Breaking on MSNBC: DC HANDGUN BAN OVERTURNED

[Squatch]

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. hey ... even cnn is getting this one quick...

http://www.cnn.com/

sP

[TahitiNut]

2. Yup. Individual, not collective, right.

Good.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

85. Even the good lawyers

have trouble defining this amendment. I'll have a chat with my father in law in the future about this.

[RB TexLa]

3. Got to admit it worked, there weren't any handguns in DC

[Squatch]

4. You forgot the sarcasm tag.

LOL

[Squatch]

5. Oopsie

dupe

[global1]

6. And Why Wasn't This Overturned At The Beginning Of The Bush Term?.....

now that he is leaving office soon - suddenly it's ok to have handguns in D.C. again. Why does this smell to me?

[michreject]

8. There has to be the right case

The SC just can't make decisions on their own.

[Scagnettie]

22. Tin foil hat too tight?

Come on post number six. You can't seriously be suggesting that this is a conspiracy? Do you understand that it would be impossible to time out how long the case would take just to get to the supreme court if it ever went there in the first place much less if the supreme court would even touch the case. Take of the tin foil cap.

[michreject]

7. There goes the gun grabbers claim that the 2nd refers to a militia.

Loooooooooooooooooong overdue. :toast:

[Leopolds Ghost]

89. The 2nd refers to the PEOPLE's UNORGANIZED militia, NOT to protection from criminals.

Sounds like SCOTUS ruled to redefine the 2nd Amendment to refer solely to the "castle doctrine" of English common law, and to hunters (no mention of them in the Constitution), thus narrowing it.

But the gun-lovers in this fcking country don't understand what guns were about in the Revolutionary era. They were about replacing the need for a national military which did not exist and was banned under Jefferson's original bill of rights. They were about ensuring political power remained in the hands of the people -- not about homeowners having the right to killing strangers on your land.

[michreject]

111. Not anymore it doesn't

It refers to the individual.:)

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. The popping sound you hear is not bullets

it's champagne corks and popcorn

:popcorn:

edit to add: It's still a limited ruling. You can keep a loaded, assembled, operational gun in your house. No opinion on feature/capacity restrictions, sales, etc.

[-..__...]

12. I thought it was the sound of rupturing capillaries at the Brady Campaign HQ!

B-)

[old mark]

14. and a few exploding heads

in the anti crowd.

Have a great day.

mark

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. If so, why are they saying DC must now allow gun stores?

[Mojorabbit]

10. About damn time.

I am glad on a personal level and on a party level. I have told so many people that Obama will not be a gun grabber which has been a big worry to them. I said the supremes would end up deciding this. This will be a plus for us with a certain portion of the population if Obama plays this right.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. Wrong. Obama WILL be a gun grabber

If restrictive legislation hits his desk, he'll sign it instantly. Any "assault weapons" restrictions, effective or not, he'll sign. He has the legislative history, and the influence of the Chicago/Daley machine.

We'll have to keep on our representatives and senators to vote down any such legislation.

Obama may or may not actively seek to get legislation into the works. But I guarantee he'd sign it.

I hope he focuses on more important things.

[old mark]

18. I have emailed his campaign on this issue, got zero back-

At least the Clinton campaign sent me a gibberish email in semi-response.

mark

[robicon]

24. He shifted positions since the start of his campaign

I really don't know what prompted him to do so; he intially stated that he wouldn't do anything to remove the second amendment.

Unfortunately for him, he's been quoted more than once that he intends to sign restrictive laws concerning the 2nd amendment.

I really don't think you'll hear anything back from his campaign staff...I haven't and I've written 4 times.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

35. He can sign bans without removing the second amendment

such as "you can have a semi-automatic pistol, but magazines are limited to one-round capacity"
(except for police. and Chicago aldermen.)

[FunkyLeprechaun]

84. handguns match that definition

We do not need them.

I'm gonna have to change my sig now.

[Thothmes]

112. But it can only be applicable to newly manufactured guns

and magazines. All of the current inventory of multi cartridge semi-automatic hand guns and magazines will remain legal.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

57. Just saw on CNN

Obama's statement on the SCOTUS ruling indicates he thinks it's wrong. D.C. should have the right to ban working loaded guns in the home.

That'll cost some votes. Probably not enough to lose to McCain, though.

