 |
|
We find ourselves at this poignant moment – a gun rights showdown during an election year – thanks to a fellow named Richard Heller, who so far has successfully challenged the District of Columbia’s broad gun control regulations. Heller, a security guard, wants the right to take his firearm home with him after a long day at the office. DC currently bans the possession of firearms-as well as other restrictions upon gun possession – as part of an effort to curtail the District’s high gun violence rate.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that DC’s ban is an unconstitutional infringement upon an individual (not collective, militia-y) right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. So, for gun rights advocates, the Parade of Horribles unfolds this way: the Justices find a way uphold and thus strengthen DC’s ban, which prompts gun control advocates to push for similar ordinances and legislation across the nation. Pretty soon, the fear goes, every jurisdiction prohibits the possession of firearms in the home.Gun control advocates offer their own dire forecast. In their worst fears, the Supreme Court strikes down the DC ban using a legal standard that opens the door to subsequent challenges to gun control regulations all over the country. Pretty soon, there are no federal gun restrictions and those on the state level are legally dubious. Pretty soon, this fear goes, everyone is packing everywhere. This is the drama the Supreme Court gets-and deserves-for not addressing the merits of the Second Amendment since 1939.
No kidding. And opportunism will rule.
#58 Sea Lawyer
Touche. Good point.
#55, snoitpo, Check further. Those long guns have to be kept disassembled with the ammo elsewhere. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
Hand guns are good for self defense because they are more convenient to carry. Pick up a 3′ crowbar and carry it with you all day some time to get an idea how inconvenient a long gun can be.
A long gun is good for home defense only if the home has several hundred yards of clear space on all sides so the home owner can see people coming, but in any area without that view, a long gun is a foolish choice, especially if you have to assemble and load it /after/ seeing possible trouble coming, and the bad guys don’t have “bad guy” tatooed on their foreheads. You are not going to know until it’s too late to do anything.
I avoid areas that I expect to be dangerous, to the extent that I have not seen even a pushing match for about 40 years. However, I have had to pull a hand gun a few times in areas I thought were totally safe. I was lucky enough to be carrying when I needed the firearm. Pure luck.
Alaska has pretty much done away with state laws regarding carrying hand guns and the crime rate has not increased; a minor miracle considering the number of delinquents and other criminals brought into the Anchorage area by the parents of said scum, seeking a less crime ridden place (and lower taxes).
I am a member of the “Well Regulated Militia” we believe in high fiber and heavy caliber. Sh*tin’and Shootin’ from sea to shining sea.
By the way what does this word inalienable mean?
Remove the ban. Little will change as the criminals there already have guns.
Best case scenario is a small reduction in crime, but it certainly won’t increase. Most states have conceal carry laws and contrary to fearmongers, the world didn’t end the day those laws were enacted.
Rural areas have low crime rates because there is the explicit understanding that most people are armed and therefore the risks involved in crime are high.
Urban areas have higher crime rates because few of the citizens are armed.
It’s pretty clear Washington DC is violating the 2nd amendment.
It was interesting listening to the oral arguments. Based upon the justices comments, I would be shocked if Ginsburg or Breyer voted against the DC gun ban. Souter, Stevens, Scalia, and Alito seemed to lean towards an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, but were guarded. Kennedy came across as being pro gun ownership — he wasn’t very sympathetic towards the DC crowd (disdain may be too strong a word, but only barely). As for Roberts, he made it very clear that he disagreed with the SCOTUS Miller ruling against ownership of sawed-off shotguns.
I have only their word — no video — that Thomas was even present.
#63 – Actually, that’s why you should check out my Mossberg with its telescoping stock. Great 12 gauge shotgun, compact enough for home defense, and fitted nicely with a red dot laser and flashlight on pressure switches (grab the forestock, and lights come on).
#65 – You’re absolutely correct. Banning guns will only serve one purpose: to give people the false hope that “progress is made.” Same thing happened during Prohibition with alcohol (gee, that worked well for us).
The only deterrent a criminal really worries about is not jail time, it’s getting plugged. Ban law-abiding citizens from owning guns, and you only create one thing.
Victims.
What would you read into the following hypothetical statement?
“A well regulated volunteer Fire Department, being necessary to the safety of a local municipality, the right of the people to keep and bear ladders, shall not be infringed.”
Would this mean that only members of a volunteer fire department should be allowed to own ladders? Or does it mean that anyone should be able to own a ladder in order to help safeguard the lives of people threatened by a fire at a moments notice?
Imagine if your neighbor’s house is on fire and their kids are trapped upstairs in their bedrooms. Should you be forbidden from getting a ladder from your garage to rescue their kids from an upstairs window simply because you aren’t a registered member of the volunteer fire department?
Or should you be required to watch the kids die while waiting for the Municipal Fire Department to show up?
