Comments on: Amicus briefs for D.C. available in guns case

By: Curtis West

Curtis West — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:36:32 +0000

Comment for Dan Passaro.

Gun control is not “rooted in racism (that’s how it began)”as you put it. Gun control was tried on our founding fathers by a country and oppressive government that they were escaping which was long before slavery started in the US.
But I do agree with what he says about the National Association of Always Complaining People.
Racism will never die as long as these types of publicity hounds exist.

By: Douglas Wade Beatty

Douglas Wade Beatty — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:48:48 +0000

I worked as a Special Police Officer in D.C. for Branch Security. Among my assignments were locations in National Capitol Public and Assisted Housing.

If any person really sincerely thinks that D.C.s’ gun ban is for the best I strongly urge such persons to duplicate my experience.

Then they should do as I did and become a registered Security Officer in Virginia and work in the high density areas immediately outside D.C.
From personal experience the Hybla Valley area of Route One is a good choice.

The truth will then set them free.

The support of NAACP for the petitioner appears to be evidence that the NAACP is invested in victimhood and not equality.

By: James N. Markels

James N. Markels — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:54:18 +0000

It is odd that the NAACP would assert that the D.C. gun ban is not “facially discriminatory” when the ban unquestionably affects more African-Americans than any other ethnicity.

By: Dan Volungus

Dan Volungus — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:02:24 +0000

These groups state that the second admement is a collective right for the state to have a militia. Does this mean that the indiviual rights in the Bill of Rights is a collective right, where the rights of people can be regulated or opressed by the states.

The 2nd admement does not give any state a collective right to form a milita. When the constitution was written, there was no formal military formed, either on the federal goverment or state level.

At that time, the militia was able body men whom got there personal firearm, and ammo. These men would be led, not necessarly by a military leader, but a leader whom these men would follow.
These men were not originally paid. They formed to protect there town, village, personal property, ect

By: Dan Passaro

Dan Passaro — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:10:59 +0000

Well I stand coerced! I should have read the entire thing after work, LOL. The idea is still built on a foundation of sand though. As far as all the gun violence they purport to resist; what about the current gun laws, why haven’t they worked? Some people just don’t [won't try to] get it I suppose.

By: Dale Ho

Dale Ho — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:49:37 +0000

LDF acknowledges in its brief that “[s]ome early firearm regulations were facially discriminatory or were enacted with racially discriminatory intent,” but notes that “[n]either is the case with respect to the District’s handgun ban. Furthermore, as a general principle, we dispute the contention that regulations on firearms do not serve the interests of many African-American communities, as discussed infra, pp. 25-33. To the extent that any particular regulation was or were to be enacted with racially discriminatory intent, that regulation would of course be subject to challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See, infra, pp. 30-32.”

See Amicus Br. at 18-19 n.19

By: Dan Passaro

Dan Passaro — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:50:06 +0000

I wonder how the NAACP would feel if they understood that gun control is rooted in racism (that’s how it began).