NY mayor urges Obama guns crackdown

[Joanne98]

Source: AFP

NEW YORK — New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg joined gun violence victims Monday calling on President Barack Obama to urge tighter controls on firearms during his State of the Union address.

The mayor, a prominent voice in the national debate over guns, said Obama's speech on Tuesday is a chance to act in the aftermath of this month's wounding of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killing of six others in Arizona.

"We believe it is an opportunity for our president to make a strong pledge to fix our gun laws and shore up our background check system," Bloomberg said.

The mayor, flanked by gun violence victims and the son of slain black civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, said "loophole-free" checks to prevent criminals and mentally unstable people from purchasing guns were essential.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iHxI9HPiHIZ9Vdr-VlwnZCR-7e8A?docId=CNG.ae92b0aa2b694ca3182261c1f11bfc1a.1c1

---

Sounds like a set-up

[cowcommander]

1. That's up to Congress, not the president

[OrangeGrapes]

2. Is it just me...?

Or does it seem like the people Bloomberg joined, were victims of 'gun violence' that was likely created by *criminals*? They certainly were not victims of upstanding, law-abiding citizens. Only law-abiding citizens will be affected by gun control; criminals won't be affected as much, if at all.

[Bobbysox22]

3. Exactly.

When they disarm the cops and the military, then there will be a case for gun control.

[sharesunited]

7. That delusion still floating around? Somebody's going to war with the government?

Been there, done that.

It was called the Civil War.

Never again.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. You still floating around here with your delusion that guns are the problem?

[sharesunited]

38. Likewise that they are the solution, or that the harm they cause is somehow outweighed by the good.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. Given that the vast and overwhelming majority do no harm or are used for good

you must have a very lopsided scale.

The one unknowable statistic is how many times the display or other clear communication to a perp that if they proceed they will be shot.

Personal firearms have saved my life...tends to make you think they are a good thing

[sharesunited]

46. I will go look for your story among the ruins of other people's lives.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. And you will look in vain

I have had my life saved through the use of personal handguns in the home. I teach the use of personal firearms so others can save themselves and their loved ones. For those reasons and others I will stand resolute against those foisting off as "reasonable" the racist and classist restrictions on the best means of self defense.

[sharesunited]

48. You are confessing your own individual justification for arms in multitudinous hands.

Meanwhile, I am doing battle with some homespun statistician who wants me to accept a tears in the ocean justification for guns and ammo.

Any boys (girls?) who want to weigh in on this pile up?

Give me the scenarios you claim justify guns in your wicked or righteous hands.

Hint: I'm guessing everybody's hands are righteous.

Accept my bias against you. I view you as reserving unto yourself the disposition of other people's rights.

And I find it hard to accept that you will pursue the injustice of killing me after I am dead at your hands.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. I am declaring myself in support of civil rights for all

It has nothing to do with confession, wickedness or righteousness, though I find your use of such heavy religious terms telling.

Shooting someone in legitimate self defense is no injustice.

Your biases are clear. Your support racist and classist laws against the civil rights of others.

[primavera]

50. I always wonder...

... how does one know that guns saved one's life? Such a statement requires that, were it not for the presence of the gun, the person making the claim would be dead. Yet, because there was a gun, how does one know what would have happened if the gun wasn't present? For instance, I'm out walking around a dangerous part of town late at night, someone I perceive to be threatening approaches, I point a gun at him and he goes away. Phew! Guns saved my life! Yet, what if the guy was just another pedestrian who was approaching me to ask for directions? Whoever he was, he went away when I pointed my gun at him, so he's not around to challenge my perception of him as a ruthless killer who surely would have gutted me like a fish had I not had my trusty six shooter. Perhaps the guy intended to mug me and, were it not for the gun, I would assuredly have lost my wallet, but my life was never seriously in danger. Maybe someone breaks into my home and seeks to steal from me. I shoot him and it turns out that he was unarmed. Do I still get to claim that my gun saved my life? After all, it's conceivably possible that he could have killed me with a toothpick or a bit of dental floss or any of those other household items that gun advocates love to claim are just as dangerous as guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. That is the why it is an impossible stat to quantify

Gun sites have stories where being armed saved the person's life. Anti gun places run counter pieces about accidents and household murders. At least with those we have some semblance of verifiable numbers. Where a display has been all that was done, it is impossible to quantify for some of the reasons you cite.

