this is red meat for the aclu. i don't see how this program is workable without supending the constitution.

Nickles combines the douchebaggery of a former biglaw partner and a member of the DC government.

Volokh has a short post on this; Orin Kerr points out that it's almost certainly unconstitutional. The Indianapolis case is pretty dead-on.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_01-2008_06_07.shtml#1212631930

Didn't the Indy case basically say checkpoints were okay as long as there was prior notice they would happen? This sounds like prior notice.

Plus, I think the interest of scaling back a clearly abnormal murder rate is a bit different than DUI. Post article mentions a NY case of almost the exact same particualrs as DC which was upheld on federal appeal.

D.C. is a quagmire. The U.S. should withdraw immediately.

Or, alternatively, institute a total ban on guns in D.C. Oh, wait...

Seems like DC's government must be operating under the theory that "If DC isn't being represented in Congress, then the citizens don't really have the rights afforded by Congress under the Constitution, do they?"

Yet another side-handed argument for full congressional representation?

D.C. officials have a compelling need to violate the Constitution.

First it was the handgun ban (which could be struck down by SCOTUS before the end of the month).

Then it was the proposed "voluntary" warrantless door-to-door searches for guns, which the community, to their great credit, resisted.

Now this "papiere, bitte, mein Herr" checkpoint nonsense that, whether technically Constitutional or not, certainly violates the spirit of the Bill of Rights and the American way.

Also, how dumb is it that they will not be searching pedestrians? They admit they will be stopping cars while the criminals, whistling, stroll past Checkpoint Charlie on the sidewalk?

3:26- yes, the handgun ban could be struck down. And a lot of sense that would make.

D.C. is becoming a homicidal shithole. There were 8 homicides in 72 hours. Your solution: make it easier to get handguns.

I hate you gun proponents. WTF does anyone in D.C. need a handgun for?

3:21 is Obama. Stop trying to cut and run. We need to stay in DC until the job is done and the terrorists cannot find refuge in DC anymore.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I would wonder whether this program, allegedly justified by high crime rates, was a trial balloon to gauge the public's willingness to accept martial law-type measures?

They (and when I say "they" I mean government officials at all levels with a bent toward people control) no doubt anticipate that there will be a backlash, but once the public is desensitized to the idea, expect to see more and more checkpoints, perhaps even to cross state lines.

As economic conditions worsen, leading to increased crime, and, possibly, when more terrorist attacks occur at home or abroad, expect to see this sort of thing "for your safety."

The way to cook a frog alive is to turn up the heat one degree at a time and let him get used to it ...

I haven't seen what the smart people on VC are saying, but in comparing this with the Indy DUI case, I expect they're saying something like, "the obvious difference is that whether a person is DUI is something that can be measured rather objectively. You can't set up roadblocks w/ or w/o prior notice if the determination to be made during the seizure is whether or not the person is 'bad.'"

See how easy this stuff is?

I love DC and it breaks my heart that it is so violent. I lived there for two years before moving to Brooklyn and thought the world of the place. But, the city is horribly segregated, parts of it have yet to actually recover from race riots decades earlier and there is such marked disparity between the haves and the have-nots that it is laughable. I have always wanted to return, but it seems that every year there is a month where the violence peaks to the extreme and you have to wonder how long until all out war breaks out.

That being said, my dad came to visit me in DC multiple times, but I had to force him to come to NYC. He was terrified, though he was like 10X safer here. Funny.

Haven't had a chance to read the WaPo article yet, but I wonder what the people in these neighborhoods think, as opposed to assorted interest groups and bleeding hearts . . .

3:26 here.

3:30, when did I say I was in favor of overturning the ban? Many SCOTUS observers more knowledgeable than I have predicted that result, based on the makeup of the court, comments made during oral argument and even, shockingly, the merits of the case itself.

Since you mention it, though, I do hope to see the law struck down on 2nd Amendment grounds. It's not as though it is working now. Criminals (who don't obey laws) will always be able to get guns and commit murder (also illegal under D.C. law) with them.

The same people who have no respect for man's law or fear of God's law against murder will continue to commit their crimes. A pro-gun ruling by the Court would allow those who are generally law-abiding (they're not the ones driving up the crime rate) to defend themselves.

3:38--how big are your boobies?

3:30 - DC criminals already get handguns. The handgun ban is not stopping them. The only people the ban stops is law abiding citizens.

"There were 8 homicides in 72 hours"

"WTF does anyone in D.C. need a handgun for?"

The fact that you are completly oblivious to the relevance of the fact you cited to the question you asked indicates you lack a basic understanding of the concept of self-defense.