[Mojorabbit]

58. Damn it

It will cost us votes.
on edit, I just read his statement and it said no such thing.

[Selatius]

75. That will possibly cost a lot of votes in Middle America. nt

[NYC_SKP]

11. Fantastic! Fascists hate gun rights, score one for the good guys! nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. This ruling says 2nd Amendment is about the castle doctrine. That is wrong.

The castle doctrine is about the castle doctrine. Handguns don't enter into it.

BTW, the castle doctrine is immoral. But it is common law so I will defend it against
the fascism of gun nuts and gun grabbers who have a common stereotype of guns being needed
to kill intruders (an immoral act for anyone who professes to be religious or pacifist.)

If you can ban machine guns, you can ban any specific arm. on a jurisdiction basis.

This SCOTUS ruling is "protect White Homeowners act" by saying you can't ban
weapons that the stereotypical xenophobic white suburbanite might need. (But
you can ban any weapons that might actually be used to form a militia)

[Dimensio0]

113. Why is the castle doctrine "immoral"?

Also, why do you assume that black homeowners may not wish to own firearms?

[MiniMe]

13. I wonder what Rudy will say about this

He had a similar gun ban in New York

[pt22]

15. Excellent! K&R

:toast:

[napi21]

17. I agree with the court on this one. To ban guns in any city only

removes them from people who obey the laws. It's akin to banning MJ. Laws don't make products go away!

[cobalt1999]

19. Great news.

I never understood how liberals can argue about limiting rights spelled out in the constitution. That means ALL our rights.

[OnionPatch]

119. And also, if we expect to be treated as a free people,

we can't keep having these laws that punish everyone because of the actions of a few. That is NOT freedom. This same concept applies to drug laws and all sorts of other freedoms. I can't see how we can pick and choose. With freedom comes some risks. I'm glad about the ruling.

[ThomWV]

20. Thank God!

[Redneck Socialist]

21. Good news n/t

[-..__...]

23. Complete decision here.

All 157 pages worth...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[robicon]

25. You have to admit...

The dissenting opinion wasn't very well written. The "right to bear arms" only applies to firearms in common use at the time? Does the first amendment have such restrictions?

grasping at straws...

[SteppingRazor]

56. Or as a pdf here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

I think everyone should, you know, ACTUALLY READ IT before trying to seriously weigh in (silly mockery of Scalia notwithstanding, of course :) ).

I've gotten through the majority opinion and the first dissent. And honestly, I think the dissent leaves a lot to be desired. The dissent tries to argue that Congress has every right to enact legislation regulating the right of gun ownership. But the majority of opinion has already said that that is the case, and simply goes on to say that such legislation cannot regulate the right completely out of existence, as with the D.C. law that both made it illegal to carry an unlicensed handgun and banned any new licenses. That idea -- that Congress' ability to regulate the rights of the people cannot go to such lengths that it complete removes the right in question -- was never discussed in the dissent, which, as a result, seems moot on its face.

[Mz Pip]

26. I don't own a gun

but would not be pleased if the town I lived in told me I couldn't.

The ruling seems reasonable to me. Hard to imagine that I would be agreeing with the conservative wing of the court but on this I do.

[dantyrant]

27. Wow...

I'm amazed at the support for gun rights on these boards... this isn't an attitude one typically associates with the Left, whatever that is. I used to be anti-gun, but I've come to realize maybe the founding fathers knew a thing or two about the way Kings named George use their power.

I get a chuckle out of the supreme court's ruling, if only because this political class needs to start fearing We The People again. And I do think they're scared.

[NYC_SKP]

30. Overreaching corrupt governments make us think about the Second Amendment.

If it ever comes to that, if you know what I mean.

[benEzra]

31. The repubs at the Brady Campaign want you to THINK that all Dems want to ban guns...

I'm amazed at the support for gun rights on these boards... this isn't an attitude one typically associates with the Left, whatever that is. I used to be anti-gun, but I've come to realize maybe the founding fathers knew a thing or two about the way Kings named George use their power.

I get a chuckle out of the supreme court's ruling, if only because this political class needs to start fearing We The People again. And I do think they're scared.

The repubs at the Brady Campaign want you to THINK that all Dems want to ban guns, but you'll find that while the is certainly a minority that does, most don't.



FWIW, I am one of those eeeee-villll "AK-47" owners that the Brady Campaign is always warning you about.



