DC to appeal Parker (gun ban), case to the SCOTUS.

[jcr]

"A law that bans handguns but permits private ownership of rifles and shotguns does
not deprive anyone of the right to keep and bear arms, however that right is
construed," [Attorney Singer] said.

I am reluctant to make this post, but I wish to test this analogy. I do not wish to
get in a discussion of the non-gun side of the analogy.

Four years ago the Supreme Court decided (Lawrence v. Texas) that a criminal law
prohibiting homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional. An implicit right to engage in
these activities was found in the U.S. Constitution.

A state or city government might pass a law banning certain kinds of
homosexual activity but allowing others (I need not be specific here), on
the grounds that the banned activity was much more dangerous than the other.

I suspect that Mayor Fenty and AG Singer would be quick to deplore this splitting of
constitutional rights. They'd claim that rights are not being protected just
because some part of them are not banned.

Yet, when presented with an explicit right to keep arms, they have no trouble with
banning handguns as long rifles are "allowed".

I guess they see no need for a consistent legal theory.

[Is this a safe argument to make?]

 

[depicts]

Waiting to see what pops up

 

[Coyote33]

Any news on this? Just curious, is the ban still on, or has that been lifted yet?

 

[z0mbi]

I think we still got a month to go before this hits the court.

 

[KMaurer]

I am reluctant to make this post, but I wish to test this analogy. I do not wish to
get in a discussion of the non-gun side of the analogy.

Four years ago the Supreme Court decided (Lawrence v. Texas) that a criminal law
prohibiting homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional. An implicit right to engage in
these activities was found in the U.S. Constitution.

A state or city government might pass a law banning certain kinds of
homosexual activity but allowing others (I need not be specific here), on
the grounds that the banned activity was much more dangerous than the other.

I suspect that Mayor Fenty and AG Singer would be quick to deplore this splitting of
constitutional rights. They'd claim that rights are not being protected just
because some part of them are not banned.

Yet, when presented with an explicit right to keep arms, they have no trouble with
banning handguns as long rifles are "allowed".

I guess they see no need for a consistent legal theory.

[Is this a safe argument to make?]

The analogy that Heller's attorney made was with the First Amendment: would it be OK for the government to ban newspapers because they considered books to be a adequate substitute?

Ken