Gay Republic Daily

Archives etc - DC Gun Ban Overturned on Gay-Protection Argument

Kyleovision - Mar 12, 2007 - 10:46 AM
Post subject: DC Gun Ban Overturned on Gay-Protection Argument
CBS 2:

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's longstanding handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.

The rest of the story:

Tom G. Palmer was one of six plaintiffs who won a 2 to 1 ruling on Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when it disagreed with a U.S. District judge that the federal Second Amendment protected no individual rights.

Palmer told the court that as "a gay man" he'd "been assaulted on account of his sexual orientation and successfully warded off the assault with a handgun."

The Usual Suspects (our 'allies' on the Left) are flipping out; the Righties are, unsurprisingly, not giving any credit to the gay guy.
berto - Mar 12, 2007 - 11:50 AM
Post subject:
VERY interesting. Thanks, KT. I can't wait to see what sort of reaction this is going to get "elsewhere"...
berto - Mar 14, 2007 - 06:15 PM
Post subject:
It's the oddest thing... that thread has had 25 views, yet no comments -- not a one -- even from the most rabid anti-gun nuts there, like LCG or Unionist.

Y'think maybe that could have sumpin' ta do with The Queer Factor? Mr. Green
Kyleovision - Mar 14, 2007 - 06:27 PM
Post subject:
Maybe you should enquire about it?
berto - Mar 14, 2007 - 06:44 PM
Post subject:
Actually, I'm not anxious to get yet another "gun-fight" started at EM -- I find those threads boring as hell, and neither side convinces the other, anyway.

I just thought the *lack* of responses was sort of amusing. To paraphrase the Milk Marketing Board's tee vee ads: "Behold! The power of 'Mos!" lol Very Happy
Feral - Mar 14, 2007 - 08:59 PM
Post subject:
'berto wrote:
Y'think maybe that could have sumpin' ta do with The Queer Factor?

Short answer: oh, yes.

A longer version would have to include the observation that oft-times members of a message board will read a post and either agree with it completely or note it as a piece of information but have nothing of any substance to add to it so they add nothing. There's also the observation that a noticeable proportion of the membership of that board has interests which lie in completely different sections -- they do not read the threads in that particular forum and so certainly do not comment on them. Now, why don't their interests extend to "TLGBQI & ELEMENOPY Issues"? I wouldn't presume to guess, nor would I pretend to care. When a TAT page can be set up to exclude entire sections according to a personal profile, one cannot read anything into the number of views a particular topic gets. I know from other boards that the number of topic views (above a certain level) has everything to do with Google hits on particular words and phrases and nothing at all to do with the membership of the board.

Gun control is one of those cute fault-lines in the traditional gay alliance with the Left (in varying flavors). There's nothing 'gay' about gun control. The Right tends to oppose it with a vengeance, the Left tends to support it with a venom.

Will having a gun ward off bashings? Anecdotally it has been the case more than a few times. Should the citizens of a civilized place leave the armed defense of the populace to the police? Is that where I live... a "civilized place"? Is that where you live? When there are no police to defend you, or no police willing to defend you, the traditional arguments are less persuasive. That is a gay issue. Whether or not we live in a civilized place is very much a gay issue.
berto - Apr 20, 2007 - 03:27 PM
Post subject:
so much for that...

(Washington)The people of the District of Columbia moved a step closer Thursday to gaining voting rights they have been denied for more than 200 years.

But the legislation passed by the House on a 241-177 vote faced a veto threat from the White House, which said it was unconstitutional.

The bill would permanently increase full House membership to 437, giving the largely Democratic half-million residents of the district a seat and adding a temporary at-large seat for Republican-leaning Utah. The House has consisted of 435 seats since 1960.

The House still needed to approve an accompanying tax bill before the legislation could be sent to the Senate, where its fate was uncertain. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., echoing the position of the Bush administration, said it was unconstitutional and he would oppose it.

"This legislation corrects a serious flaw in our democracy," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "We will not rest until full voting representation in the House is granted to the District of Columbia."

Democrats had to pull a nearly identical bill from the floor a month ago after Republicans surprised them by proposing language, with a good chance of passing, that would have lifted the district's ban on

semiautomatic weapons and other tough gun restrictions. This time, over strong protests from Republicans, Democrats came prepared with a floor procedure blocking a gun vote.

More @ link...
berto - Apr 23, 2007 - 04:35 AM
Post subject:
Utah: queer firearms group gets gun ban lifted

A planned gay and lesbian Queer Prom on April 21 was the unlikely thread that unraveled a little known weapons ban at the Salt Palace Convention Center. Venue staffers agreed to host the Utah Pride Center Inc. event but told event planners that an unwritten weapons-ban policy would be imposed. Planners promoted the event as having a 'zero tolerance policy for ... weapons' and said that venue policies 'allow police officers only to carry concealed weapons.'

Several Second Amendment groups including the gay and lesbian Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah (SSSU) researched the matter and lobbied county-government leaders to obey state laws by reversing the policy. SSSU owner David Nelson told the event planners and venue staffers that state laws prohibited the policy and its enforcement at public-government properties.


"Venue General Manager Allyson Jackson told me on April 13 that the policy did, in fact, exist, but not as a written contractual statement which she could cite verbatim or by number," Nelson said. "She said that venue law-enforcement officers could detain and question any visitor, and confiscate any weapon which the visitor possessed. She emphasized that this was the venue 'way of operating.'"

Chief Deputy District Attorney Dahnelle Burton-Lee disagreed on April 17 and reversed the venue policy in a published legal opinion.

"Salt Lake County does not have a regulation or policy that regulates firearms or weapons on its public properties beyond the scope of the authority granted by the Utah Legislature," Burton-Lee said. "The county is very cognizant of the Utah Legislature's retention of firearm regulatory authority and the limitations on local governments' ability to inhibit or restrict the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property."


A similar weapons ban was promoted in 2005 by Utah Pride festival planners who dropped the policy after Second Amendment groups including SSSU lobbied them and Salt Lake City-government leaders that the ban was unenforceable. Since then, only illegal weapons are banned.

Feral - Apr 23, 2007 - 11:19 AM
Post subject:
unwritten ... policy would be imposed

Unwritten policies that are imposed and changed on a whim are evil... everywhere.
All times are GMT
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2006 The PNphpBB Group