Some thoughts:

- No one pulls a gun a waves it to scare someone off in public. They may reach in their jacket or purse quite obviously. I know a guy who moves his left shoulder in a manner that it is clear he is check that his pistol is there. That is about as obvious as it gets in public. Taking it from its holster is brandishing and gets you arrested unless there was a clear and present need like being shot at.

- Breaking and Entering/Home invasion is almost always a justified shoot from a criminal perspective, even in the repressive places like WashDC, NYC, and Chicago. Recent case where a drunk teacher entered the wrong house was cleared criminally, and the widow just dropped the civil suit. (http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content/top_stories/530322/widow-of-albany-school-teacher-drops-lawsuit-against-homeowner/)

- Shooting another person is a serious thing. Not everyone can do it and not everyone who has done it deals with it well. Some of my students decide that they could not do it and did not purchase a weapon. I explore that issue in my classes and I respect their decision. I have had a few go through traumatic events and change their minds too. Being mugged or bashed will do that to a person.

So I don't think there will ever be a way to get any reasonable statistic on "display" events. It is very situational and rarely reported. I know it works...sometimes. There are also cases where it was the worst thing to do. If the danger is close and real, you don't warn, you shoot at the center of mass. If its not close, real or not, you keep it concealed. If you are home and someone if forcing their way in you call 911, turn on the outside lights and wait. If they come after you aim for the center of mass. If they run off, it was a good night for everyone.

My take...

[primavera]

63. So true, yet it's at the heart of the debate

Gun proponents perceive that their very lives are being saved by guns; gun control advocates perceive that far more innocents are being killed by guns than are being saved by them. Which one's right? How can we possibly know when so much of what goes into assessments of the need for guns in a perceived life-threatening situation is so incredibly subjective? Yet this is such a pivotal point: if millions of people's lives are in fact being saved by guns, then the loss of 40,000 Americans each year to guns is the lesser price to pay. Conversely, if the majority of people who believe that guns saved their lives are mistaken and their lives would have been safe even without guns, then those 40,000 Americans are dying every year essentially for no reason. Unhappily, the answer to that question appears to be unknowable.

For that reason, all I can think of to do is to look to other countries and see what their experience has been. Most of the developed world imposes greater constraints upon gun ownership - if they allow private gun ownership at all - and yet they do not seem to be awash in blood with heavily armed criminals mowing down unarmed civilians as gun advocates forecast would happen if you restricted gun ownership here. Yet even the relative success of gun control in other developed nations isn't an infallible yardstick, as those countries differ so substantially in cultural and socioeconomic development from the wild west, every man for himself, cowboy culture that prevails here. Maybe gun control would not be as effective here as it has been in other parts of the world. I just dunno, it's a toughie, but while we debate, people keep dying. It is to weep.

[SOS]

78. Problem or solution?

Not really relevant to New York City.
NYC passed the Sullivan Law in 1911.
No handguns without permit. Period.

Bloomberg is trying to stop the black market trade between Virginia and NYC.
Gun runners buy handguns in VA and sell them illegally in NYC.

Bloomberg's priority is to stop this illegal trade.
Surely you are not in favor of black market gun running?

[PavePusher]

82. All he has to do is revert back to the Second Amendment.

No permit required for a Civil Right.

Seems to work for some other states.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Like another gun law or two would have saved MLK.

This is just typical Bloomberg, creating a spectacle to push his need to control things.