(That's a 2002 model SAR-1, a non-automatic civilian carbine, FWIW. All actual AK-47's are very tightly controlled in the United States.)


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. What do you need it for?

You have the right to own it, but you don't have the right to tell other jurisdictions what weapons people can and can't own in their city. And the 2nd Amendment was not about protection from criminals. So... why the love? You can't hunt with that POS.

[benEzra]

116. I *can* hunt with it (in hunting configuration, it's a 5-shot .30-30, big deal)

although like the vast majority of gun owners, I am currently a nonhunter. But as a hunting weapon, using 154-grain softpoints and the 5-round hunting magazine, it is ballistically indistinguishable from a Winchester Model 1894 in .30-30 Winchester, and is entirely legal to hunt with in any state that you can use a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle (which is identical in every way except for looks). If I ever do take up hunting (which I am open to), it will be with that rifle, unless I can afford an AR-15 with a 6.8mm (.270) upper.

You do realize that's a non-automatic NFA Title 1 civilian carbine, not a NFA Title 2/Class III restricted AK-47, yes?

FWIW, I shoot competitively (USPSA) and recreationally with that carbine, using the 1x optic and short 20-round magazine, and it also makes an excellent defensive carbine. It is also one of the finest autoloading civilian carbines you can get for the money; it is more accurate AND more robust than a Ruger Mini Thirty, and considerably less expensive. Anyone who would call it a POS has never shot one extensively, IMO; they are excellent rifles.

[Froward69]

118. Thank you !!!

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. The posters on this thread are fools. This is about empowering one segment of the population

Stereotypical white xenophobic homeowners who are paranoid about home invasion -- against another segment of the population.

I believe in the castle doctrine. But I don't need handguns to apply it. Handguns are immoral.

This ruling redefines the 2nd amendment saying it has nothing to do with militias, allowing militias to continue to be disbanded. But fascist individuals who want to keep "undesirables" out of their neighborhood will be encouraged to think that the 2nd amendment is about them and their belongings. and not about the gov't.

They also specify that hunting rifes are automatically protected. That's interesting.

How do they know what type of arms the Founders intended to be exempt from the 2nd Amendment?

[Phillycat]

115. "Handguns are immoral"?

Dude, I'm not much for guns, but that is a ridiculous statement.

[SidDithers]

28. A 5-4 decision...

with all the conservatives voting in the majority, and the liberals voting in the minority.

You just know you've got a winning progressive cause when Scalia, Alito and Thomas agree with you.

Sid

[stevebreeze]

86. You mean the centrists voting in the minority

there hasn't been a liberals on the court in years

[MadHound]

29. While this is good news for DC specifically,

It is going to be horrible news for any agency trying to pass any sort of gun control legislation. I can see this case being used as precedent for getting guns into the workplace, schools, and overturning lots of reasonable gun control measures, including background checks, etc. What a shame, we're going to return to the Wild West.

[benEzra]

32. Please, READ THE OPINION before making that claim.

Oh, please, READ THE OPINION before making that claim. You obviously haven't yet.

The opinion specifically says that the existing Federal controls on automatic weapons, state restrictions on concealed carry without a license, state restrictions on carrying guns in schools and government buildings without authorization, etc. are OK. Felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent are still barred from possessing guns. Background checks for purchase are still OK.

What are NOT OK are sweeping bans on commonly owned guns (which would probably include the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch), and the outlawing of armed self-defense in your own home.

This opinion changes nothing in most states, only those jurisdictions with draconian restrictions. It does put the kibosh on most of the gun-control lobby's ban-more agenda, though, but very little of that has been enacted outside of D.C, Chicago, and California.

[MadHound]

34. Like I said, precedent

And believe me, at some point, probably in the relatively near future, this will be used as precedent. If nothing else, to legalize more and more powerful guns. Where does the madness end then, when we're all running around with nukes? Sorry, but I don't want to live in that world.

[benEzra]

62. The ruling IS precedent...and that PRECEDENT says the following:

And believe me, at some point, probably in the relatively near future, this will be used as precedent. If nothing else, to legalize more and more powerful guns. Where does the madness end then, when we're all running around with nukes? Sorry, but I don't want to live in that world.