"There were 8 homicides in 72 hours"

"WTF does anyone in D.C. need a handgun for?"

The fact that you are completly oblivious to the relevance of the fact you cited to the question you asked indicates you lack a basic understanding of the concept of self-defense.

3:26- I based it off your assessment that D.C. was compelled to violate the Constitution, which I took to mean you were against their actions. Knee-jerk reaction.

As to the defend themselves argument, I think it fails for a number of reasons, the most obvious to me being that if you, a law-abiding citizen, are in a position to be shot and killed, it's pretty likely that you wouldn't have a chance to use a gun anyway. Someone's mugging you on the street? Is your $40 and cheap wallet really worth pulling a gun? I know for me it wuldn't be.

The bigger issue though is that most of the homicides aren't of Joe Q. Citizen (which begs the question if we really care whether gangbangers and drug dealers kill themselves, but that's not the issue here). Most people buying guns to defend themselves will never have actual cause to use it unless they're involved in drugs. All a gun in the house will really accomplish is begging some drug dealer or gangbanger to break in and steal it.

ordinary people need guns to protect themselves and their loved ones from the muggers and the hoodlums who are roaming the streets of DC

3:30, please be so kind as to give us a solution for the murder rate, then? Pretty much everything else, up to and including unconstitutional measures, has or is being taken, yet the murders continue.

You ask what anyone in D.C. needs a handgun for. The answer is clear: self-preservation.

they didn't call it crack city for nuthin' in the 80's

I would rather have a gun and never have to use it than one day need it and not have it.

At my house it would lie in a drawer unused for decades.

What would trouble me would be if the police happened to be in my home for any reason and found the gun. "Ah ha," they would say, "we've apprehended a gun criminal." All they would have done, of course, would be to harrass a harmless citizen who is not out there committing crimes.

Cathy Lanier's police dept. knows who the real criminals are. It's not the guy who keeps a gun in his dresser drawer at home and prays he never needs to fire it. Under the law, however, that person is guilty of a crime.

Also, why is the crime rate so much lower in places where guns are legal? What other socio-economic, cultural, religious and moral factors contribute to crime?

I think DC is so bad because there are democrats that live there. Momma used to say you could never trust a democrat, unless it was Johnson. He was a nice man. I showed him my buttocks once.

I like the Redskins, and you know what, we used to watch that football game every year on Thanksgiving between the Redskins and the Dallas Cowboys. Momma used to talk about those football pants. I never knew what she liked so much about those pants. Football pants don't even go all the way down to your shoes. When I was an All American at the University of Alabama, I tried to wear long pants to practice. And you know what, some boys beat me up.

I think the people in DC need to get guns like we have down here in Alabama. We have lots of handguns down here (momma used to carry three in her purse, one in her sock, and one in her bra--can you believe that, one in her bra), and you know what, I aint ever seen no one get murdered. We also take care of the people with no homes.

I can guess which DC neighborhood(s) will have a checkpoint and I'm thinking that 6 cops (at least) manning the cordons and demanding ID ain't gonna be near enough if the natives decide to get frisky.

Congress needs to just deploy the military in DC. It's a federal city, let's defend it as such. Take some money from the bloated public defender's office to pay for it. Maybe then we'd start to see the sky-high crime rates decline.

3:46 - where do you live, now that I know you won't resist, I'd like to meet you on the street. I could use an extra $40 tax-free.

Given your nack for over-generalizations, you must be an Obama supporter.

3:46 - where do you live, now that I know you won't resist, I'd like to meet you on the street. I could use an extra $40 tax-free.

Given your nack for over-generalizations, you must be an Obama supporter.

3:38: How long have you been in Brooklyn? Everything you wrote about DC applies equally to NYC. Hell, you can even limit that to just Manhattan. Ever stray beyond 116th on either West or East Side?

Solution = Hamsterdam.

Bunny.

"WTF does anyone in D.C. need a handgun for?"

Because, as the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

3:50: I thought that "crack city" came from the oh-so (not) honorable Marion Barry.

I went to trial with Nickles once, ten+ years ago. STILL the douchebag standard, after all these years have passed.

it was crack city long before Hiz Honor shacked up with Rasheeda

This measure does not go far enough to contain the animals that reside in DC. Once the perimeter is established they should send assualt squads through to randomly kick the shit out of anyone within the boundaries of the perimeter that looks shady.

This is certainly constitutional. Hasn't anyone read Catch-22? They have the power to do whatever we cannot prevent them from doing.

