Its go time. SCOTUS to hear Heller gun ban case

[OutHouse]

wow tangent after tangent. how about getting back on topic and addressing the issue of what SCOTUS is reviewing. is the hand gun ban in DC unconstitutional?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Citrix
wow tangent after tangent. how about getting back on topic and addressing the issue of what SCOTUS is reviewing. is the hand gun ban in DC unconstitutional?

The simple fact of the matter is that the constitution has a very vague, awkwardly worded, anachronistic sentence on the matter, and that means that where handguns fit into the legal situation has less to do with the constitution and the founding fathers than it does with the current justices' philosophies and our current politics.

The word handgun does not occur in the constitution.

The ambiguous inclusion of the 'well-regulated militia' phrase with the right throws the issue into the air.

I do think this is the worst court in over 75 years, so it's unfortunate for it to hear any case...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sirjonk
OP: if the SC holds there's no individual gun right ownership, all that means is states can, if they choose, ban guns.

You really think Texas is going to do that? South Carolina? Montana? Nebraska? Kansas?

I don't think so.

The SC ruling for DC doesn't automatically ban guns everywhere.

Big problem with that is that it would no longer be the "United States of America" under one Constitution.

You would be in effect saying that the State Constitutions overide the National Constitution.

Is that the way it is now? If not is that the way you want it to go?

If so then each state effectively becomes a seperate Nation.

That may not be such a bad thing.

Kalifornia for example is leading the way towards getting off of oil.

So you think you live in a country right now that has the same laws in every state? That everything legal in one state is legal in another? Before Roe each state had individual abortion laws, it was still the US. Before the civil war some states has slaves, others outlawed it, it was still the US. Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, some states have gambling, etc. This is not new.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sirjonk
OP: if the SC holds there's no individual gun right ownership, all that means is states can, if they choose, ban guns.

You really think Texas is going to do that? South Carolina? Montana? Nebraska? Kansas?

I don't think so.

The SC ruling for DC doesn't automatically ban guns everywhere.

Big problem with that is that it would no longer be the "United States of America" under one Constitution.

You would be in effect saying that the State Constitutions overide the National Constitution.

Is that the way it is now? If not is that the way you want it to go?

If so then each state effectively becomes a seperate Nation.

That may not be such a bad thing.

Kalifornia for example is leading the way towards getting off of oil.

So you think you live in a country right now that has the same laws in every state? That everything legal in one state is legal in another? Before Roe each state had individual abortion laws, it was still the US. Before the civil war some states has slaves, others outlawed it, it was still the US. Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, some states have gambling, etc. This is not new.

If the court holds that, wouldn't it open the door to a possible federal law restricting handguns?

And wouldn't an argument for a federal law be that it's a problem when someone can just travel to another state to easily buy a gun?

 

[teclis1023]

The real question that I want answered is: Has the DC ban on handguns had a significant, real world effect in lowering DC's crime rate since its inception?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I hate to rain on your parade, but our nation was filled with many 'we the people' who strongly opposed the advancements you mention.

There's a reason women didn't have the vote until they finally organized during the progressive era. Recall that the democrats lost the presidency almost ever since by handing the south to republicans when they pushed through the civil rights bill to end legal racism in the nation. Racism was widely popular in the US for a century following the civil war, requiring baby steps to change public opinion, from Truman's sneaking in black judges and integrating the military, to Kennedy's wonderful national televised speech.

Your not raining on it at all, your not even attending.

Past movements.... Those who wish to maintain the status quo, those who wish to see reform for more freedoms.

Gun movement.... Those who wish to restrict even further the laws, those who wish them relaxed and want more freedoms.

In every previous example those opposed to change didnt want to make conditions worse. When someone said "Women shouldnt vote" they didnt follow that up with "But we should be able to beat them when we want". They simply wanted to maintain the laws and rights as they currently existed, not make them worse.

With gun rights, not only do they want to maintain the current conditions but they want to make them worse.

Why this very simple fact cant penetrate your thick skull is beyond me.

I'm not denying that other groups havent had to fight. Not one bit. But they've only had to fight to make it better, NOt to stop a slide backwards. Slaves fought for their freedom, but they didnt have to worry that if they lost it would slide backwards and be worse. Women fought for the right to vote, but they didnt have to worry about a backwards slide that made rape legal.

Every other movement was a movement forward or a movement nowhere. The gun movement has taken more steps backwards then it has forward!

As for 'freedom', how many other freedoms cost as many American lives as the right for handguns to freely be sold?