The ruling IS precedent...and that PRECEDENT says the following, and I quote:

to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “rdinarily
when called for service men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second
Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

Nukes are not currently "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" in this country. So nukes are not protected by the Second Amendment by this very ruling. That is your precedent. And the opinion EXPRESSLY does not strike down the National Firearms Act, which nukes would fall under even if the other regs governing them didn't exist.

The ruling essentially preserves the status quo as far as what guns are considered suitable for civilian use in the USA, the same status quo that has existed for 74 years now. Basically, the guns the 2ndA is interpreted as protecting are non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber (plus larger-bore shotguns and some hunting rifles) that meet the longstanding barrel length and overall length requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. According to recent historical research, Revolutionary farmers did NOT use guns for self-protection

And hunting use was limited (but the only use) due to acccuracy issues. The only other use was massacring Indians.
When the Indians were gone, the state couldn't PAY people to own guns in order to avoid having to replace the militia
with a standing army (the purpose of AVOIDING which and even BANNING a standing army was the reason for the 2A, per
Jefferson.) Gun use was so restricted (by popular preference) that the State could not sell brand new overstock rifles
for pennies on the dollar to pay off their war debt. That is because most citizens were of a peaceful disposition and
did not believe in the "gun culture" as a method of applying the castle doctrine. The "gun culture" did not exist
(except interestingly, among Indians) until it was invented by industrial marketing specialists using the
myth of the Wild West and the threat of "darkies" as a sales tool at the tail end of the 1800s.

Even then, handgun use did not come into common occurrence until after WWII and the domestic violence levels
engendered by the two world wars. Do the research and you will discover this, books have been written about it.

Revolutionary era America was a more peaceful place, akin to modern day England (or New England). I guess the border
Scots Irish types and the "redneck" mentality have sought to change that.

I support the 2A. But I know what it was for, and it wasn't to legitimize the fascist delusions of border Scots and
post WWII homeowners who wanted to protect themselves from non-whites.

The 2A is not the castle doctrine. Castle doctrine says nothing about type of weaponry and 2A says nothing about the application of individual self-defense, only community self-defense. It is an individual right, but for a community purpose ONLY. It was not meant to ban some types of weapons benefiting homeowners against a percieved internal enemy
like the gun nuts believe. It was to avoid the need for a standing army which should have been banned, per Jefferson.

[benEzra]

117. You wouldn't be thinking of Bellsiles' work, would you?

That has been shown to have been a complete fraud. Early Americans DID use guns for self-protection, and if you look at the state constitutions ratified around the same time, many of them specifically protect the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173531&mesg_id=173678

Handguns not common until after WW2? Please. My great-grandparents received matching CCW revolvers as a wedding present in 1900, and that was not uncommon. Single- and multiple-shot pistols were available in the 1770's, and revolvers date to the 1830's and were very common by the 1860's.

Five minutes of Googling will show you the evolution of common defensive handguns from the 1500's until the early 1900's, when their current configuration was pretty much perfected; since 1930 or so, the main developments have been in reliability and durability, not function.

[michreject]

33. Most of those need to be allowed

Need the back ground check though.

[MadHound]

37. In your opinion perhaps.

But not in the opinion of most US citizens who believe in reasonable, sane gun control measures like we have now.

[michreject]

40. It's all opinions

Yours and mine alike.

[benEzra]

72. The way I see it, the intent of the ruling was to preserve the national _status quo_.

It doesn't affect background checks or the National Firearms Act, but slaps down some extreme laws like the D.C. ban, and would presumably block any new Federal restrictions on "assault weapons," so called (under the common-use test).

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. So background checks (creeping fascism) are good but general bans on certain arms (local discretion)

is a bad thing?

Localities have the right to make their own decisions. This ruling empowers the state to say that the only purpose of the second amendment is to protect some citizens against a perceived (usually non-white) underclass. Divide and rule.

[michreject]

110. Local communities can make decision

if they do not exceed the legal parameters set by the state.

[NeedleCast]

36. Good

Hooray Constitution!

[CanonRay]

38. Why don't they just ban bullets, instead?

I don't see bullets anywhere in the constitution. Let 'em own a gun. making selling or owning bullets a felony.

[NeedleCast]

41. Yes, circumventing rights is a great idea!

No wait, it's actually really dumb.

