Legalities

Did Hillary and Obama sign this amicus brief?

This is indeed a good sign for gun rights. It is very rare indeed to get a majority of the legislative branch to agree that their ability to regulate part of life is in fact limited. Normally, they guard every ounce of power jealously. It speaks loudly of the political power of the issue.

I'd also like to point out that this act puts the Bush administration to the left of the Democrat controlled congress on this issue. Disgraceful.

President Bush has been a complete failure as a Republican (largest government increases since LBJ, spend without care, wrong war, unilateralism, torture, suspension of habius corpus) and now, he stands against the 2nd amendment.

Thankfully, the legislature has it right and hope the supreme court will too see the rights provided to us by the 2nd amendment.

Bush - sad so sad in so many ways.

As of this minute, guns have been used for self defense in our country 253,000 times since Jan. 1st this year. Look it up if you don't believe me. - Guns are used in self-defense every 13 seconds in the U.S.

I grew up with firearms hunting. I was allowed to carry my granfathers old single barrel 12-guage for two years without any shells. If I could do that I would get to carry two shells. And if I killed a rabbit for dinner with one of those two shells I would get a gun of my own to hunt with for my birthday. In todays playstation, and yuppie society it troubles me deeply that in fact the problem with guns is not the gun, but the parent who is too busy playing golf or watching football to teach their children about nature, the thrill of the chase and our right to enjoy the bounty of our land. An in addition, in being a responsible gun owner. The right to protect our natural resources and our homes and family is God given, it does not come from government.

I have a CCW license, but I almost never carry. Why? Because they are more places you aren't allowed to than you are. One day I will be in the right place at the wrong time. THe last thing a criminal is thinking when they are performing armed robbery is, "I'm going to get in trouble for carrying a gun in this place." But that's what I'll be thinking, and I'll be the one who ends up with lead between my ears.

Not that I'm a gun nut or anything, but the right to keep and bear arms should also apply to residents of DC. Perhaps Congressional lawmakers simply haven't wanted an armed constituency so close to Capitol Hill.

A friend of mine said this about concealed carry..."In today's world, there needs to be more GOOD people carrying guns.". I couldn't agree more.

WOW! I find that hard to believe.....there are no doubt a few Dems in that count and I'm sure they are going to take some heat for this one. BUT......WAY TO GO GUY/GALS....finally doing something to support the Constitution.

Congress can change statutes passed by the D.C. Council. So if the majority of Congress thinks the statute is unconstitutional, why don't they change the law, instead of filing an amicus brief? They may be right on the 2nd amendment, but their disregard for the proper role of judicial power is contemptuous.

It is refreshing to see Congress finally representing the views of the people and not those of special interest "progressives" who have been dismantling our constitution for decades.

Bush repulicans are the true american socialists. Democrats are not more socialist. Just socialist in different ways: the debate of republican vs. democrat is false.

the issue is of big-brother government vs. a society that maintains the government-civil separation. IN big-brother land a frightened populace allows government to take away their liberties to provide so-called security from the criminals. bush has promoted this version of government by pro-pounding his so-called war on terror. the idea that this war on foreign 'terrorist' is any different than the war on domestic 'criminals' is absurd. and the fact that you are now seeing bush push for domestic regulations such as gun controls meant to enforce the 'domestic war' that resemble those regulations [such as unrestricted spying] used in fighting the 'foreign' war, supports this notion that there is little difference between a war on terrorists and criminals. big brother against terrorism is big brother against gun toting criminals. it's the same big brother.

the bottom line here is that the way we treat others eventually becomes the way we treat ourselves. if we treat the world as if we are big brother, by unjustly imposing our government on the world, we inevitable begin doing so at home to our own populace. This has been made possible because our society has let our government take too much power from the civil society. law abiding citizens have cast off their right and responsibility to care for their own liberty and safety and outsource it to government. In doing so, we have weakened ourselves both mentally, emotionally, and physically. The susequent breakdown(s) of society will trend toward a socialist bush state ( which probably means maintaining a massive military industrial complex which periodically engages in pointless war ) or a smaller government state ( which is very unlikley).

