What is constitutional is the ruling of the SC in Heller. Heller must register his firearm. Heller must be licensed to carry a firearm.
And the district of columbia cannot prohibit any private individual from legally acquiring a firearm, nor implement rules that are arbitrary or capricious. In the end, the district of columbia lost everything in the Heller ruling. There are now more firearms than ever before within the district, they can be carried in the public, and there is nothing they can do to prevent such.
Indeed. ALL of the restrictions put before the court were struck; NONE of the restrictions put before the court were upheld. No amount of sore-loser spin will change this.
Had to whittle down your post due to length. In the DC ban decision which was upheld the dissent, Kavanaugh now on the Supreme Court wrote: “In Heller,” Kavanuagh wrote in his dissent, “the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens.” He claimed that “there is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles.”
So, are you saying that the Heller ruling by the conservative Supreme Court was a complete failure and the nra got what it wanted, more guns in DC ? Sounds like you’re bragging that failure to enact an out right ban on guns increased guns in DC.
https://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/11/updating-changes-in-dcs-crime-rates.html Only licensed gun owners can carry. They can carry only registered firearms. The gun crimes have dropped. Regulation works.
The district of columbia lost everything in the Heller ruling. The firearm-related restrictions it had that were challenged before the united state supreme court were ruled unconstitutional and wiped out, making it legally impossible to ever try and implement them again. There is simply no unit of measure by which the district of columbia came out ahead in this matter, or managed any sort of victory.
Because the firearm-related regulations and restrictions in place before the Heller ruling were doing nothing to address the illegal carrying of firearms by known prohibited individuals, correct? The total prohibition on operable handguns within the district at the time did not actually prevent anyone from illegally carrying a handgun within the city, correct? From the sounds of the statement on the part of yourself, it would seem to be an admission that more firearms in the hand of private individuals leads to fewer crimes being committed.
Giv BS. In DC, It’s a felony for carrying a firearm without a permit, just like it’s a felony for knowingly selling a firearm to a criminal in private sales. It’s also a felony for carrying an unregistered fiream in DC. This is subject to $5k fine and /or 5 years in jail if out side of the home or business. If inside, it is a misdemeanor and subject to lesser fines. Only 44 of 200 plus applications have been approved as of 2014. Get your facts straight.....of which you have none.
Well seeing how 160 people were murdered in DC last year in a city of 633,000 we can tell that such stringent gun control measures are working pretty well to combat gun violence.
States with the strongest gun laws have the least gun violence. DC criminals and cities get most of their their guns from Neighboring states with weak gun laws.
Was such not the case prior to the Heller ruling when their total prohibition on operable handguns was still in place, when they were classified as the murder capital of the united states?
Then if such is ultimately the case, what is the legitimate reason for the district of columbia to attempt to maintain its own firearm-related restrictions, if they are so easily bypassed and rendered useless? What is the district of columbia hoping to accomplish?
Same thing the California Legislature does... try to enact laws that stay a step ahead of SCOTUS reviews to achieve their objectives. I call it Constitution subversion creep...they aren’t alone in doing it. It’s something frequently advocated in posts in this forum.
More accurately it is simply not possible for yourself to actually answer the question as it is presented, without admitting the firearm-related restrictions of the district of columbia and legally and logically unjustified, due to just how easily they can be violated and disregarded, and how they did nothing to address the criminal misuse of firearms prior to the Heller ruling.
It’s not possible for you to frame a question that isn’t contrived and filled with nra talking points. It’s all woo woo.
And yet it is simply not possible for yourself to explain what the firearm-related restrictions of the district of columbia actually do, that ultimately justifies their existence.
