicago [ditto] , and Moore v. Madigan [likewise] …

.. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is living dangerously …

.. he has to be reasonable , or the court is going to do the job for him ..

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt]..
.. [link] to the article …

.. until this year , gun sales were effectively prohibited in the City of Chicago . No more . Courtesy of a ruling in a case brought by the Illinois Shooting Sports Federation , Federal Judge Edward Change basically slapped down the city . He has given the city up to 6 months to enact gun store sales regulations . If they do not straighten up and fly right , the judge can enact them by court ruling …

.. if he has to do that , it will be open season in the City . Which City Hall will hate with a passion . Those dummies have to remember , they are still under the precedent from Chang ‘ s original ruling , plus the ruling in Moore v. Madigan . They have to obey it . like it or not …

.. they may wish that the state would appeal Moore to the US Supreme Court , but the anti – gun groups are scared to death . If the Moore precedent is applied nationwide , a whole boatload of gun laws , like the Wiilliams Act and SAFE in New York (for example) would go bye – bye …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, legal info, legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »