Federal judge goes after gun owners

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The gun grabbers in Washington are celebrating a federal ruling handed down Friday that upheld the tangle of rules that effectively prohibit District residents from owning firearms for the purpose of home defense.
While the Supreme Court in its landmark 2008 Heller decision recognized the individual's right to own a gun, it also conceded that reasonable regulations on gun ownership might be acceptable. U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina took this concession as a green light to approve D.C. rules designed to create a gun ownership ban in everything but name. The District outlawed semiautomatic pistols, instantly removing the vast majority of handguns sold in the United States from the reach of law-abiding residents. Guns that can hold more than 10 bullets are also prohibited. What few remain must be stored unloaded, disabled and unusable for any reasonable form of self-defense. Judge Urbina ruled that all of these onerous restrictions were justified by "public safety concerns."
The decision will almost certainly be appealed, but that, too, may place gun ownership rights in further jeopardy as the case record appears flawed in one critical respect.
Stephen P. Halbrook, the attorney who filed this suit against the District, correctly argued that gun ownership for the purpose of self-defense is a fundamental right. Such rights compel the courts to apply a "strict scrutiny" to restrictive laws to ensure that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. Gun control advocates insist that public safety is just such an interest, but Mr. Halbrook declined to cite the direct empirical evidence needed to establish a record for higher courts on whether gun control reduces crime. Under strict scrutiny, such laws must be struck down unless the District can show that gun control is essential to reducing crime rates.
Mr. Halbrook's reluctance to cite the empirical evidence explicitly linking guns and crime is unfortunate because gun control laws have demonstrably failed to yield any of the benefits promised. Take the regulations on which Judge Urbina ruled. The evidence shows that rules increasing the cost and burdens of handgun ownership make crime more likely. Books such as "The Bias Against Guns" and "More Guns, Less Crime" show that gunlocks, assault-weapon bans and registration rules do not lower crime rates and might instead increase them.
This result is not surprising. Requiring homeowners to keep guns locked and unloaded prevents the law-abiding from having accessible self-defense measures. This merely emboldens criminals to go after people in their homes with an increased chance of success.
Criminologists and other researchers have found no evidence in the vast academic literature that assault-weapon bans and magazine limitations at either the state or federal level have had any effect on reducing violent crime. Despite portrayals on TV crime shows, gun registration in reality fails to help solve crimes. In theory, if a registered gun were left at the scene, it could be traced back to its owner. However, crime guns are rarely left at the scene. When they are, they are not registered to the criminals who committed the crime.
Failing to take advantage of this powerful evidentiary record weakens the gun rights case in the event that a higher court uses a "balancing test" to weigh the arguments. The situation is even more precarious as the Obama administration continues to pack the appellate courts with anti-gun judges who think like Judge Urbina, a Clinton appointee. In many ways, the upcoming Senate elections could be just as important to preserving the Second Amendment as they will be about health care.

 

Wow, just wow... I don't know what to say about these people...

 

They are scared and will not protect themselves due to a lack of testicular fortitude, so therefore YOU should not have that right. It's commonly called insecurity, and when weak people feel insecure, they want YOU to feel like they do.

 

Testicular fortitude. Hmmmm lets see, I bet you won't find a ball in the bunch. They all act like scared old women.

 

The most important line in that article is this: "Mr. Halbrook's reluctance to cite the empirical evidence explicitly linking guns and crime is unfortunate because gun control laws have demonstrably failed to yield any of the benefits promised."

Liberals and limpwristed butt-pirates deal with emotions, not facts. Facts show that More Guns Equates To Less Crime.

 

No they think it's ok for them. But not for us!!! This is from Aug 09.


74-year-old N.C. state senator shoots, wounds intruder at his home | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outsideTabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.

The victim, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties.

The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.

"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."

Soles, a top-ranking Democrat and the longest-serving member of the legislature, already was the subject of an SBI investigation over sexual misconduct allegations with former male clients. (FHW - Now, that sounds more like a liberal to me).

The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do As I Say And Not As I Do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.

It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine. But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.

 

This is f*cking crazy. Hello Hell, how are you? I'm America in a handbasket, nice to make your acquantance! What's that? A constitution; checks and blances? We don't need any of that

 

what happened to our right to bear arms???

 

I will always carry the right to bear arms no matter what this Fuc#ed up government says! There is to many of us out their for them to just say no more guns I will always bear arms because I will always have my rights they were here from the beginning and they will be here until Obama turns this country into a communist country.

 

while there's very few people I'd wish violence on in this world, (terrorist, child molesters, and the like) I'd truly love to see what these people would do in the face of violence. The reason we carry is to protect not only ourselves, but also our loved ones and the public at large. I accepted that responsability when I took the oath of enlistment and I will carry it to the day I meet my Maker. The Sheep dont see the wolf, thats what sheepdogs are for.
Quotes from Magpuls website: "I'm sorry, my hippie happiness is a bit jaded by the scars."

"We all dream of a world of sunshine, peace and happiness. The problem is, half of us think its a great place to live, the other half think its a great place to plunder."

 

WTF

 

scare tactics. the gov will never get our guns. i dont care how hard they try they will never get our guns. they may controle how we get them, if or if not we register them, banning certain bullet types, or limiting the amount of ammo we can buy, but they will NEVER take our guns away.

 

The dude's been in office for over 40 years. Apparently the people of North Carolina like that kind of treatment.

 

I believe that Senator was from NC, where I happen to live. I don't live in his district though, but I can tell you that all of these Democrat congressman and such are so hypocritical. They will defend themselves with a gun, when they vote for gun restrictions. They will evade taxes, but they wish to tax the life out of wealthy citizens. They don't want the health care plan they are forcing on us. And the list goes on and on....

 

Oops, corrected, thanks