[benEzra]

70. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue...

the case was one in which a state tried to heavily tax printer's ink, on the theory that the printing press is protected by the Constitution, but not paper and ink. The Court put the kibosh on that, ruling that the intent of the ink taxes was to tax the right of freedom of the press, even though it did not directly tax presses. I have the citation around here somewhere.

A ban on ammunition would be a ban on functional guns, both Constitutionally and pragmatically, and would be just as radioactive politically.

[Ikonoklast]

76. You've heard of the Stamp Act of 1765, yes?

One of the reasons we had that revolution thingy.

Same reasoning you use here.

[backscatter712]

39. Yay!!!

They left some restrictions, like the Brady background check, intact, so it looks like they took the middle road - there indeed is an individual right to keep and bear arms, but the state does have some rights to put firearms laws in place for the interest of public safety.

But yeah, this is a good day.

[Terri S]

42. Obama's statement on the ruling:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

(from his website)

[dems_rightnow]

45. Completely reasonable postion.

DC went way too far, and got their ears boxed.

[texasleo]

59. woot!

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. So anything that empowers the state and a favored class of citizens (per background checks) is good?

And anything that empowers localities and a neutral, manufacturer and distributor targeted approach such as reasonable bans in certain areas on arms that did not exist in 1776 and are only used to commit crimes or to enforce the (immoral, but legal) castle doctrine is bad?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. I'm just glad I live in the UK

This ruling will lead to large numbers of needless deaths, but, sadly, may well be a correct interpretation of the US constitution.

And the duty of the court is not to do what is right, but to interpret the law as accurately as possible.

What's really depressing is that I can't even say "the Democrats should try to repeal the 2nd ammendment", because while the repeal of that god-awful piece of legislation would massively benefit America, going against it would be electoral suicide and achieve nothing.

Gun control is one issue where I think the best policy is to sell out to the bad guys.

I'm just glad I live in the UK.

[NeedleCast]

46. You apparently know nothing about the DC area

This ruling will lead to large numbers of needless deaths

The "ban" on handguns in DC has insured that only criminals in DC have guns. The handgun ban in DC has not limited access to handguns in any way, shape or form except for people who want to own them legally.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

53. How do you know that the criminals have it now?

That it's legal? It could be Joe Q. Public that could shoot people in a brief moment of madness.

[NeedleCast]

61. Because gun crimes are commited by criminals

See, you can't have a gun crime without a criminal.

I know that the criminals have it now because I live in the DC metro area and watch the news. It's not the middle-class legal clerks, students, and other citizens committing crimes with guns. It's criminals. Now the non-criminals can have guns too. I like even playing fields.

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. The middle class legal clerks, students and other stereotypcial DC "good guys" commit massive crime.

They just don't get prosecuted (or shot at) for it.

They don't get pulled over and searched, either. Go after the pervasive use of background checks and the lenient treatment of corporate gun manufacturers who have sold you a bill of goods about protecting yourself from the criminals.

Killing someone who enters your home makes you a killer. You have the right to do it -- pre-christian Anglo Saxon common law says so. But the 2nd amendment was about community self-protection, including from a tyrranical usurpation of authority, not about killing "savages" and "darkies" as Colt & co. told your ancestors for 50 years.

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. I live in the DC area, thank you very much.

You can keep your paranoid xenophobia out of it.

2nd Amendment supporter, BTW. But an opponent of your "castle" mentality.

Localities have the right to set their own rules.

[Meiko]

50. I'm glad you live in the UK too....

Sorry, I had to say it.....

[FunkyLeprechaun]

52. Ditto

In the UK, we're not perfect as a society but the stringent gun laws here make me feel a little bit safer.

In Minnesota, where I'm originally from, our governor passed a concealed carry bill. If you go to Rochester, nearly everywhere bans concealed carry weapons. You don't understand why doctors, lawyers, and the like do NOT like this.

If someone is angry with a diagnosis, an outcome of a trial, and so on, they could go into these establishments and shoot the persons named. I still have family in the states and I do have concerns for them. This increases it greatly.

DC is the center of everything political. So if anyone doesn't like what a politician does, this law gives them the right to carry a gun into the House or Senate.

Jesus, you 2nd amendment righters DO not understand. I support rifles and shotguns but not handguns (it just makes it too easy to kill people with them).

[slackmaster]

64. Donald, the sky in DC is not falling today any more than it was yesterday

And tomorrow will be no different.