This is certainly constitutional. Hasn't anyone read Catch-22? They have the power to do whatever we cannot prevent them from doing.

Isn't Marion Barry still a councilman in DC?

fresh from a nice dump....

1. "Also, why is the crime rate so much lower in places where guns are legal? What other socio-economic, cultural, religious and moral factors contribute to crime?"

I think the places you're talking about are pretty homogenous. The roots of urban crime in major cities have a much more sociological basis than you give credit for. Getting a handgun permit in PA is pretty easy. Philly still has a high crime rate. Sure, Des Moines has a low crime rate and guns are probably legal and easy to get. That doesn't really address the issues of a D.C (or any major city with major city problems).

2. 3:48- Well, this checkpoint idea may be a step in the right direction. I think we owe it the chance to see if it plays it. We're not talking about a checkpoint around the Smithsonian here. This is a targeted checkppoint for an area with an uncharacteristic rise in violence. I think it's bending the Constitution without breaking it. And it certainly makes more sense to me than putting more handguns on the street.

3. 3:56- clearly you've never been robbed at gunpoint. I could tell you where I live, but I doubt you'd be willing to take the Metro to get there.

It's funny that on a website populated by BigLaw attorneys and law students, everyone talks tough about how they should have a gun so they can defend themselves. You're all a bunch of white, primarily conservative-minded, well-educated people. Who are you kidding about what you'd do in the name of "self-defense". Some guy pulls a gun on you, you shit your pants like the rest of us and hope by not making any sudden movements (like reachin' for yo gat, homey) he'll just take your shit and go. If you really are the type to do something, you wouldn't be the type to boast about it on an anonymous internet blog.

"There were 8 homicides in 72 hours"

"WTF does anyone in D.C. need a handgun for?"

WTF does anyone in D.C. need freedom of assembly for?
WTF does anyone in D.C. need freedom of speech for?

4:19 -- you might want to check the toilet. I think you shit out your brain during that "nice dump."

4:28- Don't talk about gun-rights like it's still some token of what makes America great. The British aren't coming, we beat back the Indians, Manifest Destiny is complete.

No country in the world has a crime rate as high as ours. Coincidentally, most every country that we would call comparable to us (Britain, Germany, Japan, etc.) have handgun bans and lower crime rates.

And to the guy before, yeah, I'm an Obama supporter.

Can we live without handguns? YES WE CAN!!!

I wish DC would put cops on by block in Chevy Chase so that the idiots would stop running the right-turn only sign at 42nd and Military and hitting kids on bikes or people driving according to the law. Priorities....

4:19-

Bike racks, 3:00!

What's the matter, McFly? Chicken?

4:28 - it was obvious from the shit coming out of both ends

Since you are all such strict consitutionalists, get your buddies, start a Militia, and get a freakin' musket.

3:58, NYC is a completely different situation because the violence is restricted to certain neighborhoods. In DC that wasn't the case - most of my friends who were mugged there were mugged in Dupont, which is supposedly the nice/well-off part of the city.

Below 116th Street, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who has been mugged/attacked in the last 5 years.

4:19: I went to school with a "white, primarily conservative-minded, well-educated [person]" who was a big 2nd Amendment advocate and a licensed concealed carrier who twice was involved in using his concealed handgun to, respectively, defend himself against a mugging and to stop a potentially violent street crime against a third party (these incidents were reported in the local paper--not just B.S. stories).

Why are you hating on the Redskins?

"You're all a bunch of white, primarily conservative-minded, well-educated people. Who are you kidding about what you'd do in the name of "self-defense". Some guy pulls a gun on you, you shit your pants like the rest of us and hope by not making any sudden movements (like reachin' for yo gat, homey) he'll just take your shit and go. If you really are the type to do something, you wouldn't be the type to boast about it on an anonymous internet blog."

Is advocating that the option of self-defense be legal really macho boasting?

Why are you hating on the Redskins?

4:37, your example countries are also homogeneous and would never elect, much less give citizenship to, someone like your guy Barry Obama.

I can't wait for the DC gun ban to fail.

4:37, are you in the habit of tossing away constitutional rights as a response to crime? If so, why do you start and stop at the 2nd amendment?

4:37, are you in the habit of tossing away constitutional rights as a response to crime? If so, why do you start and stop at the 2nd amendment?

5:06- Fair enough, but it does hit on my ludicrous point that he does it while you simply retell it.

It does raise the question though that if we assume (whihc may not be true) that lifting the ban on handguns were to lead to more handguns finding their way to criminals, how do we weigh stopping 2 crimes from creating, say, 10 more? I don't know the answer.