I hope Obama has the sense to ignore the issue.

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

18. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been for gun control laws --

Let's trust that Obama will have the sense to give leadership to

ending this gun craze in America -- pushed by the GOP/NRA and gun lobby

and weapons manufacturers for the benefit of the violent rightwing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. There are those who claim he would oppose them as racist and classist

Then again, its easy to quote the dead

[closeupready]

13. That's a good point. I've never seen Bloomberg in favor of stripping law enforcement officers of

their own guns. If guns are bad, why not? Certainly, innocent civilians have been victimized by some amongst LEO's.

[defendandprotect]

24. Because the idea would be to do that as a first step ... ???

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

17. Gun owners now want gun control laws -- and loopholes closed ...

they are also the potential "victims" --

How would it harm "law-abiding citizens who own guns" to effect gun control laws?

And not until we have unified laws across the states can we control "criminals"

getting guns --

[TheWraith]

19. So what new laws would you establish to prevent criminals from getting guns?

Bearing in mind that it's already illegal for someone to buy a gun if they've committed a felony; a violent misdemeanor; are a substance abuser; are mentally ill; are purchasing for someone who is ineligible; are underage; are not a US citizen; if they have restraining orders against them; etcetera.

And no, your premise is incorrect: most Americans, including a large majority of gun owners, want laws either kept the same or liberalized.

[defendandprotect]

21. Then how did Laughner get a gun? Seems to have been a big LOOPHOLE there ...!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4708494&mesg_id=4708711

[slackmaster]

25. Here's the law. Please point out the "loophole."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));

(6) who <2> has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

What part do you believe has a "loophole" that allowed Jared Loughner to pass the background check?

For extra credit, please explain how you would close that "loophole" without jeopardizing peoples' civil rights.

[TheWraith]

29. Specify exactly what new laws you would support, please. In detail.

If you can't lay out specific, legally viable remedies without resorting to vague statements and allegations of "loopholes," then you're reacting more out of an emotional desire to do something than a rational belief there's something to be done.

[primavera]

45. We could try what the developed world does...

... at least, those countries that permit private ownership of guns at all, which is, instead of assigning the state the logical impossibility of proving the negative that someone is not competent to safely own and operate a firearm, we could require people who wish to obtain a gun to prove the affirmative that they are competent.

[TheWraith]

74. Would you like to apply that standard to other rights?

Please provide proof that you have an affirmative need to buy a bottle of wine, as well as character references to show that you're not an alcoholic. Also, please show proof that you have a good reason for wanting to have an abortion.

I don't think you'd stand for that.

Also, please note that after England banned firearms, their murder rate... did nothing. It stayed the same. Compare to Switzerland, where each 11th person has a fully automatic machine gun, issued by the Swiss military. No, I'm not joking.

[primavera]

76. We do every day of the week

If I wish to buy a bottle of wine, I have to show ID to prove that I am over 21 years of age. If I wish to operate a motor vehicle, I have to prove that my eyesight is adequate, that I do not suffer from health conditions that would impair my ability to safely operate a vehicle on the public roads, and that I have a thorough knowledge of the rules of the road. If I wish to drive a motorcycle, in most states at least nowadays, I have to go a step further and take a class in motorcycle safety. If I wish to practice medicine, I have to spend many years in school, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition, and pass countless exams and certification processes in order to demonstrate that I am qualified to do so safely. Even if all I want to do is fix an air conditioner, I still am required to take classes and learn how to do so, pass examinations proving my competence, and obtain insurance to cover any mistakes I may make. Hell, all I want to do is take a bus downtown, I still have to pay my fare. Nothing in life is free, except - at least according to gun advocates - guns.

