Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire DC Gun Ban overturned!!!

I referenced it on principle, since there isn't a Supreme Court case precisely on point. The principle derived is that conduct that offends local standards of decency, and which at the same time lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, is not protected by the First Amendment as against local ordinances.

We have ourselves another anarchist, it seems.

A: it doesn't meet the sexual standards of Miller.

B: i'm no anarchist. I believe govt has legitimate functions. Telling people how they wear their clothes, what kinds of foods to eat, what to drive, etc. are not part of thise legitimate functions at any level.

While saggy pants may look stupid, it seems a far stretch to classify them as offensive, unless they meet the statutory parameters for indecent exposure

We can derive from the ruling that local decency standards prevail with regard to conduct so long as it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Additionally, the absence of a ruling against said local ordinance that's precisely on point, combined with the current existence of the law, establishes a strong legal presumption that the law is not offensive to the First Amendment. This is particularly the case in light of the argument by derivation that I made in the paragraph above, and in light of the absence of language in the First Amendment appearing on its face to protect offensive conduct from regulation by local ordinance.

This sure has strayed from the OP. I for one, am happy the see the DC court make this decision. I would also like to see a national reciprocity law. I am not in favor of a national CC permit just a law that states if you can legally carry concealed in your home state you can carry in every state.

Agreed.

PS It wasn't me who took the thread a new direction. I was merely responding to gitem's false assertions. Which false assertions, by the way, I wouldn't have even seen apart from Derby Dude quoting him.

Not necessarily although the LEO (retainers) do work for the tyrants. By tyrants I mean those leaders in power who ignore court rulings they don't like and continue business as usual.

As usual you hit the nail on the head. It would create a lot of blood shed but when the blood shed stopped we would have a saner country left.

The original intent of the Bill of Rights up until the 1920's when SCOTUS discovered the doctrine of incorporation was to restrain the power of Congress not the States or local political units. Therefore, under original intent the cities can regulate saggy pants and firearms. Congress on the other hand cannot regulate firearms but could regulate saggy pants although someone surely would claim 1st Amendment rights to wear saggy pants.

The 7th circuit struck down Illinois' ban on CW but allowed them to enforce that unconstitutional law for another year+...
There are various actions currently before the courts to address that issue, but it surely happened...

As far as I'm concerned, every Illinois conviction solely for weapons carry in history should be overturned.
the truly bad guys have other convictions besides CW...

Actually not, since in order to regulate saggy pants, Congress would need to point to where said power was delegated to it in the Constitution. You see, the Federal Government only has those powers delegated to it by enumeration in the Constitution, while the states retained all the powers normally associated with a sovereign, i.e., almost unlimited. The ultimate check on this huge amount of power in the hands of the states, though, was 1) that the states' powers were closer to the people and could thus be more easily restrained by them through the ballot box, and 2) the states would have to compete with one another for population, thus they could only go so far in displeasing any large minority interest groups.

You maybe right but without a specific amendment restraining Congress, Congress could do it and might even pull it off.

But we're talking about original intent.

Congress could mandate veryone wear spandex so it would be harder for people to carry concealed weapons which would help police.

True.

"Order" is one thing - COMPLIANCE may be quite another.. Watch for the a-holes in DC to stonewall, obfuscate, delay, dally, (you name it) and NOTHING will change, probably for decades..

I wonder if the Supreme Court could hold those who are meant to comply in contempt of court, i.e., toss them in jail for failure to act.

Probably not. I would seem the first person to throw in jail for contempt of court would the president.

So far it appears that the Police chief has ordered the Rank and File to comply.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

Well, excellent..

But what's the deal re: "registered" handguns?? Why does anyone have to register a handgun? How is THAT legal? (and yes, I know, there are cities/places that somehow 'require' registration - although everyone should totally and completely ignore that BS crap)