How has the right to own handguns cost anyone a life? You dont have to murder someone before your capable of buying a handgun!

If a word were created which, when read, killed readers such that thousands of Americans were being killed annually, would the right to free speech not limit the use of that word?

Thats ridiculous and you know it. I ASSURE you if I set a loaded gun down in a park it WILL NOT kill anyone until someone else picks it up. Which pretty much makes your point irrelevent and you know it. To make it simple....Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Does the right to freedom of religion include the right for thousands of Americans to say their religion is go around and shoot people for petty crimes? No, it doesn't.

Of course not. By the same token, the right to own guns does not make it ok to go around and randomly shoot people, so again you have no point here.

Do you have the 'freedom' to ignore speed laws and red lights and kill people with your bad driving? No, they can put you in jail for it.

See above. If I shoot someone with a gun, stab them with knife or crush their skull with a rock the end result is the same. I'm jailed for murder.

So, your equating the free exchange of handguns with other political 'rights' is not holding up too well under any scrutiny. At some level, there's a balance between the role of guns for self-defense versus their use for crime, but handguns are almost uniquely suited for the crime side of that trade-off compared to long guns. Gun advocates can't really hide behind the skirt of gay rights and racial equality to defend their handguns who kill so many in the largely democratic cities.

Might want to brush up on the Bill of Rights, as the right to own a firearm is a stated right without question. As for guns killing people, they dont. Again see above. That loaded gun isnt going to hop up and kill someone on its own.

Your trying to punish the gun for the crime commited by the person. Thats typical of some democrats who are unable to accept this thing called personal responsibility. Why be responsible for your actions, just blame someone or something else!

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Everyone agrees there should be a limit to gun ownership, just not everybody agrees where that line us. The reason everyone agrees (except for wanton psychopaths) is that they all see the reason in limiting accessibility of mass killing weapons, be them UZIs or six packs or rocket launchers, it's just that some like to limit ownership even of pistols and others don't, or some want a background check and others have no problem with a clinical psychopath currently being treated by a shrink having a gun.

Actually, i think all the gun nuts here are afraid that if they have to go through a psych eval they will get their guns taken. Rightly so.

 

[teclis1023]

When you argue logically, SpecOp, you present a great case. You've helped inform me a bit and perhaps swayed me a bit.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: teclis1023
I was under the impression that the vast majority of guns used in violent crime were illegally purchased. Is this not the case?

I'm not against gun control, I might even be for it, but can anyone show me how restricting legal gun sales will reduce violent crime?

Edit - I can understand the need for a handgun or a hunting rifle. I cannot understand the need for an assault rifle or sniper rifle, and I absolutely abhor those people who want to legalize armor-piercing bullets. I do think there needs to be a limit, but I wonder where that limit needs to be.

Well the problem with that logic is that while the gun may have been illegally sold, it was legally manufactured...hoods aren't turning out Smith and Wesson replicas, it's the major manufacturers making the guns...then some hand waving...then the guns are illegally in the hands of the folks robbing little old ladies. I don't think taking away guns from upstanding citizens is the answer, but I also don't like the idea that we should just throw up our hands and pretend that the magical firearm fairy is arming all the bad guys. You're right, they ARE getting them illegally, so how exactly is that happening? I think discovering and stopping the black market process would be a better form of gun control...bad guys getting guns isn't the inevitability folks seem to think it is.

The problem you outline: legally manufactured/produced items illegally falling into the hands of people who will commit crimes with them is not unigue to firearm manufacturers by any stretch.

Drugs/Pharmacuticals are an obvious example. For that matter so is any other legally produced, yet regulated item.

In other words, while it may be a problem to be addressed, black market sales have no real place in the discussion of 2nd Amendment rights. It's irrelevant in that context.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Might want to brush up on the Bill of Rights, as the right to own a firearm is a stated right without question.

/thread! Without question! I mean, it says it so clearly right in the Bill of Rights. It says "Every person may own a firearm." It's in black and white, written 200 years ago, signed by our foundin....what? It doesn't say that? Wait, this has been debated before? For decades? Really. Oh. I'll shut up now.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Don't even try. America haters couldn't tell the difference between the sky and the ground if their life depended on it.

LOL. You're so far off it's almost more pathetic than funny.


To SpecOP,

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with many of the points that you're making. I'll reiterate what I said in my original post - I am under the impression that most violent gun crimes involve illegal firearms. Furthermore, being from Vermont, I am perfectly aware of hunting culture, although I am not a hunter.