As for the Swiss example you cite, every Swiss citizen issued a gun is required to spend a full year of their lives in military service, where they are given extensive training on the safe and responsible usage of firearms. They are required to return periodically for reservist training, where they receive still more training on the proper use of firearms. If you would care to advance the Swiss model for application to the US, I would be delighted. Let every American who wishes to own and operate a gun undergo the same rigorous training that the Swiss undergo in order to receive their guns, and I will be well pleased. They are issued arms because the Swiss have universal conscription and everyone is considered to be part of a militia. They differ from us in this respect in that, unlike us, they understand the term "well-regulated militia" to actually mean something, whereas in this country, five right-wing wackos on the Supreme Court decided that "well-regulated militia" was just a typo that could safely be ignored. Once again, our belief in this country is that guns are the only free lunch in life.

[pipoman]

90. Do you understand the difference between rights

and privileges? You talk about wine which is protected, you have to show ID. Unless you buy it from your neighbor who won't ask to see it. Same for guns which is also protected civil liberty. All of the rest of your examples are privileges which you have no enumerated right to.

How about we charge people to vote....ever hear of aa poll tax? Maybe you should have to pay to express your opinion? A license to practice your religion? Being a liberal is about advocating liberal interpretation of civil rights/liberties...maybe you want to pick and choose...most don't.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. The problem was not with the firearms laws. There was no loophole

It was the unwillingness to report his mental health issues

[Bragi]

36. I'm more concerned about ordinary people thinking they need guns

I tend to agree that criminals will always find ways to get guns, but we also know what happens next: they usually end up using their guns to threaten or shoot other criminals. It's what they do.

No, my concern is more with the ordinary person who thinks they want/need a gun for self protection. They worry me because they are the innocents who are far more likely going to shoot themselves, a family member, a neighbor, a coworker, a stranger, or me.

Really, who are these people afraid of? Is there someone specific they know who wants to harm or kill them? If so, have they taken this up with their local law enforcement people?

If, however, the fear that drives them to want a gun for self-protection is a generalized fear that some unknown person may try to harm or shoot them with a gun, well if that's what drives them to guns, then I have a suggestion: ordinary people should not feel the need for, or have, guns for self protection.

Hunting, fine; target shooting, no problem; protection, nope, that's the job of police.

[michreject]

40. It's not the polices job to protect me

It's my job to protect me. The police are to clean up when I'm through.

[Bragi]

52. In a functioning society, that IS their job

You know: "To serve and protect".

[michreject]

56. Thanks for the morning laugh

Nice way to start the day.

:)

[Bragi]

58. I'm sorry about your fear and timidity

I hope you realize someday that your neighbors and others are not out to kill you, and that like most people, you have no need whatsoever for a lethal weapon to protect you from them. You might consider getting help to overcome your unreasonable fear.

[michreject]

67. I have no fearI

I carry a gun every day.

[PavePusher]

83. Please present your plan to ensure that.

We'll wait.

But not for the Police.

[X_Digger]

41. Police have no duty to protect you.

See:
Riss v City of New York
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

Here are some selected quotes from those cases..

"The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular."

"the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

"Furthermore, they ruled that the DSS could not be found liable, as a matter of constitutional law, for failure to protect Joshua DeShaney from a private actor."

"enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement"

[Bragi]

53. Those are civil cases

The job of police is: "To serve and Protect". If someone specific is threatening you, you can get a court restraining order, and police can and will enforce it to the best of their abilities.

If your police force is unable to enforce it because they are corrupt or underfunded, then why not deal with that like a responsible citizen in a democratic country, instead of dealing with it by arming up and pretending to be a cop.

[michreject]

57. You're on a roll this morning

There are hundreds of people killed each year that have a restraining order against their killer.

[Bragi]

61. Most are women with deranged gun-toting ex'es

I think I have a solution to that, which, surprisingly, doesn't involve arming the targeted women with high-powered weapons, or giving high-powered killing devices to all their wannabee-cop neighbors, as is advocated by scared and timid gun zealots.