5:09- There are plenty of ways to defend yourself with shooting someone. Buy a taser. Take some krav maga classes. I just don't buy that a handgun is the only way to defend yourself.

4:37, are you in the habit of tossing away constitutional rights as a response to crime? If so, why do you start and stop at the 2nd amendment?

More to the point, 5:09, why does the only conceivable defensive use of a handgun involve trying to pull it on someone already pointing a gun at you?

Answer: it doesn't, but pretending that's the case sure does make the anti-gun argument sound more reasonable!

4:37 PM:

you're more likely to die of a violent crime in Britain than America. But hey, the gun ban is working. As is their libel laws, which ban freedom of speech.....but you probably don't consider that of much worth either, deep down, especially if they disagree with you, Obamaman. And Germany--with its laws regulating discussion of WWII and genocide--sure isn't making any great claims for Freedom of Speech, either. Perhaps there is a connection.....(I'm not Holocaust denier (obvo it happened), just the laws themselves are disturbing)...

The 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights. Just because you think speech and assembly are somehow "better" or "more important" than the 2nd amendment doesn't mean it doesn't count or that its a "product of the past." By that argument, we no longer need the 13th Amendment, because no one today would try to enslave another today in America.

Me thinks we should now forget about the 3rd amendment, too, but just for 4:37. stick a few "evil fascist soldiers" in his house permanently and then see how quickly that amendment becomes a fundamental right!

You wouldn't dream of trying to degrade the 13th Amendment--that's for black people! Only straight white Christian males like the 2nd amendment, so it must be bad. Now go back to your hippie commune/upper West side condo and leave the big talk to the grown ups.

5:14, you're not familiar with the saying that "God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal," are you? Buy a tazer? They're far less reliable than hollowpoints. Learn krav maga? Please tell me you're both joking and have no practical experience with physical confrontation.

Is a handgun the only way to defend yourself? Of course not. Is it the most effective and reliable way for even the least physically able person to do so? Yes.

man 4:37/5:14 is getting owned.

4:37 thinks learning karate will scare off a mugger with a gun.

i think he's seen one too many jet li movies.

obviously, he also thinks Ross from Friends, with Unagi, would be better to have on his side than a hand gun.

remind me that if I'm ever in a platoon with 4:37, I'd better start saying my prayers, because 4:37 ain't gonna be much help.

Ah, the slippery slope defense. I like how finding one provision of the Constitution to be archaic and misconstrued beyond its original intent makes me a facist supporter of libel and suprression of free speech.

Like I said, the core here is that I think the 2nd amendment has a specific purpose. That purpose is still there should we need it. You think the mention of a militia is just for kicks, that it has no relation to the amendment itself? You're all so quick to give credit to the writers of the Constitution, well give them credit for not simply stating 'The Right to bear arms shall not be infringed". They did it in other places, why not there?

You may have noticed I'm not telling you not to bear arms, I just don't necessarily think that it includes handguns, or limits the regulation of them.

5:24- Just because they have numbers, doesn't mean they're right.

Nor does it mean their arguments have been answered in a responsive manner, 5:37.

It's interesting that 5:37 has abandoned the points of (1) handguns would actually not be useful for self-defense, and (2) even if they were, they aren't the only effective way, and fallen back on (3) well, there's this textual point--the history of which I won't discuss, nor will I get into whether the militia reference limits other civilian uses or merely reinforces the militia use in addition to all the traditonal rights of english citizens vis a vis firearms (including pistols--and that makes me correct!

5:37:
Ah, the attack on the slippery slope defense. Because legal scholars and judges never use one interpretation of one section of the Constitution to inform another....never. Nope. Because only what liberals believe is archaic is archaic. And if we start disregarding one amendment, they'll never start disregarding others. nope. nope. nope!

Moron, listen up: if its in the Constitution, you can't disregard it. it wasn't put in to be forgotten about when somebody's opinion thought it was old-fashioned. You don't like it? Amend it. That's how you change the constitution. But you think, "Oh, i don't like guns, so therefore, this doesn't apply."

You think the mention of militia is the sole reason the government can't take away our guns? What kind of NYT Editorial logic is that?

And, you are getting pwned pretty well there, buddy boy. Just because you're the most self-righteous and hate white guys the most doesn't mean you're right, either.

5:46, we no longer have to amend the Constitution to add new rights (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade). Why the heck should we have to amend it to remove old ones?

"[T]he homeless people that [sic] descend in droves in the spring"? What are they, locusts? Where do you think they spend the winter?

