The problem I see is that Washington D.C. is actually a part of Virginia and I believe they should abide by the laws that are on the books for that state. I don't believe we have any county governments in any state that are able to enact laws which are in direct opposition to that particular states statutes.
The constitution is for all Americans. And if they don't consider themselves a part of that, they have no right to tax us. They also have no right to govern America if they choose to be separate. Maybe they should form their own little country and pick and choose their own rules.
Why should the District of Columbia be any different than any other place in the United States? Let's be honest here. What is a state? It's an imaginary border, and that's it. It's nothing but a bunch of made up lines and names, separating a larger landmass. In theory, how is the District of Columbia any different than a state? What makes them so special? They should be able to follow the same rules and regulations as everyone else, for better or worse.
The fact that the District of Columbia is not a state has no effect on its obligation to follow the Constitution. All territories must follow the Constitution, including Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. Therefore the Supreme Court was able to rule that the D.C. handgun ban violated the Second Amendment and overturn the law.
The Constitution is something that was brilliantly written, with room to grow. Unfortunately, a lot of lawmakers like to make that room to grow into loopholes, to make the Constitution null and void. Clearly, the forefathers did not intend for the Constitution to be ignored on the grounds of some geographical technicality. The reason that D.C. is not a state is antiquated anyhow. The residents of D.C. are still U.S. citizens living on U.S. soil, and the Constitution should be upheld, without a doubt. Ban only the politicians working in D.C., if you want to be correct.
Though it is not a state, it is still our country's capital. There are citizens there who should have the right to bear arms. Washington, DC is not known as the safest area in the United States. The reason for the ban does make sense to me, though. It is sort of a catch-22.
If D.C. is not a state, and thus not subject to American laws, then what is it? If it is not it's own state, should it not be forced to be part of some other state? D.C. is acting more like its own country, or an Indian reservation, than a part of the U.S. I do not see why they are allowed to pick and choose which U.S. laws they wish to follow, while maintaining all the benefits of being part of the United States.
Whether a state or not, D.C. is still governed under the constitution, therefore they are subject to the same restriction contained therein. The constitution is meant to give rights to the people, not to allow freedoms to be taken due to technicalities such as whether or not an area is certified as a state. If the people of D.C. are not allowed the freedom to bear arms from the second amendment due to not living in a 'state', what about the freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right to a fair trial? By the same reasoning, can D.C. refuse to follow other rules nationally mandated to states? Even if technically not a state, the spirit of the constitution should still apply as opposed to the letter of the law.
The lengthy 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia underscores the complexity of this issue, as does the simple act of reading the text of the Second Amendment, a text that highlights both collective ("a well-regulated militia") and apparently individual ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") aspects of the behavior being protected. But as has been observed elsewhere, the Bill of Rights in general protects individual rights, so to regard the Second Amendment as exclusively a license for states to maintain militias without offering individual protections seems unfair. The District's ban was quite sweeping, and it seems fair to ask it to pursue its public safety objectives in a more targeted manner, at least until a record of failure accrues, showing that a broad ban is necessary.
It may not be a state, but its located within the US. I think its absurd for the hand gun band to be in effect. I think the right to bare arms, is the right to bare arms. Especially in DC where the crime right is so high. I'd want the right to own a gun!
D.C. had one of the highest crime rates in America and, just because it is not a state, does not mean it is outside the Second Amendment. But, there is also safety of the citizens to think of also.
The second amendment says nothing specifically about handguns; it only states that United States citizens should have the right to "bear arms." As long as the District of Columbia's ban does not affect all kinds of armament, it does not violate this amendment. One does not need handguns to "bear arms." (This opinion has nothing to do with DC's statehood as the Constitution still applies to that area).
The 2nd Amendment of the constitution makes one thing clear: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (2nd amendment, U.S. constitution) This amendment clearly states that a militia is important, that is, a military. This is in references to states. The amendment differentiates the right of the people from the right of a militia. So the notion that DC is not a state and should not be afforded the same rights to individuals in other states is not sufficient, because the amendment draws a distinction between state militia (the military) and individual rights. The amendment then reads "the right of the people to keep and BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed" - this as I understand it, means every individual, no matter where they reside, has the right to bear arms.
D.C. Is not a state .Its it's own country and the laws they make only apply to d.C. . They were delegated certain powers and that's it . The 13 colonies were a union and they created the federal to perfect what they had. The 14th amendment (not ratified) enslaves and distracts from the fact its its own country and not of the union of states.
DC residents do not have a vote in Congress, nor can they elect a mayor. Congress decides how DC is run, not the Constitution. It has its own set of laws. Logically, the first question should concern voting rights, not gun control. The rabbit hole goes much further in the purpose of having DC the way it is.
The Federal government (of which the District is a part) can, if it wishes, ban individuals from owning tanks, Nuke missiles, drones, machine guns, and any other arms deemed dangerous and unsuitable for individuals to own. It would only be unconstitutional for the Federal government (or any state, or the District) to ban all arms.
Some say the only arms protected by the Second Amendment are the types extant in 1789, like single-shot muskets. Others go farther and observe, as the Supreme Court did 70 years ago, that the Amendment protects the right of states to form armed militias. (The legislative history of the Amendment makes clear that it was an attempt to protect states from a despotic central government.)
Yes, a Gun Ban is allowable in DC because it is not considered a state.
The 2nd Amendment of the constitution makes one thing clear: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (2nd amendment, U.S. constitution) This amendment clearly states that a militia is important, that is, a military. This is in references to states. The amendment differentiates the right of the people from the right of a militia. So the notion that DC is not a state and should not be afforded the same rights to individuals in other states is sufficient. The Amendments were crafted in order to assuage any concerns the states had in regard to the Federal gov't attempting to grab power at some future date. The 2nd Amendment limits Federal power while limiting NONE of the states' power.
While there is a ban on assault weapons, a homeowner can still possess a handgun. They just have to be registered with the government. The owner must renew that registration every three years. Additionally, I respect the court of appeals' recent decision that upheld the constitutionality of the law this October.