Rather, my solution would involve stepped-up enforcement of such orders by a) transferring resources from the wasteful war on drugs and the brutal prison system to civil authorities who can monitor and enforce such orders, and b) reducing the availability of guns generally so that psycho ex-partners don't get guns so easily.

[lepus]

66. Strangely enough

Getting rid of the wasteful war on drugs would likely reduce gun deaths just like getting rid of prohibition did. Quite like the only sensible thing you have said in this thread.

[michreject]

69. I see where your priorties are

You would divert money used to fight something illegal, drugs and use it to fight something that is legally protected, guns.

Yep! You make a whole lotta sense........not.

I'll keep my guns, thank you very much.

[X_Digger]

64. No, those are cases where the cops failed to show, and people tried to sue

The courts have ruled, again and again, that unless you are in police custody, they have no legal duty to protect you.

Let me give you a longer excerpt from Warren v. DC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas’ second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas’ screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren’s call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a “Code 2″ assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as “Code 1.” Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. (This suggests that when they heard that there had been a burglary, the police must have felt that they had a promising lead on a culprit.)

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas’ continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as “investigate the trouble;” it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent’s apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
...
The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

It doesn't matter what cute slogan they put on the car. Police cannot be held legally responsible for your protection.

[X_Digger]

65. Oh, and they're not actually liable for not enforcing a restraining order, either.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

[primavera]

68. True, but we're talking policy here

The cases you cite observe that the state's duty to protect is vis a vis the general public, not vis a vis any one specific individual. Which means that the state does have a duty vis a vis the general public to pass and enforce laws that serve the best interests of the population overall, even if a minority number of individuals are adversely affected. That's what policy is: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Hypothetically, if it could be definitely proven that strict gun control legislation would save the lives of 40,000 Americans a year, at the cost of 1,000 victims of crime dying who might otherwise have been saved if they had owned guns, it would still be good policy. Absolutely, it would be tough to explain that to one of the thousand victims, but it would be even tougher to explain a failure to adopt such a policy to the 39,000 people whose lives would have been saved, no? Even if you were one of the thousand, would you be prepared to stand up and say that, as a matter of policy, your life was more valuable than the lives of 39 other people combined and so policy should be altered to accommodate your individual need?

So the fact that police don't have a duty to protect individuals isn't really material here; they do have a duty to protect the public. No policy is perfect; there will always be those who benefit from a policy and those who do not, that's just life. The real question we need to be addressing is not whether a policy serves an individual, but whether a policy produces more good than harm, or vice versa.

[X_Digger]

70. To an extent, I agree..

When we're not talking about a constitutionally protected fundamental right, that kind of logic works. That is the foundation of the test that the courts call 'rational basis'.

However, the level of scrutiny attached to the right protected by the second amendment is likely to be 'strict scrutiny' which rests on three legs-

--must be justified by a compelling governmental interest

--must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest

--must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

Any restriction must meet these criteria. In Heller the court listed some presumptively legal restrictions- like denying access to firearms to felons or the mentally ill.

Other restrictions will have to bubble up through the courts to test their constitutionality.

[primavera]

80. Lol! Clearly a fellow con law survivor!

Trust me, I will have that stupid rational basis test etched in my memory until the day I die, we went over it so many times!

The logic works for me because I don't think that the recent decision on Heller by the five right-wing wackos who presently hold the majority in the Supreme Court was the correct decision. SCOTUS makes it the law of the land, but, as we all know, SCOTUS has made a lot of colossally bad decisions over the years, and few Courts in our history have made as many foul and rancid decisions as this right-wing Court has. But that's an entirely different discussion for another day.

[X_Digger]

81. As far as I know..

.. no right has ever been 'unincorporated'. (de-incorporated?)

With popular opinion being what it is, I imagine if the court did re-interpret the second, you'd see state laws and then a federal one changing it. (Much like VT is doing re Citizen's United.)

I'm sure there'll be a ton of lawsuits bubbling up defining the limits.