5:50: excellent satire. I am with you one hundred percent.

Unless it wasn't satire, it which case, I will weep for you.

Guys in my high school used to have people who didn't live in their neighborhoods sent away or arrested by the police all the time, it was no big deal.

1. I haven't abandoned the idea that handguns would not be useful. There's obviously some use. Is it the best use? I don't think so. Does it provide the most value to our society to allow it? I don't think so. But why belabor the point if no one will agree with it. My time is someone else's money and I want them to get bang for their buck.

2. 5:46- . What amendment are we disreagrding?? We're interpreting a contentious point of the Constitution. You make it sound as though I basically said, we'll if we let the gov't outlaw guns, what's to stop them from outlawing torture and letting the terrorists win.

Step back a second. Look at the amendment. If it was, like every other amendment that has gone uncontested so pristine and crystal clear, why would we have courts? Because it's not crystal clear. And what's in the constitution, the right to bear arms? What constitutes an arm?

Speaking of defining terms what's cruel and unusual punishment? What's a speedy trial? What's unreasonable search and siezure?

Interpreting these amendments is what it's about, not parroting them back to me to signify their importance.

yeah, this sounds pretty bogus under our conceptions of constitutionality. but i think we need some research and facts before we can reach the conclusion.

Gosh, that sounds so intelligent and boring. I must be a lawyer. :/

This program is not new to DC. In the 90's, select areas of DC high in drugs, prostitution and other crime would be blocked off and only residents with IDs would be allowed in. The aim was to strangle the crime out of the region. Logan Circle was one such area...and now all those town homes on the circle that were selling for literally 100K 10 years ago are selling for 1M+. The more safety zones the better!

6:07:
An Arm is that thing attached to your body that you should use to pull your head out of your...nah, I won't go there. He might have a gun.

"why belabor the point if no one will agree with it"

Indeed. Not a majority of the American voting public, and not a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why should we amend it to be clearer, or bother debating gun rights with you and your ilk? We're about to do the same thing to gun rights that Roe v. Wade did to abortion rights (I'm fine with abortion, but like the 21st amendment, it would have been nice to do it properly)... but at least we have an actual enumerated right upon which to hang our hat.

Enjoy Heller and its progeny. I will.

6:07:

i love how you change your arguments once they prove bogus. First it was "let's ignore the 2nd amendment, I think its archaic, white males like it, its bad" to "oh wait, what I meant was, let's have the courts decide it--but only courts by judges that Obamamessiah appoints to make sure they declare it archaic and no longer part of the constitution."

CHANGE! YES WE CAN!

Why don't we just have more beat cops, more patrol cars, better policing? Why not treat the people in the neighborhood like you're looking out for them, instead of suspecting them?

And not to diss police, because a lot of them aren't given a lot of time, or money for practice ammo., but many of them are actually not very good shots. So yes, I would rather carry myself then just rely on the police.

This policy does not apply to Top Legal Talent, right? If so, who cares.

6:18 My argument never changed and I never said to ignore the 2nd amendment. All I've been saying is that I see no need for handguns. I think they're pointless. Further to the point of the case at issue, I see nothing in the 2nd amendment prohibiting the regulation of handguns for use by private citizens. Go back and read my posts (they should be easy to find).

And to all of you who called me a hippie and a liberal, I'm such a card-carrying member of the ACLU that I agreed with the idea of checkpoints.

Talking to Republican conservatives is like wrestling a wild boar. You're covered in shit, and he's still an animal....

FYI, 6:39, you're the swine. Most of us who advocate a strong 2d Amendment right also find the idea of checkpoints unconstitutional.

xoxo,
6:13

As long as Top Legal Talent is not black, then no.

And we're about done here. The anti-self defense as a fundamental right crowd have anything new to add?

-3:45/5:09/5:17/5:20/5:41/5:45/5:50/6:13

Love the boar reference!

fascism-pwn3d we are....

Amusingly, 7:14 could be referring to either Left or Right politics and policies with the fascism comment.

6:53- Nah, I'm good. Anti self-defense as a fundamental right? Ha. Guess you just have an itchier trigger finger than me.

7:21,

If by "itchier trigger finger," you mean that (1) I think I, as a human being and a law-abiding American citize, have a moral and legal right to posess an effective means of personal self-defense (i.e., a handgun of reasonable concealability, accuracy, power, and ammunition capacity) and (2) I am willing to defend myself by displaying and, if necessary, using a gun when I believe such a use of force is morally and legally justified . . . then I have to agree with your assessment.

Jeez, now you want a banana clip, too?