I'm not out to get your guns, lol. Keep them. I really don't care. I just question the necessity of specific items, such as semi-automatic assault-style rifles and "Cop Killer" bullets. last I checked, Bambi isn't sporting a flak vest. I can think of 100 reasons (not literally) that I might need a pistol. I can't think of a single reason that I would need an AK-47-style weapon.

Furthermore, I'm a strong proponent of free speech, but if some idiot says "I have a bomb" in an airport, I won't flinch to support the cops who taze him or shoot him. There are consequences for our actions, and people need to realize that. If you stop viewing the world in black-and-white, it becomes easier to actually have a discussion without resorting to yelling and polemics.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two legal shoots with semi-auto rifles. Some kids got home invaded in florida, one hid in a closet with an AK, and shot the bad guy through the closet door. Then in Arlington, Texas, a guy saw 5 teenagers stealing his wheels and stripping out the interior of his car, right outside his house. He stepped out on the porch with his AR and stopped them.

I think the problem is that most people greatly overestimate the effectiveness of a handgun for killing people. A handgun is a sidearm, a last resort for killing people. There's a phrase, "a handgun is good for fighting your way to a rifle." Even a relatively weak rifle, like a 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 packs several times more energy than your average handgun. A typical 9mm delivers approximately 450 ft-lbs of energy, while a 5.56x45 round delivers approximately 1400 ft-lbs of energy. Not to mention the much greater ease of aiming, higher magazine capacity, and less overpenetration risk.

The AR-15 has replaced many shotguns in the bedroom, just as it's replaced the shotguns in police cars. It's an excellent defensive or offensive weapon. I keep a shorty PS90 next to my bed, loaded with the good stuff (SS190 armor penetrating,) because I know how useful a carbine is.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sirjonk
OP: if the SC holds there's no individual gun right ownership, all that means is states can, if they choose, ban guns.

You really think Texas is going to do that? South Carolina? Montana? Nebraska? Kansas?

I don't think so.

The SC ruling for DC doesn't automatically ban guns everywhere.

Big problem with that is that it would no longer be the "United States of America" under one Constitution.

You would be in effect saying that the State Constitutions overide the National Constitution.

Is that the way it is now? If not is that the way you want it to go?

If so then each state effectively becomes a seperate Nation.

That may not be such a bad thing.

Kalifornia for example is leading the way towards getting off of oil.

Dave,

There is some truth to your observation.

Technically, the US Constitution would apply to, and override, the various states' constitutions. Just that if the court rules the way he implies it means the US Constitution doesn't guarantee individual gun ownership rights.

If the US Constitution doesn't guarantee a national right it is left up to the various states to deal with it as they like.

But as to your point about the states becoming much different between themselves - yes.

Different parts of the country would become much different culturally/legally. More like a collection of may independant countries occupying much of North Aerica and bound together in a federation.

But many believe this was the original intent of the various (independant) states in the formation of the US government.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Citrix
wow tangent after tangent. how about getting back on topic and addressing the issue of what SCOTUS is reviewing. is the hand gun ban in DC unconstitutional?

Agreed.

As I have reading down through the posts I've been tempted to start another thread trying to focus more strictly on the possible outcome and potential legal principles involved in this case.

Perhaps we should start another thread. Discussion of other civil rights, slavery, cfrime statistics, hunting rifles v asusalt rifles etc has no real place here.

Fern

 

[MadRat]

It would of been absurd to think of travelling from Virginia to Pennsylvania (and vice versa) without either a firearm or an armed escort during the first days of the U.S. Constitution. Its not like we've always had police protection, nor is protection by police assured by the U.S. Constitution. I would have major problems with any ruling saying that the right to own and bear arms must be withdrawn or restricted in any overburdened way, People need to preserve the sovereignty of the individual - as a natural right - which includes to provide their own security. The right to own property, to procreate, to acquire shelter, to find a meaningful source of sustenance. These are all natural rights.

 

[JD50]

Its kind of funny to see the same people that bitch and moan about the Bush administration taking away all of our rights, come in here and clamor AGAINST the 2nd amendment. At least there are some people like Teclis that can give their point of view without insulting gun owners.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Might want to brush up on the Bill of Rights, as the right to own a firearm is a stated right without question.

/thread! Without question! I mean, it says it so clearly right in the Bill of Rights. It says "Every person may own a firearm." It's in black and white, written 200 years ago, signed by our foundin....what? It doesn't say that? Wait, this has been debated before? For decades? Really. Oh. I'll shut up now.