Hell, it took 25 years for all portions of the first amendment to be fully incorporated.

[TheWraith]

42. No, a civilian with a gun is NOT more likely to shoot themselves or an innocent.

That's simply a myth, based on bad research that's been debunked dozens of times. In fact, people who carry weapons for self defense are LESS likely to commit a wrongful shooting than the police are.

[Bragi]

54. "Debunked" by bad NRA research? /nt

[TheWraith]

73. Debunked by people who understand science.

The researcher included firearms brought into a house by criminal assailants under the category of "guns in the home."

[guitar man]

77. I guess it's different in Canada then

Do the police in Canada have a legal onligation to protect individuals? Down here in the US, they don't.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Actually we want the existing ones enforced and things like reporting

mental health and drug issues tightened up

[michreject]

39. Who told you this?

One of the 150 people at the million mom march?

I've never heard any gun owner say that. I travel all over the US to shoot.

[primavera]

43. What's a "criminal"?

Right up to the time they shot somebody, they were ordinary, "upstanding, law-abiding" citizens...

[X_Digger]

4. Rules are for thee, not me, eh, Mike?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/nyregion/26bermuda.html?_r=2&hp

The mayor also takes along a police detail when he travels, flying two officers on his private plane and paying as much as $400 a night to put them up at a hotel near his house; the city pays their wages while they are there, as it does whether Mr. Bloomberg is New York or not. Guns are largely forbidden in Bermuda — even most police officers do not use them — but the mayor’s guards have special permission to carry weapons. A spokesman for the Police Department declined to comment.

[Bragi]

6. Get ready for comments from the DU NRA group /nt

[defendandprotect]

23. Comments from the gun supporters are fine ...

comments and real debate --

unfortunately, they see themselves as the underdog --

feel truly threatened by any concept of gun control in America --

and it's sometimes difficult to get past their absolute belief in the NRA positions.

Chris Matthews is asking pretty much every day: "What is this obsession with guns?"

We all know it is impacting society in very negative ways -- it's simply a question

of how long we are going to let this go on.

Similar to all our other problems which embrace harmful positions as solutions --

from wars to no MEDICARE FOR ALL --

from capital punishment to our new prison industry complex!

[PavePusher]

84. We are not the "underdog"...

We're winning. Are you mentally blind, or simply in a profound state of denial?

[Yavapai]

8. From the article linked to this post:

"Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns -- and most of them are purchased or possessed illegally," Bloomberg said at City Hall, where he was also joined by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.

Since most guns used are "purchased or possessed ILLEGALLY", passing laws making them more illegal is going to help, how?

[virginia mountainman]

9. To be expected from a REPUBLICAN like Bloomberg..

It leaves me speechless to watch Democrats fawning all over Republicans and "former" republicans like Bloomberg, Sara Brady, Paul Helmke, and Caroline McCarthy...

Yes, DU, most of the "movers and shakers" of the gun control movement are republicans....

Makes you wonder, just what all these Republicans are doing pushing a DEMOCRATIC administration to take a politically suicidal stance a year and a half before a national election...

Like we don't have enough problems already, in the upcoming election. Lets take a stance that will electrify the electorate against him in the vast majority of the nation.

[X_Digger]

22. Like many other republicans, they're authoritarians first..

.. when even their own party tells them to 'get bent', they land elsewhere (or not at all, like Bloomberg).

[SecularMotion]

10. Bloomberg Pushes Stricter Gun Control Measures

Source: NY Times

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Monday used a parade of relatives and friends of victims of several high-profile shootings, including the recent killings in Tucson, to urge Washington to strengthen existing federal gun control laws to prevent guns from falling into the hands of buyers with a history of violence or mental illness.

Mr. Bloomberg, who has sought to make stricter gun control a national issue, said a law passed in 1968 after the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. intended to prevent certain people from having guns has never lived up to its full potential.