[krispos42]

71. *ahem*

Why, exactly? Having fun with your homicide rate at near-record highs? How many times today did the police record your face as you walked around or rode public transport?

Got your DNA on file yet?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. I think you make my point for me rather effectively.

The green line on your chart is currently at "4". As indictments of the UK go, I don't think that's a terribly searing one...



My DNA isn't on file anywhere - I've never been convicted of a crime, and I'm not awaiting trial.

I think there's a lot to be said for the idea of making the national DNA database universal, but at present the UK doesn't do it.

[Raskolnik]

81. "I think there's a lot to be said for the idea of making the national DNA database universal"

We are very much in agreement--I'm glad you're in the UK as well.

[krispos42]

88. Your homicide rate has doubled in the last 40 years

Cause for consternation, I would think.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. So the gun grabbers don't believe in the bill of rights, and the gun nuts want to apply only to them

And their "kill the bad guys" delusions.

I am glad to fall in the middle.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

109. I support at least 80% of the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd ammendment is a catastrophically awful piece of legislation that ought to be repealed. That said, since it appears to be conditional upon "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State", and that clearly is not the case at present, if it ever was, one could argue that it is already null and void.

I don't fully understand the 10th ammendment, but I'm somewhat sceptical of it - *people* should have rights; governments should have *powers*; I don't think states should have rights - I have never seen a terribly compelling argument in favour of state-level over federal-level government if people prefer the latter (obviously, as and when people prefer the former they should get it, but I don't see why the constitution should favour one over the other). That said, I've never looked for one, so there may be some I haven't seen, and unlike the 2nd the 10th doesn't seem to do too much harm.

The other 8 are all extremely valuable pieces of legislation.

[Dimensio0]

114. Please explain.

The 2nd ammendment is a catastrophically awful piece of legislation that ought to be repealed.

Why?

[skooooo]

44. Great !!! More murders and crime in DC.

That just what we need.

:eyes:

[NeedleCast]

47. So you think the handgun ban in DC

has done a good job of controlling access to handguns in the DC area?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

54. Yes

N/t

[NeedleCast]

66. Well then you're crazy

Sorry, not really a nice way to say it but you obviously don't live anywhere near DC if you think the handgun ban in DC was preventing people in DC from getting handguns. All it did was prevent people from getting handguns legally.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. Why would a law-abiding citizen in DC need a handgun?

To kill their spouse or themselves?

To kill intruders with?

Why would you want to kill anybody?

People who live in the hopes of killing someone are sick.

The 2nd Amendment was for general community protection on the frontier.

It is valuable because it protects us from government overreach.

This ruling legitimizes government overreach by saying certain specific
weapons can be banned by the fed to prevent the formation of "militias",
but others cannot be banned by localities.

Buy a fucking hunting rifle or shotgun. Those are the only legitimate
weapons. Everything else is a killing machine marketed to the middle class
by capitalists as a way of persuading you that you need to protect yourself
from your neighbors.

[Dukkha]

48. LOL!

yes because the ban did a real bang up job, pun intended, at preventing violent crine in DC.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

55. You can't prevent violent crime

You reduce the method of the crime. The ban was essential to that.

[Dukkha]

67. no it was not

It created an element of crime that previously wasn't there, illegal gun trafficking into DC.

[NeedleCast]

68. Right, because there was so little gun crime

in DC with the ban in effect.

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. Have you ever been held up in DC? Ever been burglarized by an ARMED burglar?

If not, stop bullshitting us.

You shoot a burglar, chances are he's unarmed.

That is castle doctrine, totally separate issue from the 2nd Amendment.

This ruling says the type of weapons that can be banned can only be
defined by the feds, essentially, and allows continued militarizaiton
of society, background checks, widespread handgun ownership by people
with background checks, creation of a criminal underclass of those
without background checks, permission to kill those people on sight, etc.

2nd Amendment was about weapons that could be used for hunting.

You can't ban some tools for killing and not others on the grounds
that they are designed for killing only people who "need" killing
and therefore cannot be "turned against" the lawful authorities.

In reality, of course, all killing is immoral. All these "Christian"
rednecks should understand that.

[Recursion]

49. Yeah, it's *SO* hard to get an illegal gun in DC

Seriously, do you even think about what you're saying? There are a metric shitload of guns in DC already, and banning them hasn't kept them out of criminals' hands; it's just prevented non-criminals from legally defending their homes.

