Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumDC v Heller
From the SC decision -
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Pp. 5456.
hack89
(39,171 posts)we are just asking that gun control be based on facts and not irrational fear. Not too much to ask, is it?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)It is not incumbent upon the citizenry to have to present any explanation for their free excercise of their civil liberties/rights.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Its called choice - a very progressive value.
Lets look at Constitution rights in general: what is wrong with the notion that if the government wants to restrict a Constitutional right they have the obligation be make their case beyond a reasonable doubt? And that they have to show that their solution will actually fix the problem? And that it is the least restrictive solution to the problem?
My rights are my rights - "because" is a perfectly acceptable answer to why I want to exercise my Constitutional rights. You want to restrict them then do your homework.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Should also be based on facts and not irrational fears.
Not because someone does not like "gun culture".
Not because someone feels guns "pollute society".
Not because someone does not like "people who tote guns".
Not because someone believes they "have a right to feel safe by not being around people who have guns."
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Should also be based on facts and not irrational fears.
Not because someone likes "gun culture".
Not because someone feels guns "create a polite society".
Not because someone likes "people who tote guns".
Not because someone believes they "have a right to feel safe by carrying a gun in public."
rrneck
(17,671 posts)write a law to regulate opinions?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)How would you regulate those you offered?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)(1) 49 of the 50 states have passed some form of Concealed Carry Law, most of them have occurred since Florida started in 1994.
(2) This is the Legislatures, aka the Representatives of the People passing these laws. Not the Courts or some unelected bureaucrats. The People have elected Representatives who pass these laws. That means the majority of The People voting want them. If you can't mobilize people to vote like you want that is YOUR fault.
(3) As many members have repeatedly posted, the rate of commission of crime by CCW is incredibly low.
(4) The predictions of "rivers of blood in the streets by CCW holders", "shootouts over parking places by CCW holders" and "bodies stacked up like cord wood by CCW holders", that opponents of CCW predicted have NOT come to pass.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)An argument over a parking spot at a convenience store ended with shots being fired in South Park on Thursday night, according to Beaumont police.
Officers were called to the Khwana Food Mart at 4025 Park St. around 6:10 p.m., where a 29-year-old man said he had been the target of a shooter. The man told police he parked his Cadillac at the store when the driver of a green Chevrolet Suburban became enraged that he had taken the spot.
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Argument-over-parking-space-leads-to-shooting-in-2432826.php#ixzz1kOs5XfFt
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Did not catch that part in the article.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)" 4) The predictions of "rivers of blood in the streets", "shootouts over parking places" and bodies stacked up like cord wood" that opponents of CCW predicted have NOT come to pass."
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)While there are times where a person with a carry permit uses his weapon irresponsibly, they are extremely rare.
In the story you linked to it the shooter is referred to as a suspect.
The 29-year-old told police he then circled the block, returning to the store's Nolan Street entrance to try to get a better description of the SUV and its driver. As he passed the store driving south on Park Street, he saw the other driver fire a gun in his direction at least twice, reports said.
After the shots were fired, the man drove away from the store and called police. The suspect is described as a black man about 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighing 200 pounds. He was last seen wearing a white shirt and dark jeans.
The 29-year-old told police a second person in the Suburban appeared to be a black man about 5 feet 8 inches tall and 165 to 170 pounds, seen wearing a red shirt, dark jeans and a red cap.
Read more: http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Argument-over-parking-space-leads-to-shooting-in-2432826.php#ixzz1kOuTEQ54
While it is faintly possible that the shooter did have a carry permit as he hasn't been apprehended, it is far more likely that he was a violent criminal or a person illegally carrying a firearm.
I hope that you are not insinuating that honest citizens who have acquired carry permits are the same as street thugs.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Do you have evidence stating they did?
And I edited my other post to make it clear I was speaking about CCW holders. Since the anti-CCW people made it clear they thought any with a CCW would be acting like a yahoo shooting everyone in sight. In other words the old familiar meme by Gun Prohibitionist that every gun owner is a just a criminal in waiting.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Willoughby, OH ٠ 09/29/09. Reported concealed carry permit-holder Nathaniel Summers
pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated menacing, discharging firearms in the city and
improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle. Summers reportedly fired nine shots into the
air during an argument in the parking lot of an apartment complex. Summers was sentenced to
60 days in jail and anger management counseling.
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)you'll have a valid refutation.
Here at DU, I've never heard anyone claim that. What we have stats to back up, however, is that ccw holders are convicted of crimes at rates far lower than the general public.
e.g.-
For 2009, it was 15x less likely for a CHL holder to be convicted of a crime (*any* crime) than the general public.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Holy shit dude, you win the debate.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)What do you want to bet, that like your link, the shooter had no concealed pistol license?
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)The Right to Keep and Bear Arms as circumscribed by the 2nd Amendment is a civil right of US citizens and is specifically enumerated in the Constitution as protected from infringement. Now as the court says in Heller, no right is unlimited - and the state has the ability to curtail one's rights under defined circumstances and after due process of law.
The 2nd Amendment jurisprudence which will follow the decisions in Heller as well as last summer's decision in McDonald v. Chicago is going to follow the precedents of 1st Amendment Free Speech protections. The ability of the states/counties/municipalities is going to be subject to either Intermediate or Strict Scrutiny standards.
Under an Intermediate Scrutiny Standard, the STATE (not the citizen) must show that the law or policy is addressed to a compelling governmental interest and that the law that compelling interest in a manner that is substantially related to that interest.
Under a Strict Scrutiny Standard, the STATE (again, not the citizen) must show that the law or policy is justified by a compelling governmental interest, the law/policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and the law/policy must ben the LEAST restrictive means for achieving that interest.
Neither the government nor you have met these criteria to justify the controls that you, SecularMotion, believe should be implemented.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)No, those are rights. You don't have to justify their free exercise, the government has to justify their infringement.
Fucking duh.
spin
(17,493 posts)If so why?
While those who have carry permits are not angels they have an outstanding record of carrying their firearms in a responsible manner. If any state that passed "shall issue" concealed carry had found that allowing honest people to carry firearms was a real problem, they would have repealed the law. This has never happened!
You have good reason to fear those who carry a firearm illegally and use it for criminal purposes. You have in reality no reason to fear those who are licensed to carry a concealed firearm. You have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning than shot by a citizen with a concealed weapons permit. Of course that assumes that you do not attack him/her with the intention of inflicting serious injury or to murder.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Others irrational fears about me, as a non-criminal, are irrelevent.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)First of all, you don't have to demonstrate a need to carry a concealed weapon. A desire is sufficient.
Secondly, even if people carry concealed weapons based on irrational fears, so what? People who carry concealed weapons are far less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than any other citizen you are going to meet while out in public.
So even if someone is carrying a concealed firearm out of fear of being attacked by Godzilla, it doesn't really matter - such people are extremely law abiding and very unlikely to commit a crime with their firearm.
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)Or is this simply a drive-by thread?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You need to finish setting up that straw man before you knock it down.
Implied straw men don't burn very well.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)They blather on hoping you won't notice.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you forgot the mirror.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Can't convince anyone you're right, so you're left with insults.
If it weren't so funny watching you flop around, I'd pity you.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Did you actually have something to say on topic, or are you just.. flopping again?
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)"keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"?
Is there anyone demanding it? Are there any bills in place?
If not, what is the point of your post?
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz
ileus
(15,396 posts)SteveW
(754 posts)And from the language, "...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
we can conclude that any restrictions would have to pass constitutional muster.
I rather suspect the Supremes will leave such matters of "...firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," etc., to the states.
And the states are now acting accordingly.