The law was supposed to apply to convicted felons, drug abusers and the mentally ill, among others. The Brady Bill, which was adopted in 1993, was intended to enforce the earlier law by creating a national background check system.

But the system, Mr. Bloomberg and others who joined him said at a news conference at City Hall, is flawed because it does not have records on millions of people who should be disqualified from buying or possessing guns. Ten states have not submitted any mental health records to the background check system, and 18 states have provided fewer than 100 mental health records, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group that Mr. Bloomberg helped found.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/nyregion/25bloomberg.html?_r=1&hp

[virginia mountainman]

11. DELETED DUP. Comment due to combined threads....

[Elmo SinJohn]

12. How about spending more money on mental health so that jail doesn't become the first contact with

treatment?

[TheWraith]

16. Now now, don't go bringing common sense into it!

After all, a law making it harder for law-abiding people to buy or own a gun will certainly dissuade people intent on committing murder! :sarcasm:

Seriously though, welcome to DU. Your comment strikes to the crux of the matter: that prevention at the source is the only answer that's effective.

[defendandprotect]

20. And how about we begin to discuss male violence and the connection with guns ....

Start here --

Guns, Mental Illness and American Manhood

by Jackson Katz
Published on Sunday, January 23, 2011

Much of what needs to happen is an honest conversation about issues related to masculinity and violence. Many people have circled around this subject, especially in terms of the intensifying debate about guns. The Tucson massacre has revived debate (for the moment) about our country's gun laws, and the astounding power of the NRA to block commonsense regulations. Some people go beyond the power of the gun lobby and ask larger questions about our culture, such as MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who asks repeatedly: what's the obsession with guns? But few if any voices in mainstream media have discussed the connection between guns, violence, and American ideals of manhood.

Amazingly, this connection has not been part of the mainstream coverage of Tucson or any of the rampage killings in recent years. The trouble is you can't change a social phenomenon until you can at least identify and name it. Each time one of these horrific acts of violence occurs, commentators and editorial writers hone in on every relevant factor they can identify - mental illness, the availability of handguns, the vitriolic tone of talk radio and cable TV - and leave out what is arguably the most important factor: gender.

Why is gender such a critical factor in an incident like Tucson? In the Tucson rampage, like the Virginia Tech killings to which it has been compared, "expert" opinion and media commentary has coalesced around "mental illness" as the cause of the mayhem. But mental illness itself has critical gendered dynamics. As the psychiatrist James Gilligan has written, the vast majority of homicidal violence is perpetrated by men who have severe disorders of personality or character, but who are not technically "insane." Thus it should be no surprise, Gilligan writes, that less than one percent of murderers in the U.S. are found "not guilty by reason of insanity." (Arizona law, unlike federal law, includes a possible finding of "guilty but insane.")

Most men who murder do not do so because they are mentally ill. It is also important to note that only a small fraction of the mentally ill (men and women) are violent. But regardless of their mental health diagnosis, many men who engage in homicidal violence do so as part of a strategy to respond to deep and often intolerable feelings of shame and dishonor.



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/23-6

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. So Brenda Spencer and Laurie Dann were gender-conflicted? n/t

[Bragi]

28. Thanks. Excellent article

The writer makes the point that guns, violence and murder cannot really be discussed intelligently separate from the underlying determinant of gender. Quite important indeed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Gender bias takes many forms

[Bragi]

59. How profound! Any actual argument you'd like to make? /nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. The assumption that firearms is a male only problem is clear gender bias

[TheWraith]

14. Excuse me, but fuck Bloomberg.

He is an arrogant asshole who feels that being rich entitles him to buy whatever he wants in politics, including his ILLEGAL reelection, and it simply galls him that New York's junior senate seat isn't under his control too.

[defendandprotect]

15. Obama should give leadership to ending the gun craze in America --

[Bragi]

26. Yep. /nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Why would you want him to lead and anti civil rights campaign and give the leadership to

the repukes for the foreseeable future?