Actually, by "reasonable" I meant of limited capacity--say 8-10 rounds. Self-defense isn't combat, one doesn't need to engage that many targets at once, and we don't want too many rounds that could go astray.

I would love just once for anyone to present credible statistical evidence for the effectiveness of handguns in self defence. I doubt there are enough effective uses of handguns in SD to be able to do this. The pro-gun crowd is so hopelessly outdated...they need to join the prayer in schools movement if they aren't already part of it.

"Two studies suggested a reduction in homicide
associated with shall issue laws at the national level, and the third suggested mixed effects in five counties,
with an overall increase in homicide associated with the laws. The study of police homicide shows a small,
statistically nonsignificant decline in the homicide of
police associated with shall issue laws." http://www.thecommunityguide.org/VIOLENCE/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

Even this one finds two of three "credible" studies showing a reduction in homicide in "shall issue" states. Of course, this is the most anti-gun of the studies; you can read its critque--which I find relevant as far as it goes, but ultimately not as discrediting as they claim--of the Lott & Mustard analysis... which does present credible statistical evidence of the effectiveness of CCL and handguns in reducing crime rates.

The two studies were:

Kleck G, Patterson EB. The impact of gun control and gun ownership
levels on violence rates. J Quantitative Criminol 1993;9:249–87.

Ludwig J. Concealed-gun-carrying laws and violent crime: evidence from
state panel data. Int Rev Law Econ 1998;18:239 –54.

I don't think a study that shows an overall decrease in violent crime is relevant as this might be achieved through, e.g. adoption of stiffer sentencing laws or other techniques. I am talking about statistical evidence of direct effective use of HGs in self-defence. Of course my sense is this evidence does not exist and that in any event the ppl most likely to *effectively* use HGs in SD are ppl who are themselves engaged in ongoing criminal enterprises e.g. drug dealers, etc. and their use of HGs in SD is not a compelling argument in favor of continued unfettered HG laws.

"The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence endorses interpretations of the federal study that support the low-end estimate of 65,000 defensive gun uses a year, but agrees that's still a lot. Nationwide it would mean gun owners use weapons to defend against violent crime more than seven times each hour."

http://www.mcsm.org/moreuse.html

6:39 :

Let's see, shithead--you first argue the 2nd amendment is archaic. Then back track to say that the courts of Obamamessiah should decide it. Now you're back to try and argue that no one should have a hand gun--of course, without constitutional argument--because its archaic.

Talking to a liberal is like trying to explain to a 5 year old why he can't have a cookie. Logic doesn't work; just spank them and send their immature asses to bed.

"At about 1 p.m. MST (20:00 UTC), 30 minutes after the 11 a.m. service had ended at New Life Church, Murray opened fire in the church parking lot shooting the Works family and Judy Purcell, 40. Murray then entered the building's main foyer where he shot Larry Bourbonnais, 59, hitting him in the forearm. At this point, Jeanne Assam, a church member volunteering as a church security guard, opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon. After suffering multiple hits from Assam's gun, Murray fatally shot himself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings#cite_note-ap-suicide-0

"A Des Moines pizza driver who was suspended from his job after he shot an armed robber said today he has been overwhelmed by support from people who cheered what happened.

“But no one had contacted me directly about a job offer,” said James William Spiers III, 38, who was sent home by Pizza Hut managers after he fired multiple shots at a man who put a gun to his head Thursday and demanded money outside the Sutton Hill Apartments, 2100 S.E. King Ave.

Spiers, who has a valid handgun permit, said he’s been “pretty much in the dark” about his job since the incident. Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut’s corporate offices in Dallas, said last week that employees are not allowed to carry guns “because we believe that that is the safest for everybody.”

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080401/NEWS/80401028

Different incident, 2004:

"Last month, a Pizza Hut deliveryman Ronald Honeycutt foiled a robbery attempt. When his assailant pointed a 9mm handgun at him, the deliveryman shot and killed him. The next day, Pizza Hut fired Honeycutt.

Around 11p.m. on May 17, 2004 Honeycutt had just made a delivery in a very rough part of Indianapolis. He walked back to his van, where he was approached by Jerome Brown-Dancler. The would-be robber aimed his gun at Honeycutt, at which time he drew his own 9mm and squeezed off the entire clip. After Brown-Dancler fell, Honeycutt picked up the assailant's weapon and drove back to the Pizza Hut. Upon his arrival, he instructed a manager to phone police.