[skooooo]

60. It'll be so much better now though, right?

:eyes:

[benEzra]

63. Better for the law-abiding, yes. (n/t)

[skooooo]

65. Dream on.

[benEzra]

69. Criminals in D.C. already had free access to guns...

just like they have free access to cannabis and cocaine. Prohibition primarily affects the law-abiding, as does its repeal.

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. Why? Are you itching to kill yourself an "undesirable"?

[benEzra]

120. No, but if I lived in DC, I'd choose to own guns just as I do now.

If you think gun owners sit around hoping to kill people you consider "undesirable," you need to open your mind a bit; you appear to be laboring under some rather uninformed stereotypes. It is a good bet that a fair number of your respected acquaintances own guns unbeknownst to you, unless they all live in the District of Columbia or Chicago.

In most of the nation outside the District of Columbia, Chicago, NYC, and three or four states like New Jersey, lawful and responsible gun ownership is quite common; around here, probably half of households, regardless of political affiliation, socioeconomic class, and flavor of the occupants' skin pigmentation, own guns, lawfully and responsibly.

[Ghost in the Machine]

51. Yeah, because law abiding people will suddenly go crazy, right??

What don't people understand about the fact that laws only affect law abiding people? Do you think it affects criminals??

"Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun-restriction laws. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns, excluding handguns registered prior to February 5, 1977. Other local laws prohibit carrying guns (concealed or not), and all guns and ammunition must be registered."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

Yet they still averaged between 225 to 481 murders from 1986 thru 2005..

Laws don't stop criminals. Period.

[Selatius]

74. Gun prohibition doesn't make gun regulation easier. All it does is create a black market for crime.

At least with gun ownership regulated, you have a better shot at bringing the problem out into the light to regulate, as opposed to throwing it in the dark Prohibition-style.

[DiverDave]

77. Fucking guns KILL PEOPLE!

Oh, we need em, what a crock of shit.
Get rid of ALL of them, the 2nd amendment was NOT for personal weapons.
Christ, I think I died and went to redneck hell.

This is D.U.??

[Jackeen]

78. Only when you aim them at people and pull the trigger

Mine haven't killed anyone or anything yet.

As one of those law-abiding type gun owners, which is the majority of owners in the country, I should add, I assure you that should I ever change this status, it would have been within the various laws which allow me to do so. For example, self defence.

[Leopolds Ghost]

104. Self defense is castle doctrine which says I can kill you for any reason if you walk on my land

Anyone who lives in hope of defending that right is sick.

There is nothing that makes you any more "law abiding" than anyone else.

What need is there for a handgun except target practice -- a sport?

Keeping handguns in the active hope of killing someone is premeditation.

Hunting weapons, on the other hand, have use and are adequate for
self-defense. "Assault-style" hunting weapons are a marketing gimmick
advertised to racists and rednecks and other xenophobic types who think
they need a tool to stop the "undesirables" from kicking in their door,
just like the Colt peacemaker was marketed.

Tip -- if someone breaks in your house, take your family the fuck outside
unless you want to see your kids covered in your or another man's blood
due to your irrational need to defend yourself with lethal force when a
bat will do.

[benEzra]

121. Castle doctrine applies to the threshold of your home, NOT to your land.

Self defense is castle doctrine which says I can kill you for any reason if you walk on my land

Anyone who lives in hope of defending that right is sick.

Castle doctrine applies to illegal forced entries into your home, NOT to someone trespassing on your land. And you cannot "kill for any reason"; castle doctrines apply to unlawful forced entries. If someone trespasses on your land, or shows up on your porch selling magazine subscriptions, you would be charged with attempted murder if you shot them, unless they were attacking you such that you were in reasonable fear of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony. If they kick in your door and attempt to illegally force entry, though, you can use potentially lethal force to stop them.

There is nothing that makes you any more "law abiding" than anyone else.

Except obeying the law, of course...

What need is there for a handgun except target practice -- a sport?

Keeping handguns in the active hope of killing someone is premeditation.

If you think keeping a firearm for self-defense means "in the active hope of killing someone," you are probably right to choose not to own a gun. I choose differently; my wife and I both own defensive handguns, and hope to never use them outside of a target range.

I keep a fire extinguisher, too, but not "in the active hope of having a fire."

Hunting weapons, on the other hand, have use and are adequate for
self-defense.