[Bragi]

55. Why are you so afraid that you need a gun?

Is someone coming after you? Why do you feel you need a lethal weapon for self-protection when most people don't?

[Speaker]

92. Why are you so afraid you need a smoke alarm?

Are your neighbors trying to set your house afire?

Are your children trying to burn you out?

WHAR THREAT???? WHAR!?!?!?

[Bragi]

60. What about the civil rights of your neighbors?

Like me, your neighbors may feel that their civil right to peace and security is impaired by having a hot-headed gun owner next door who thinks he has a need/right to shoot people for "self-defense" against unknown and unproven threats.

I hope someday you realize, like most other people, that you don't need lethal weapons to navigate life. I hope you learn to stop being so afraid of people, and that you can start living peacefully and without weapons, like most other people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. There is no real conflict and there is no fear

Attempting to project both is specious

[Speaker]

91. [i]Obama should give leadership to ending the gun craze in America --[i]

So he can be replaced by Sarah Palin in 2012?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. More repuke racist and classist anti civil rights crap from Bloomie

[Bragi]

62. Reduced to slogans and sound bites, are we, "professor"?

From someone who wishes to be considered a "progressive professor", how about responding in debate with actual arguments, instead of just throwing out one-line ad hominem insults?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. Actually I assume that those participating in this debate are knowledgeable on the facts and history

My statement is clearly prima facie correct. If you understood the issue you would know why

[Sparky 1]

71. The only time the government confiscated guns was when REPUBLICAN Vice President Dick Cheney ...

The only time the government confiscated guns was when REPUBLICAN Vice President Dick Cheney ordered that guns be taken away from people right after Katrina.

[michreject]

72. That order was local nt

[PavePusher]

85. Hate the man all you want (civility, anyone?)...

...but you don't have to invent shit out of whole cloth.

[beevul]

89. No, thats not truth.

Seems to me SKS rifles were confiscated in CA as well.

And I think was another example, but it is not coming to mind at the moment.

[X_Digger]

94. NYC, long guns.. previously registered in '77..

In '96, registered owners were told to move them out of the city or surrender them to the police.

[melm00se]

75. how to solve the gun violence "crisis"

in three easy steps:

- make the penalties for using a firearm in commission of a felony absolutely draconian (say a 10 year required minimum no chance for parole to run consecutively with any other sentence)
- make the penalties for a felon who is in possession of a firearm also draconian (again 10 years no chance for parole)
- no prosecutorial discretion to toss a gun charge as part of a plea bargain agreement. Once charged it has to go to trial.

make it perfectly clear that if you pick up a gun for illegal purposes you are going away for a long long time.


And I'll make a trade with you: if you want to increase the requirements for firearm licensing (say you want a handgun you take the equivalent of a concealed carry class) in exchange for dropping restrictions on concealed and open carry (with the logical exceptions of: jails, banks, courthouses and properly posted private property)

how say you?

[primavera]

79. I say I'm not sure "draconian" penalties are effective

Consider the three strikes policy. Where it's been tried, it's resulted in an explosion of homicides as criminals facing their third strike escalated to murder to ensure that there were no witnesses left to testify against them. It's also not clear that stiffer penalties have an impact on people who are not seasoned criminals, but are ordinary people who commit violent acts in moments of rage or diminished capacity. Such persons don't think of themselves as being criminals, so it never occurs to them that penalties that they perceive to be directed at "those criminal types," i.e., someone other than themselves (criminals are always someone else until you have the misfortune to become one yourself), might ever actually actually apply to them. They are especially unlikely to reach that realization when they're drunk, stoned, enraged, whatever and about to commit a violent act. I think a solution has to be more proactive on the front end than reactive on the back end.

[Speaker]

93. make it perfectly clear that if you pick up a gun for illegal purposes you are going away for a long

Which means instead of negotiating with the police, I kill as many of them as I can.