Honeycutt has a concealed weapons permit, and claims to have carried a handgun for every one of the last twenty years that he has been delivering pizzas. Indianapolis prosecutors quickly cleared him of any charges. Deputy Prosecutor Barb Crawford said: "He did what the law allows him to do to protect himself." Crawford went on to say: "This was late at night. This was a high-crime area. He (Honeycutt) left because he wasn't sure whether or not Brown-Dancler had any friends with. As it turns out, he did indeed have friends with him. They left when they heard shots fired.""

http://www.americandaily.com/article/2488

Want me to go on, or do you want to get into the song and dance about how such isolated occurances (i.e., individual's lives) are trumped by the greater societal concerns about the harms that happen when guns exist at all?

Oh, p.s., criminals are notoriously poor users of handguns. First, they're not very bright and tend to emulate what's portrayed on TV and in movie w/r/t shooting styles. Second, they're not the most humble of folk, believing that nobody has anything to teach them about how to draw, grip, aim, fire, or reload a handgun. Third, they rarely--if ever--have a practice regimen: ranges don't like criminals who carry unlicensed handguns, and target practice in back alleys tends to attract police attention. The importance of practice and professional instruction in the use of a handgun cannot be overstated.

But thanks for throwing out what sounds like a smart point to anyone who doesn't (1) think critically and (2) know a damn thing about handguns.

Guys in my high school used to cordon off whole neighborhoods and arrest non-residents all the time, it was no big deal.

-FRAT STUD

8:57:
I'm just a drive by observer, and I agree with you on keeping guns legal, etc. However, don't underestimate the intelligence/willingness to learn of a crook. Their firing ability is mainly limited by 1) lack of access to ranges (due to criminality, etc) and 2) confusion about how to use a gun from TV/movies, as you stated. however, if they had access to a range and someone taught them, they'd be deadly.

Plenty of Mafioso types have had a willingness to learn/place to learn/people to teach them/intelligence and have become good with guns. However, I agree that its the dumb criminal who pulls a gun in the first place; the truly powerful ones don't need to flash it.

8:33 Glad to see your SA job has afforded you some time to respond. (For future reference, opening your response by calling me a shithead or a moron only confirms that what I'm about to read is some drivel from a zealous law student).

So I called it archaic, then decided I'd argue the courts of Obamamessiah (???) should determine it, then argued it was archaic again. So basically, according to you, I argued that I thought an interpretation of it that did not allow for regulation of handguns was an outdated interpretation, then I argued that a conservative Supreme Court hearing the case in a few weeks should see it the same way, then I ended with my original thought that it was archaic.

I apologize for my lack of citations and in-depth analysis that you require in a blog post, But, what analysis do you want? That anything not expressly prohibited (in this case the regulation of handguns, which depending on how you interpret the terms 'arms (rifles, handguns, assault rifles?)', "free state' (free from tyranny and oppression by government, free from criminals?) and 'infringed' (not allowed, regulated?) means this is an issue left to states and not the federal government.

Own an arm, see if I care, but if we see it from my POV that the intent of arms was rifles to be used as part of a militia or deterrent against tyranny and not handguns against muggers, then you could see how I have no problem if you want to join the National Guard and arm yourself for when the war comes homes, but if you just want a handgun to defend against thieves who might break in and steal your flat screen then I'd say I have no problem with any government regulating your perceived right to do that.

What's the difference? Well, I just don't think the intent was for said arms to be used against fellow citizens, criminal or not. You may disagree, and I'm sure you do, but keep in mind something about the Constitution: I don't think the founders ever conceived of waterboarding either, yet we don't feel that we're in no position to determine what that means to the 8th amendment today.

The interesting thing about the 2nd amendment, at least to me, and the source really of the debate, is the language which is not really prevalent anywhere else. The qualifier about the militia is somewhat strange and present for a reason. I choose not to ignore that intent, but to embrace it and think that such odd phrasing and inclusion has a purpose.

And as to repeal and amend, you want to ignore the constitution, it's worth pointing out the 3rd amendment is still good law, yet somehow I don't see you letting soldiers hang out in your home without throwing a fit.

Enjoy 3L. Hopefully Scalia will do another CLE for you in a few years.

FRAT STUD = hot. Can we go out?

Hey 10:42, try not to confuse 8:33 with the rest of the posts. He's doing his own thing.

People in the military carry handguns as well as M-16s and other rifles. Try again.

Moreover, they carried pistols back in the 1770's, too.

I love 10:42 trying to ignore the 2nd amendment and yet defends that by embracing the 3rd amendment. Someone else already called you on this, I don't think its getting through your thick head.