Not so much. A .30-06 deer rifle will shoot through a half-inch steel plate even with softpoint hunting bullets, and are generally too long and unwieldy for in-home use. Ditto for long-barreled hunting shotguns.

"Assault-style" hunting weapons are a marketing gimmick
advertised to racists and rednecks and other xenophobic types who think
they need a tool to stop the "undesirables" from kicking in their door,
just like the Colt peacemaker was marketed.

LOL. You are really out of touch here. "Assault weapons" are the most popular target rifles in America because they are often supremely accurate, don't kick much, and are economical to shoot.



That woman isn't hunting people you'd call "undesirable", she is hunting a marksmanship trophy...

[Raskolnik]

82. You really make some subtle, well-reasonsed points.

You're clearly a student of the Constitution, so I'll just thank you for you thoughtful analysis.

[Jackeen]

79. Most excellent. Hopefully we can go after other daft laws as well.

California's Evil Black Rifle ban should be high on that list, I hope. Such a pointless and misguided piece of legislation as that has rarely been enacted.

Don't see this case helping even out the CCW status though, unfortunately.

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. I wonder how many posters on this thread are native DC residents

And not xenophobic "finally we can protect ourselves from those undesirables in the inner city" types.

The 2A was NOT about protection from criminals, it was about having well-armed communities to protect
against the formation of a domestic standing military and prevent heavily armed paramilitary police units
from being created to enforce laws domestically like we essentially have now. and the Revolutionary era
society was NOT the violent one you want to see created, with rampant killing in self defense (still immoral).

This ruling is one more step on the paramilitarizing of America and the definition of a favored class
of citizens who are allowed to own guns -- types of guns to be defined by the federal government and
defined as having but one purpose, to kill criminals and other "undesirables" -- and
preventing localities from deciding on their own what types of killing machines are considered socially acceptable.

Handguns have one purpose, and that is to kill. The vast majority of handgun use is homicides.

Killing in self-defense is unnecessary and immoral. I'll defend your "right" to do it under ancient
Anglo-Saxon common law, but the Second Amendment was NOT about codifying that right further into a
creed of "law abiding homeowners" having special rights to kill other citizens who step on their land.

The second amendment was about the formation of local militias, which are still banned by the precedent
of this ruling which says the second amendment was only about individual self-protection from Indians
on the frontier and other "undesirables"... a little arms race to keep the plebes killing
each other while they militarize the country.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

80. A good video to ponder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-4JDlDs0E

That's pretty much how I see handguns.

[Jackeen]

87. I submit, then, that you are a bit blinkered.

Note how the video seems to make little mention of the legal use of handguns for the variety of uses available to the law-abiding citizen. Given that they are used legally far more times than illegally, I might put forward the suggestion that you should expand your knowledge a little bit.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

108. Nope

It's making a mention of how easy it is to carry a handgun and to use a handgun in any situation.

[lebkuchen]

83. Great! More guns, more death penalties, more war!

Gotta have these things if you want to be "free!"

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. Yeah, what do you want to bet most of the gun nuts on DU believe in the death penalty

They believe in the existence of a "police class" who are allowed to be more heavily armed than the citizenry (legal gangs) and a "criminal underclass" who will own guns no matter what and they believe the 2nd Amendment is about allowing them to kill the "criminal underclass" and ratifying the State's power to do so via the death penalty. They don't seem to care about the original intent of the Founders which had NOTHING TO DO with self-defense from criminals. It had to do with protection from government overreach. If they did they wouldn't support federal background checks on all Americans and the creation of a heavily armed paramilitary police class of citizens.

[slackmaster]

122. I am a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, have a substantial gun collection

And oppose the death penalty.

As for the rest of your post, it's a thoughtless regurgitation of a bunch of negative stereotypes.

[bean fidhleir]

123. ah, but who is a "gun nut on DU"?

And what part of that makes them a "nut"?

[riverdeep]

97. The Supreme Court has really been rockin' the news lately.

I fully support this. Ridiculous gun control, especially the Brady faction, has been one of the reasons Dems can't make inroads with the Red states. It's progressive to give people the tools to defend themselves.

If I'm a criminal and I know that neighborhood A doesn't allow guns, and neighborhood B does, why would I want to take a risk with B when A is easy money?

[virginia mountainman]

103. K&R!! NT