You people are ridiculous. Tell me where in this sentence is says "Every person may say whatever they want anytime they want anywhere they want".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


You're same ridiculous argument against guns could be used against speech.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Everyone agrees there should be a limit to gun ownership, just not everybody agrees where that line us. The reason everyone agrees (except for wanton psychopaths) is that they all see the reason in limiting accessibility of mass killing weapons, be them UZIs or six packs or rocket launchers, it's just that some like to limit ownership even of pistols and others don't, or some want a background check and others have no problem with a clinical psychopath currently being treated by a shrink having a gun.

Actually, i think all the gun nuts here are afraid that if they have to go through a psych eval they will get their guns taken. Rightly so.

Sounds more like you and your gun grabbing buddies are hiding under your beds at night afraid of us evul gun owners. :roll:

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: JD50
I've always been curious about why people feel this way. Its obvious by looking at crime statistics that assault rifles, sniper rifles, etc.. are hardly ever used in any kind of violent crime, so why are you so against people owning these weapons?

A hand gun can be used in defense of family in a tight situation.
A hunting rifle is used for hunting or target practice, I assume.

Assault rifles, sniper rifles and armor-piercing bullets are meant only for one thing - killing people. Nobody is going to use a sniper rifle to stop a burglary, it just doesn't make sense. Armor piercing bullets have only one purpose as well - to kill people who are protected by flak vests (i.e. - Cops). Not only do these weapons introduce massive abilities to destroy communities, but it demoralizes the police force knowing that John Smith can go buy an assault rifle with armor piercing bullets.

I'm not against the right to bear arms, but there are limits.

I agree that there should be some limits but what you just said is what scares me about new limits being placed.

Assault rifles, sniper rifles and armor-piercing bullets are meant only for one thing - killing

Would you classify any round that has the ability to pierce soft body armor as "armor-piercing"? If so, there goes the vast majority of rounds used in hunting.

What do you classify as a "sniper rifle"? Is it any rifle that can put a powerful round on target at long ranges? That fits the definition of the vast majority of hunting rifles. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine from the range competes in long range target shooting and he uses a very popular bolt action hunting rifle. Or are you just talking about insanely expensive guns that use insanely expensive bullets and require an insane amount of practice and skill to hit a target beyond the range of hunting rounds? Anyone remember when the last time a .50 was used in a crime?

On to assault rifles. The biggest difference between a semi-auto hunting rifle and an "assault rifle" is cosmetic. And I'll ask again, how often are assault rifles used in gun crimes? I can remember only 1 story in the last few years and it was a gang banger shooting another gang banger with an illegally imported AK47.

 

[teclis1023]

Apparently I don't know much about guns, which I agree with. I'm not versed enough to really know what should and shouldn't be allowed. All I can say is that if I went to a friend's house and he showed me his assault-style rifle with bullets dedicated toward piercing armor, I'd probably never want to go over there again. I find very few reasons to own assault weaponry, automatic or not.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Craig234


So, your equating the free exchange of handguns with other political 'rights' is not holding up too well under any scrutiny. At some level, there's a balance between the role of guns for self-defense versus their use for crime, but handguns are almost uniquely suited for the crime side of that trade-off compared to long guns. Gun advocates can't really hide behind the skirt of gay rights and racial equality to defend their handguns who kill so many in the largely democratic cities.

Self defense was not the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Might want to brush up on the Bill of Rights, as the right to own a firearm is a stated right without question.

/thread! Without question! I mean, it says it so clearly right in the Bill of Rights. It says "Every person may own a firearm." It's in black and white, written 200 years ago, signed by our foundin....what? It doesn't say that? Wait, this has been debated before? For decades? Really. Oh. I'll shut up now.

You people are ridiculous. Tell me where in this sentence is says "Every person may say whatever they want anytime they want anywhere they want".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


You're same ridiculous argument against guns could be used against speech.

JD, you're proving my point, not his. The 1st amendment doesn't say you can say whatever, whenever, which is why we have restrictions and why there is endless litigation over the laws interpreting the 1st amendment. There is lots of debate about what the 1st amendment covers and what it doesnt.

Spec is claiming the 2nd is essentially clear as day in its meaning as to individual gun right ownership, which this thread, my interpretation, legislative history, and decades of litigation all seem to argue against.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: jmmtn4aj

But IMO, the real problem with gun crime in the US has nothing to do with the availability of firearms, but with the culture. Both Switzerland and Sweden have fantastic gun/person figures, yet both experience fantastically low gun crime rates. If the US wants to see lower crime rates, then it had better due with issues like culture and poverty lines.