Here's a quote from Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. 13 (1871), which involved an act by a territorial legislature:

"In the first place, we observe that the law has received the implied sanction of Congress. It was adopted in 1859. It has been upon the statute book for more than twelve years. It must have been transmitted to Congress soon after it was enacted, for it was the duty of the secretary of the territory to transmit to that body copies of all laws on or before the 1st of the next December in each year. The simple disapproval by Congress at any time would have annulled it. It is no unreasonable inference, therefore, that it was approved by that body."

In the case of the DC handgun ban, the ban was against longstanding federal policy. There's no way that the implied consent of Congress can be reasonably inferred. And the lack of implied consent is emphasized by the amicus brief filed by majorities of the House and Senate.

Well, the Senate & House amicus brief is sure going to improve family values. Let's have guns in every home, but watch your temper, because your husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend just might reach for the weapon of choice...a gun.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, measuring the period of 1990-2005, 69% of the wives who killed their husbands used a gun; 86% of ex-wives who killed their ex-husbands used a gun; 68% of husbands who killed their wives used a gun; 77% of ex-husbands who killed their ex-wives used a gun; 56% of boyfriends who killed their girlfriends use a gun; and 45% of girlfriends who killed their boyfriends used a gun, as compared with 47% of girlfriends, who killed their boyfriends with a knife. But once we make it much easier for those girlfriends to get a gun, they'll join the gun majority in the other categories.

Isn't love grand?

as explained in the other article comments, the right to keep and bear arms is not about selfdefense or hunting but to provide for defense against a corrupt and overbearing government. Any government attempting to upsurp the constitution of the united states. The 2nd is to protect not only the 1st. but the the other rights as well including the 13th and 14th. think about it!

In agreeance with Tom Caldwell. Several are misinformed of content of the 2nd Amendment's meaning. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. They all ready run background checks in my neighborhood before CCW permit earned and requires permit to buy hand gun, legally. Spend the time enforcing the Border Patrol instead of taking/mandating citizens rights.

I am one of many individuals that can't own a hand gun in the city that I reside in. I do however own several shotguns and rifles. They are stored away for safety and if someone was to break into my home I would be hard pressed to protect myself. By the time i opened the safe got the shotgun loaded it and then protected myself and my family it would be a miracle if it got done. If however I had a handgun in my night stand I would be able to instantly protect my home. I have always said that gun control is a good thing. One must know their target. Gun control by legal means is absurd. Government makes it harder for an individual like myself to purchase a gun be it a rifle , shotgun, or even a hand gun. All the while a criminal has to do is locate someone willing to sell them one. which is not hard to do. I will not be voting for Obama, although I do agree with his stand on the right to keep and bear arms. Even thou the 2nd amendment was written so long ago. It is one of the basic fundamental rights that we as Americans have and should fight any and by all means available to prevent this and any other right that the constitution gives us. As one of the members of the continental congress Thomas Jefferson stated that "The strongest reason for the people retain there right to keep and bear arms is a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Which if we don't continually monitor and control as citizens of this nation Government will become exactly what this nation was founded upon.

The mewling and hand-wringing about limits on acquiring fire-arms via the unregulated arenas of gun shows and internet points-of-sale is disingenuous, in addition to being an incorrect application of an incomplete interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. There is no specific constitutional qualification of what "well regulated" means. As far as I'm concerned, 2nd Amendment zealots would do well for themselves to always include the first clause to the full amendment. There is nothing to suggest, constructionist or otherwise, that the government is prohibited from enacting restrictions to firearm acquisition, possession, use, and type of weapon. Puerile catastrophizing about massive government control and the a disastrous erosion of personal liberty simply because solid and enforced conditions are placed upon individuals seeking firearms, does not make even a remotely convincing argument.

Strict scutiny would be an excellent standard to apply to gun laws. It would require the law to show a compelling state interest for it's constitutionality. It would seem to me protecting the lives of people by limiting handguns would certainly be a compelling state interest. I don't think protecting an individuals desire to own a handgun (be it for "self-defense" or not) is particularly compelling. Look at the numbers (percentages quoted supra) and then decide the usefulness of handguns.

i think good people should carry a firearm in the work place cops cant be everwhere