The DC mayor is a POS....

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

It can't. For example, in Virginia when Brown v. Board came out there were many school systems in Virginia that refused to comply. The Federal courts literally took them over.

So, Levin is just doing some wishful thinking?

I'd like to see Fenty defy the decision. It would be fun to see Federal Marshals come into his office and haul his ass to jail.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

So, Levin is just doing some wishful thinking?

I'd like to see Fenty defy the decision. It would be fun to see Federal Marshals come into his office and haul his ass to jail.

Well, no, what he is saying is that they have a new law and that you have to go to court to see whether it comports with the new ruling. He is right about that. But I think congress will intervene much sooner.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Not being a lawyer, please inform me how a decision by the US Supreme Court can be challenged.

Honest question.

A Supreme Court decision can only be challenged in two ways:

(1) If it's a constitutional decision, then we have to pass an Amendment to the Constitution

(2) If it's a statutory ruling, Congress has to change the statute.

I guess there's a third -- the Supreme Court can change its own mind and reverse a ruling.

But the new DC gun law doesn't undermine anything that the Supreme Court held in Heller. It doesn't "challenge" it by flaunting it. It challenges it by saying, "we're going to see what this right means that you recognized." There is NOTHING in Heller that says the DC government can't do what it's doing. And that is exactly what is going to happen -- lots of new laws, and lots of challenges to determine the contours of the 2nd Amendment right. The Supreme Court may overturn the DC gun ban again if it gets a case on it, but then it will only be cutting new territory again. I don't think people realize that Heller was the first opinion in our Nation's history interpreting the Second Amendment. It's remarkable, but the Court had never decided a case directly on the Second Amendment. They'd hinted and danced around it, but never had to interpret it.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Well, no, what he is saying is that they have a new law and that you have to go to court to see whether it comports with the new ruling. He is right about that. But I think congress will intervene much sooner.

Ok, I misunderstood. (Apologies to Levin)

When the new law is passed, DC will take it to the Supreme Court to see if it is in compliance with the decision. Is that close?

[Levin]

This is NOT like Wallace and desegregation -- puhlease.

There, the Court said, "INTEGRATE!" and the people said "NO!"

Here, the Court said "YOU CAN'T BAN THE OWNERSHIP OF HANDGUNS IN THE HOME OUTRIGHT B/C THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" and DC is now saying "FINE, WE WON'T BAN HANDGUNS IN THE HOME, BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT HARD TO GET ONE AND ALLOW IT TO BE LOADED IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES."

Do you not see the difference? The District moved only as far as the Court required it to.

Congress is not going to touch this. The 101st Airborne is not coming to DC. More inapt and offensive comparisons.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Ok, I misunderstood. (Apologies to Levin)

When the new law is passed, DC will take it to the Supreme Court to see if it is in compliance with the decision. Is that close?

DC itself won't take the law to the Supreme Court. Citizens of DC will take it to the Supreme Court. This law is going to get challenged right away by citizens of DC who think it goes too far; and then the case will work its way up the chain: district court to appellate court to the Supreme Court (if it takes it).

The Supreme Court is going to be very busy in the next decades with 2nd Amenmdnet cases that's for sure as all sorts of laws are challenged and the Court begins to define the right it recognized for the first time in Heller.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Levin

This is NOT like Wallace and desegregation -- puhlease.

There, the court's said, "INTEGRATE!" and the people said "NO!"

Here, the Court said "YOU CAN'T BAN THE OWNERSHIP OF HANDGUNS IN THE HOME OUTRIGHT B/C THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" and DC is now saying "FINE, WE WON'T BAN HANDGUNS IN THE HOME, BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT HARD TO GET ONE AND ALLOW IT TO BE LOADED IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES."

Do you not see the difference? The District moved only as far as the Court required it to.

Congress is not going to touch this. The 101st Airborne is not coming to DC. More inapt and offensive comparisons.

I agree that federal troops aren't coming, but be real. They have very smugly rearticulated the same ban they had before. See my abortion analogy.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I agree that federal troops aren't coming, but be real. They have very smugly rearticulated the same ban they had before. See my abortion analogy.

They have absolutely not rearticulated the same ban. Many people will own handguns in the District now, whereas before not a single person could. They will just have to get a background and eye check before they do. How is this effectively the same thing?

The bigger issue is that they will only be able to have it loaded for self-defense.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Levin

This is NOT like Wallace and desegregation -- puhlease.

There, the Court said, "INTEGRATE!" and the people said "NO!"

Here, the Court said "YOU CAN'T BAN THE OWNERSHIP OF HANDGUNS IN THE HOME OUTRIGHT B/C THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" and DC is now saying "FINE, WE WON'T BAN HANDGUNS IN THE HOME, BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT HARD TO GET ONE AND ALLOW IT TO BE LOADED IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES."

Do you not see the difference? The District moved only as far as the Court required it to.

Congress is not going to touch this. The 101st Airborne is not coming to DC. More inapt and offensive comparisons.

So, the DC leaders are saying that homeowners will just have to deal with an armed intruder intent on causing harm to the owner and his/her family.

If I ever get stupid and decide to live in DC, please remind me of this.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

So, the DC leaders are saying that homeowners will just have to deal with an armed intruder intent on causing harm to the owner and his/her family.

If I ever get stupid and decide to live in DC, please remind me of this.

DC leaders are saying, "The Supreme Court said the reason the 2nd Amendment is an individual right is because of self defense. So we will allow you to have guns for self-defense. If an intruder comes into your home, fire away. But you can't take the gun outside your home."