And wait, 1042: you compare a conservative to a fecal-covered wild animal, and then you get your panties in a bunch when he calls you a shithead back? Nice logic, little boy. If you hadn't started the name calling, you'd have a point.

And you argue its an "outdated interpretation", basically saying that any interpretation of the constituion may be considered "outdated." Enjoy it when your Obamamessiah-led courts decide free speech is just outdated. I love how you assume the constitution has a time limit in it when there isn't any. Oh wait, that's only for the parts you don't like.

Now, enjoy your temp job in the basement of PW. Clown.

Are we fighting about that silly comma in the 2nd amendment again?

No, we're waiting for SCOTUS to tell us what it means and for a subsequent case to incorporate the 2d Amendment as against the states.

Until then, we're just pissing about on a blog.

I can just see Thomas' dissent in the current case:

"In 1792, militias carried pistols that shot musketballs. I therefore dissent because these weapons, along with muskets, black-powder rifles, and other weaponry of the time are the only 'arms' encompassed by the 2nd Amendment."

Also, if someone wants to argue that only military weapons are acceptable, and you have to join the national guard, that is AWESOME. I was planning on joining anyways, now I get to own a 50 cal.

i love how Kash uses the royal "we" to refer to....whom? the ATL "staff?"

"It troubles US that...."

I forgot rapiers, broadswords, sabers, and foils. My bad, yo.

Imagine this:

Halt! hast du papiere, ausweiss?
aaaa......
Aha du bist terrorist, ha?
In the mean time you get zapped with taser gun and you will be another one on statistic list. Is this our future?

Imagine this:

Halt! hast du papiere, ausweiss?
aaaa......
Aha du bist terrorist, ha?
In the mean time you get zapped with taser gun and you will be another one on statistic list. Is this our future?

Imagine this:

Halt! hast du papiere, ausweiss?
aaaa......
Aha du bist terrorist, ha?
In the mean time you get zapped with taser gun and you will be another one on statistic list. Is this our future?

I've never understood the there-will-be-more-guns-for-criminals argument against allowing people in DC (or elsewhere) own handguns.

1) EVERY criminal that wants a gun currently has a gun or easy access to one, just like EVERY criminal has easy access to drugs. Indeed, anyone who wants to illegally own a gun would have little trouble doing so.

2) A person can only use one gun at a time. The marginal increase in damage from giving a homicidal criminal two guns instead of one gun is completely insignificant. Whereas every criminal who wants a gun has one, increasing the supply of weapons will provide almost no marginal increase in homicidal criminality.

3) Permitting citizens to self-defend their homes etc. will significantly increase the deterant to break-ins.

To 3:46, your comment asking if $40 and a cheap wallet is worth pulling a gun misidentifies the relevant issue. The gun would not be pulled to protect $40 and a wallet, but rather your life. I assume, in your example, the mugger has threatened you with DEADLY FORCE. That alone should empower you the victim to counter with the THREAT of deadly force. If they have a knife, then likely you have just stopped the robbery, saved your life, and aprehended a criminal. If they have a gun and it is pointed at you, then you comply and hope for the best (they "have got the drop on you," you have been ambushed, tough luck). If on the other hand they have a gun and the criminal is focused on a third party (i.e. pointing the gun at them), you have a reasonable chance to neutralize the threat. And finally, any criminal who threatens deadly force karmically deserves what's coming to them.

Karmically? Hell, they legally deserve it.

I live in AdMo and sort of hope this means they will kick out all the fratties from NOVA who come to my neighborhood every weekend to puke up their jumbo slice on my front steps. Somehow I suspect that's not who the police are looking for though...

6-5-08@4:50pm: Below 116th Street, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who has been mugged/attacked in the last 5 years.

Huh? Do you not watch the 11pm news? Violence is NOT restricted to certain neighborhoods in NYC. But maybe it seems that way because NYC (remember, 5 boroguhs) is much bigger than DC (4 quadrants).

Jumbo slice! You're making me hungry. I haven't had one in a while.

While I was in law school in DC (late '90s), 6 out of my 10 closest friends, plus myself, were victims of a violent crime. The 7th almost victim remained an "almost" when her husband pulled out this wicked S. African machete and ran at the perp who was trying to break in through the back door. Perp of course cut and run. I grew up in Manhattan and my husband grew up in the Bronx (in a neighborhood that was ravaged by the crack epidemic) and we know no one here who has suffered a violent crime against their person. (Property, diff. story.)

DC is an f'in cesspool and certain sectors are more cesspool-ish than others. I certainly wish I had been carrying when I was sexually assaulted.