When you take out the offending items from the text of the Second Amendment, the ones that some people get so excited about, then the truth behind the Amendment’s purpose is blatantly obvious.
Guns are simply things. They are only made of metal and plastic. They are not evil. Let’s stop applying guilt to “things” instead of assigning guilt to the actions of criminals.
The oral argument was terrific. D.C. is going to lose, as it should. Here is the text: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf and here is the audio: rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm
If the Second Amendment really does allow any goofball to own any weapons he wants in any quantity, then it needs to be overturned.
@70 “The only deterrent a criminal really worries about is not jail time, it’s getting plugged.”
The criminal mind on worries about the near future.
And you are certainly right that a criminal has more fear of having a gun pulled on him than jail time.
Criminals know the average citizen isn’t bound by lofty ideals or red tape.
Hence the expression, “drag the body into the house and then call the police”.
So allowing criminals to carry hand guns is fine? Well, given the choice, I would much rather try to outrun a criminal with a baseball bat than one with a 9mm.
Considering that many times the number of people are killed or seriously injured every year by their own or a legal gun in the house compared to legal shootings of “criminal types”, why do we want guns around the house again?
Most jurisdictions that do not allow easy hand gun access have very low murder and crime rates. For example, Toronto Canada. In 2004 there was 1.9 murders for every 100,000 people. Compare that to gun happy American cities, Detroit, 35, Atlanta, 26, Dallas, 20, Kansas City, 20, Chicago, 15.5, Los Angeles, 13.4, and New York City, 7.0.
Note, NYC also has strict hand gun regulation laws. Why doesn’t Washington’s gun ban work? Because people can just drive over to Virginia and buy one.
Why all the argument about owning a hand gun in defense of your country? If you really want to be an effective part of the militia, get something with a little oomph, like a stinger missile or RPG and launcher. Every well equipped militiaman should also have a fully automatic rifle, several large magazines, and a bullet resistant vest.
That kind of weaponry won’t make your dick any bigger, but you’ll sure FEEL like it’s bigger.
#68–Mark==Nicely done. I was going to post something laudatory of Sea Lawyer but you took my sugar away.
I think the framers were thinking mostly about State Militia’s being able to withstand the Federal Government, but I see no way around your argument.
Now, when it comes to “original intent” arguments regarding the Muskets==I did not mean to limit the original thinking to just muskets, of course it would include all firearms at the time, AS IT WOULD INCLUDE just quills. Rather than defang the argument, restricting free speech to quills is really stupid. What that exercise “prooves” though is that arguing original intent is completely defective. Of course the constitutition is “a living document” and the rights and protections must be interpreted under the conditions at hand.
Now to the living constitutition which is what we have by logical, practical, and historical necessity==what would the framers think of individuals carrying accurate automatic hand weapons??
I think a good argument can be made that a handful of citizens running around with muskets was not injurious to the common good and that these weapons to be individually held became effective only when aggragated into a militia which is what they were interested in.
So, what was the original intent as applied to todays circumstances? Probably a free internet, but I’m not 100% convinced about the gun thing.
W
#70, “If the Second Amendment really does allow any goofball to own any weapons he wants in any quantity, then it needs to be overturned.”
You really haven’t been paying attention have you? The right to bear arms is not dependent on the existence of the Second Amendment. More than anything, the phrasing of that amendment has only served to create this debate that shouldn’t even be taking place. Our entire system of government is founded upon the idea of natural rights, and there are few more important than the right to possess the means to defend your life and your property.
Hell, that’s why governments are created in the first place; but creating such a government doesn’t mean you forfeit your own right as an individual.
No matter what happens here is irrelevant to how many guns the criminals have. When is the last time the criminals actually followed the law? All the gun ban does is take the ability for people that actually follow the law, imagine that, away. Criminals will get the weapons they want from the sources they always have. Look at it from the criminal point of view. Would you rather break into a house that you know there is no defensive ability, or one that might have? As a law abiding citizen you have 2 choices. An armed man breaks into your home. Do you call the police and hope that they can arrive before the man kills you, or do you give yourself a fighting chance?
I don’t buy that there is a natural right to own a gun.
#73, like the Army guy who wrote fiction for TNR about how the Iraq War has turned him into a monster, George Bush has turned your brain to mush. Let’s look through the standards you use.
If the media reports a story, no matter how flimsy the evidence, then the story is true unless you can prove otherwise.
Requiring businesses to check on employees isn’t making them agents of INS, it’s just following the laws required to own a business.
So we can expand that to barbers’ checking if you’ve paid your taxes. It has nothing to do with making them an arm of the IRS, they are just following the law required to own a barbershop.
Which brings us to your most recent standard.
