Official Gun Forum Heller Thread

[Wickerman]

As evidenced from the beer trucks arriving enmass, the marching bands, the fireworks, and the flag waving down here in the Gungeon, the Supremes have made their decision on Heller. Congrats to the victors, you've posted hard. :thumbsup:

I'm gonna combine a few of the "victory" threads into this one to try to keep other topics that might be of interest to others on the front page. {edit} I can't do that, I knew that, honest. Anyway, please, try to contain your postings to existing threads.

Please remain, as always, civil in this and other Gungeon threads. I understand the euphoria for some, disappoint for others. Let's (both sides) post with mutual respect and consideration for our fellow progressives.

Thanks for your understanding. Finally, remember, if you're going to toss back a few in celebration, please check your newly affirmed individual right to possess firearms with Miss Kitty at the bar.

Note: for those wishing to run a tab please make paypal payments to [e-mail].

:beer:

[gorfle]

1. Hello Wickerman

Thanks for moderating this forum.

As there are numerous facets to gun ownership impacted by the Heller decision, I would like to have different threads about these different impacts. If this isn't OK, feel free to nuke my next post on Heller concerning Licensing.

[Wickerman]

4. no, that is cool

I just want to contain a few of the Yeee-hawwww! threads. The issues like licensing and Corporation issues are legit new threads.

thanks.

:hi:

[MicaelS]

2. As far as I am concerned

DC v. Heller is the most important decision since Roe V. Wade. I am ecstatic. :toast:

[slackmaster]

3. This decision is something I have been hoping for for about 30 years

:hi:

I've always understood the 2A to refer to an individual right.

[mike3121]

5. It ain't over yet folks.

The big "O" when elected president will probably appoint 2 to 3 new Supreme's. Then all current gun ownership laws will be overturned, along with the death penalty. Now me, I'm still on the fence and haven't decided on a candidate yet.

[gorfle]

6. Then you probably are in the wrong place.

Now me, I'm still on the fence and haven't decided on a candidate yet.

Then my friend, you are on the wrong internet forum.

Barak Obama is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party. Either you support him, or you don't. But this place is not for people who don't.

Try not to make your decision based solely on firearms. I know it's hard, I was there before myself.

[spin]

8. Somehow I doubt that would ever happen....

Despite conservative judges, Roe v Wade hasn't been overturned.

Perhaps 30 or 40 years from now, the Supreme Court may reverse the todays decision. If Obama does stack the court, I can see the death penalty overturned.
Since I'm not fond of the death penalty, this would cause me little heartburn. Overturning the decision on gun ownership in the next eight years would ignite a firestorm that might endanger this country.

[gorfle]

10. I agree.

Given the ever-increasing number of people being exonerated by DNA evidence, some after spending decades in prison, I no longer support the death penalty either, except for exceptional cases.

For example, when a person shoots up a school classroom, and everyone sees who did it with no question of guilt, then I'd say kill 'em.

[spin]

14. When a person shoots up a classroom...

he probably is suffering from some form of mental illness. No sane rational person would ever do this...unless he was a terrorist. I have little sympathy for anyone who would make a carefully considered decision to murder innocent people to further some religious or political viewpoint.

DNA evidence has indeed freed many people who might have faced execution. Eye witness testimony is often unreliable and too often a prosecutor with political ambition will misuse his position to convict an individual unfairly. Capital cases are extremely expensive to prosecute and the money spent could go to better projects. Because of the time it takes for all the appeals and litigation involved in a death penalty case, the deterrent effect is limited. Life in prison without parole is no picnic and protects society.

The death penalty should be reserved for only extremely heinous crimes without absolutely no doubt of the guilt of the defendant. It should be applied rarely if ever.

[gorfle]

16. This does not matter to me.

When a person shoots up a classroom he probably is suffering from some form of mental illness.

This would not spare such a person from the death penalty in my book. Kliebold, Cho, etc., etc., - if they had not committed suicide I would certainly have advocated the death penalty for such people, crazy or not.

[gorfle]

7. What do these numbers mean?

When they speak of a court case, like this:

Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007)

What do all the numbers and letters mean following the names?

[MyRV9]

9. Hereya go...

>>>What do all the numbers and letters mean following the names?<<<

It is where the decision in the case was published. So from your example, the case cited is found in Volume 478 of the Federal Reporter (3rd Series) at page 370, and was published in 2007.

[gorfle]

11. Cool, thanks. n/t.

[jody]

12. Page 27-28 of Heller re PA (1776) and VT (1777) constitutions.

Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them— Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741.

[Indy Lurker]

13. Open Carry for Illinois?

For Illinois (outside Chicago) there is no ability to carry a firearm.

After reading the decision, specifically:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” (19)


It appears to me that open carry (except for "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings") would be protected.

Of course it must be incorporated first.

[spin]

15. I would suggest concealed carry first...

with proper licensing, background check and training. Concealed carry is allowed in many states and has worked rather well.

Open carry in an urban environment presents a lot of problems. Open carry in a rural environment, especially during hunting season is a different matter.

[Indy Lurker]

17. Neither is allowed in Illinois.

...and it appears this decision would allow Illinois to continue to prohibit concealed carry.


"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, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues."


My reading was that banning both open and concealed carry would run a foul of this decision.

[spin]

19. If your reading is correct...

than open carry might be the first option.

You can always work to allow concealed carry.

Be aware that a lot of people will look at you strangely and treat you differently if you pack heat openly. I prefer concealed carry as people are far more comfortable around me when we meet. Plus I don't have to be alert to some idiot attempting to grab my weapon from a belt holster.

[SteveM]

18. I wonder how the Supremes will deal with the Fourteenth?

While I haven't read the opinion in full, this quote came up on Scotusblog: "On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”

While it was acknowledged that the issue of incorporation was not at-hand, it must certainly occur to the justices that future legal challenges to local/state bans will no doubt rely on the 14A's privileges and immunities clause. Conservative scholars have a general distaste for P & I and "incorporation," but how do they propose to deal with an egregious gun ban in Chicago and NOT cite the 14th? The history of the 14th is perhaps the most powerful argument for an individual RKBA. Would they be willing to sacrifice a strong defense of 2A in order to maintain some kind of ideological purity regarding constitutional law?

BTW, I think the most powerful argument for convincing liberals of the need for a strong Second Amendment is to be found within the arguments leading up to the enactment of 14A (1868). If ever there was a slap at "state controlled militias" being the font of 2A, it was within the context of 14A which defined a U.S. citizen, protected that citizen's privileges and immunities from repression by (Southern) state militias bent on disarming newly-freed blacks, and NECESSARILY re-affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms to defend against such militia.

[old mark]

20. Pennsylvania does not register gun purchases,

but they really do - they keep an "unofficial" list of handgun ownership, supposedly a "sales record". There are some groups fighting this now. Rifles and shotguns are not "recorded", only handguns and other guns with a barrel length if 16 inches or less.
You may legally sell a rifle or shotgun privately, but a handgun must be sold using a licensed dealer torecord the transfer of the gun.
There is no license necessary to simply own a handgun.
To carry a concealed handgun the owner must apply for a License to Carry a Firearm from the county sheriff. If there is no legal obstacle, the sheriff must issue the license. The license is for the person, not the firearm, and any legally owned handgun may be carried by a licensed individual.

There is no limit to the number of guns that may be bought, there is waiting period. There is a background check with the state police for every purchase, even if you buy more than one gun at a time.
It is illegal to buy a gun for someone else.
There are a few bugs in the system, but generally it seems to work pretty well.

mark

[iverglas]

21. well

that went well, didn't it?

;)