QFT!

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Might want to brush up on the Bill of Rights, as the right to own a firearm is a stated right without question.

/thread! Without question! I mean, it says it so clearly right in the Bill of Rights. It says "Every person may own a firearm." It's in black and white, written 200 years ago, signed by our foundin....what? It doesn't say that? Wait, this has been debated before? For decades? Really. Oh. I'll shut up now.

You people are ridiculous. Tell me where in this sentence is says "Every person may say whatever they want anytime they want anywhere they want".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


You're same ridiculous argument against guns could be used against speech.

JD, you're proving my point, not his. The 1st amendment doesn't say you can say whatever, whenever, which is why we have restrictions and why there is endless litigation over the laws interpreting the 1st amendment. There is lots of debate about what the 1st amendment covers and what it doesnt.

Spec is claiming the 2nd is essentially clear as day in its meaning as to individual gun right ownership, which this thread, my interpretation, legislative history, and decades of litigation all seem to argue against.

Except most scholars admit the 2nd is an individual right.
More to the point, why would our founding fathers pen out 9 individual rights and 1 collective?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
Apparently I don't know much about guns, which I agree with. I'm not versed enough to really know what should and shouldn't be allowed. All I can say is that if I went to a friend's house and he showed me his assault-style rifle with bullets dedicated toward piercing armor, I'd probably never want to go over there again. I find very few reasons to own assault weaponry, automatic or not.

Its fine that you dont, the problem isnt with you, its with the fact theres a great many people in power who are the same way and choose to pass laws based on emotions rather then facts.

A sniper rifle IS a hunting rifle. An assault weapon is illegal to own in many states and priced well beyond most criminals means. An honest to God assault rifle will cost you $15 grand, give or take. Everything else is just a wanna be. Many hunting rifles are semi automatic as are a good deal of shotguns. So too are military style rifles. The differences are by and large cosmetic.
All rifle rounds are "cop killers" because no police issue vest will stop a rifle round. SWAT is a different story, I dont know what they use. A few pistol rounds will penetrate a vest as well, but vests are clearly rated based on the threat. Google body armor and do a quick read, they very clear state what the threat level the vest is intended for and rate it based on level. Level II, III, IIIA etc.

No current production bullet is armor piercing, thats a function of bullet velocity more then composition. Which is why rifles punch through pistol rated vests. Your average rifle round is cookin along at 3000 fps compared to a pistols leisurely travel rate of 600 fps. Exceptions exist for both however. I have a pistol that, should I so choose, will send a bullet scorching at right around 2600 fps and make a real mess of someones day if their wearing pistol rated kevlar. A REAL mess. But its a very uncommon pistol, and to do that you need to buy an aftermarket caliber conversion kit for it as well.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Might want to brush up on the Bill of Rights, as the right to own a firearm is a stated right without question.

/thread! Without question! I mean, it says it so clearly right in the Bill of Rights. It says "Every person may own a firearm." It's in black and white, written 200 years ago, signed by our foundin....what? It doesn't say that? Wait, this has been debated before? For decades? Really. Oh. I'll shut up now.

You people are ridiculous. Tell me where in this sentence is says "Every person may say whatever they want anytime they want anywhere they want".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


You're same ridiculous argument against guns could be used against speech.

JD, you're proving my point, not his. The 1st amendment doesn't say you can say whatever, whenever, which is why we have restrictions and why there is endless litigation over the laws interpreting the 1st amendment. There is lots of debate about what the 1st amendment covers and what it doesnt.

Spec is claiming the 2nd is essentially clear as day in its meaning as to individual gun right ownership, which this thread, my interpretation, legislative history, and decades of litigation all seem to argue against.

EVERYONE agrees the 1st amendment is an individual right assuring your freedom of speech. There are of course some limitations on that however.
The difference is many argue the 2nd is NOT an individual right, and in fact your not assured of being able to own ANY firearm.

Imagine is law makers said the 1st was a collective right, but as an individual you have NO guarantee of ANY speech. They could pass a law that you cant even SPEAK outside of your home.

The fact is, the 2nd IS an individual right. Theres just been very few if any courts that will come out and say it because of the ramifications of that. You think the government really wants a well armed population? Your nuttier then some gun owners I know if you really think they do!