‘So allowing criminals to carry hand guns is fine? ‘
This sounds like what the police state conservatives(and liberals) use to push
for their agenda, cameras, ID cards, etc.
I’d rather be targeted by criminals whose communications are monitored than not. Let’s have a law that calls for all speech to be monitored by the government.
#75–Sea Lawyer==we must agree with #77. If even a Neanderthal like Mike can see thru your natural rights position, someone who understands the “common good” and “public safety” arguments should not be so dense?
We can all dream of States and Individuals being more autonomous than we currently are, but the SCOTUS has the final word on what the constitutition and our freedoms actually mean in practice, and in practice, guns get regulated.
Just as they should be.
Mike, we have a natural right to defend our lives and property.
That implies a natural right to the means to do so.
At the moment, guns are the best means. 1000 years ago, it was spears, knives, clubs, and the bow and arrow. 1000 years from now, it may be Star Trek Phasors.
#73 – now you’re getting it. If you’re rich enough to afford it, you should be able to mount missile launchers on your Hummer (that has 2 engines opposing each other simply to lower the gas mileage).
“If the Second Amendment really does allow any goofball to own any weapons he wants in any quantity, then it needs to be overturned.”
Yes this is exactly what it means
There is a process to change it though.
I listened to the proceedings. I could be wrong but it didn’t sound good for the city…
#71 – The law depends on the state you’re in.
First, I’M NO LAWYER. Residents of North Carolina should consult a lawyer before taking my next words to heart…
NC has what’s known as the “Castle Doctrine.” This means, roughly, if someone is in the process of breaking into your home to commit a felony, you may shoot them through the wall, door, window, etc. Once they are inside your home, the rules change. You must then, in a nutshell, have to see a weapon before you may use deadly force (and yes, simply brandishing a firearm can be considered deadly force).
Moral of the story, know the laws of your state before you plug someone.
#72 – Why do they work in NY and not DC? It has nothing to do with its close proximity to VA. VT is right next to NY, and their laws are very open when it comes to firearms.
Just food for thought.
It’s interesting, (or horrific) according to the CDC, in 2005 the were ~12k gun homicides in the US. Almost 7k of those involve blacks. Blacks make up about 12% of the population. If “guns” were the source of the problem you’d see an even distribution.
Whatever is being pushed off on the black community should be the focus of attention.
#78, Lyin’MikeN,
If the media reports a story, no matter how flimsy the evidence, then the story is true unless you can prove otherwise.
The one thing I have constantly argued about on this blog is NOT to take something at face value. The sheeple, like you, repeatedly get your shorts in a knot because of a bad headline.
Requiring businesses to check on employees isn’t making them agents of INS, it’s just following the laws required to own a business.
Great !!! I have repeatedly argued this point. The business should verify that the person they are hiring is legally able to work here.
So we can expand that to barbers’ checking if you’ve paid your taxes. It has nothing to do with making them an arm of the IRS, they are just following the law required to own a barbershop.
You see, this is where you have really lost it. Tax records are confidential. There is no way for the barber to verify the accuracy anyway. Besides, your suggestion would require giving the barber police powers. If you intend to expand this to all businesses, you want them all to have police powers.
Which brings us to your most recent standard.
‘So allowing criminals to carry hand guns is fine? ‘
Say what??? I ask a question and you are suggesting this is my standard? Fucking retarded clueless imbecile.
This sounds like what the police state conservatives(and liberals) use to push for their agenda, cameras, ID cards, etc.
Geeze, have you been smoking that crap again? Or is your face gold from the paint in a bag?
I’d rather be targeted by criminals whose communications are monitored than not. Let’s have a law that calls for all speech to be monitored by the government.
Yes, that is YOUR standard. Regardless of what the Constitution says. Regardless of American’s freedoms from tyranny. Lyin’ Mike want to record everyone’s speech.
Get a life.
#75
Without the Second Amendment, even by the strictest of interpretation of the Constitution, it would imply that the States are free to restrict an individual’s right to own firearms. The Constitution, sans the Bill of Rights, does not directly clarify what qualifies as a “natural” right. With the Amendments, it would simply imply that the Federal government does not have the authority under the 10th Amendment to restrict gun ownership but that the States do. Remember that the Constitution serves two purposes: it limits what the Federal government may do, but it also restricts what laws the States may pass.
The core question is whether the Constitution protects individuals from the States abridging their ability to own handguns. My personal opinion is that it does. Frankly, I think they should eliminate most all gun control laws but mandate far more rigorous, dare I say, military-like, training for everyone and even more rigorous training for those that wish to own firearms.
#87, Thomas,
You make a strong argument.
My only contrary statement would be that if the gun is made in Connecticut and sold in Illinois then Interstate Commerce comes into play which is a Federal Jurisdiction. The only out would be to build guns in every State.