Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, October 1, 2009

Supreme Court taking new look at city handgun bans

October 1, 2009

Advertisement

— The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider a challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns, opening the way for a ruling that could set off a vigorous new fight over state and local gun controls across the nation.

A victory for gun-rights proponents in the Chicago case is considered likely, even by supporters of gun control. If the court rules that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t allow the city’s outright handgun ban, it could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws that limit who may own guns, whether firearms must be registered and even how they must be stored.

The court last year moved in the direction of voiding tough gun control laws when it struck down a prohibition on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city with unique federal status. Now the court will decide whether that ruling should apply to local and state laws as well. The court will hear arguments in the case early next year, and a ruling probably would follow in the spring.

The court has said previously that most, but not all, rights laid out in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights serve as checks on state as well as federal restrictions. Separately, 44 state constitutions already enshrine gun rights.

Though faced with potential limits from the high court on their ability to enact laws and regulations in this area, 34 states weighed in on the gun-rights side before the justices agreed to take the case Wednesday, an indication of the enduring strength of the National Rifle Association and its allies.

The gun case was among several the court added to its docket for the term that begins Monday. Others include:

• A challenge to part of a law that makes it a crime to provide financial and other aid to any group designated a terrorist organization.

• A dispute over when new, harsher penalties can be given to sex offenders who don’t register with state sex offender databases.

• Whether to throw out a human rights lawsuit against a former prime minister of Somalia who is accused of overseeing killings and other atrocities. The issue is whether a federal law gives the former official, Mohamed Ali Samantar, immunity from lawsuits in U.S. courts.

In the gun case, outright handgun bans appear to be limited to Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill. But a ruling against those ordinances probably would “open up all the gun regulations in the country to constitutional scrutiny, of which there are quite a few,” said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor whose recent book “Out of Range” explores the often bitter national debate over guns.

Comments

headdoctor 4 years, 6 months ago

I never really understood what the grumbling was about hand gun bans. People that are going to use a gun in an illegal situation don't care if they are banned or not. You are not going to remove hand guns from the criminals and even if you could they can still put together a Zip gun that will still serve the same purpose. As usual, most laws like this only penalize the law abiding citizen.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 6 months ago

remember_username, If the safety class is so easy then that kind of invalidates your argument for it being helpful, don't you think?

0

puddleglum 4 years, 6 months ago

we should probably ban all handguns, since they are the leading cause of hand-gun related deaths in the united states. even I knew that.

0

Satirical 4 years, 6 months ago

remember_username… “Why would a gun owner fear registration?”

Off the top of my head, a dictator rounding up all the guns prior to establishing a tyrannical regime – see Hitler. And the fact that registration wouldn't solve anything since criminals wouldn't register, meaning registration wouldn't solve crimes, and therefore serve little purpose.

“What is wrong with requiring a license, as proof of training, to carry a gun?” – R_U

Couldn’t the gun be proof of training? If training is required prior to owning a gun, then all possessors of handguns are either trained or illegally obtained. If it is the latter, then licensing wouldn’t be more effective.

“Do those same fears extend to firearms having serial numbers? Or to tagging powder in ammunition?” – R_U

I don’t see a problem with these, as long as the serial number isn’t tied to the owner, which would simply be a backdoor way to create a list of gun owners.

Heller a good case. Both sides have pretty good arguments when debating consider the historical context. Check out the oral arguments too if you have time. But I think the best argument favoring an individual right (rather than a collective right) is regarding the operative part of the 2nd amendment vs. the prefatory part.

Have a good weekend!

0

remember_username 4 years, 6 months ago

150+ pages long and I'm still re-reading it - interesting stuff. Man, I thought LJW posting could get a little heated, I'm starting to feel sorry for Justice Stevens, he's getting hammered.

0

remember_username 4 years, 6 months ago

Satirical - I actually read the case, that's why I'm out of sync posting.

0

remember_username 4 years, 6 months ago

Liberty - What the heck, couldn't you pass the stupid safety class?

Satirical - Back to your 10:34. "Personally, I would be more likely to favor requiring a minimal amount of free training for firearms than mandatory licensing, which is simply a list of owners of guns."

Free training is an acceptable compromise to me, provided there is a clear metric for ability, and that those unable to exhibit ability be refused the right of public carry. I'll not go as far as to eliminate ownership upon failed training. If a bad guy breaks into the house a person has a right to shoot the bad guy, the couch, the birdcage, bird, couch again, and the TV in order to protect themselves. But I'd rather someone with the training try and stop a bad guy in the local restaurant than someone without. That satisfies my peace of mind but I can't speak for others.

This objection to permits, registration, or licensing is what confuses me. Why would a gun owner fear registration? What is wrong with requiring a license, as proof of training, to carry a gun? Do those same fears extend to firearms having serial numbers? Or to tagging powder in ammunition?

0

Roads_Collar 4 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

TrooGrit 4 years, 6 months ago

i be getting me my fire ahrm, because i be wanting to protek mahself. I never know what n-words be comin to gits me, because i never know.

Grow up all of you, and realize it for what it is. Stupid, and senseless killing.

0

Satirical 4 years, 6 months ago

Remember_username… “Possession of rifles and shotguns if registered, was not banned but must be kept disassembled or with trigger guards.”

Let me repeat the holding of D.C. v. Heller again: “In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense … We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”

Because both rifles and shotguns are “lawful firearms,”and they are (even as you say) required to be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, they are inoperable, as the SCOTUS states, “for the purposes of immediate self-defense.” Therefore, the law “violates the Second Amendment.”

Allowing you to own a car, but requiring it to be disassembled while it is on your property is effectively a ban on owning cars. Further prove that the law is effectively a ban is that it doesn't even allow you to reassemble the car for the purpose of driving it. And even if the law did allow reassembling for self defense, it would still effectively be a ban because it it does not allow for "immediate self-defense." Simply because it is not called a "ban" in form, it is still a ban in substance. The SCOTUS realized this and therefore overturned the D.C. law as it pertained to any “lawful firearm.”

Again, I will refer you to the Wikipedia site, if you prefer not to read the entire case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._v._...

0

TrooGrit 4 years, 6 months ago

bea, you are delusional. You don't make any sense, you never did, you don't even live here (from what I know, which maybe faulty, i know). What's your point? You come here, you stir up your delusional leftist friends, and then you go away. WTF?

0

remember_username 4 years, 6 months ago

The DC ban did target handgun possession by not allowing registration of handguns and banning unregistered firearms of all types. In addition the ban required trigger locks or disassembly on all other types of firearms. Possession of rifles and shotguns if registered, was not banned but must be kept disassembled or with trigger guards. My first statement is correct, non handguns were not banned.

In lay terms, SCOTUS held that handguns could not be excluded as "arms" as described in the second amendment, and that a requirement disabling any legally possessed firearm rendered it useless for self protection and thus unconstitutional.

What I pointed to as odd was the specific finding to licensed "home" carry. I really have no idea why one would require a permit with in ones own home.

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

kansastruth, show me one state where you can't get a gun.

I only responded with the abortion analogy because there are indeed different restrictions from state to state. In some states it is difficult or impossible to get the "morning after" pill. That is a form of "ban," isn't it? I'm not arguing that the two issues are one and the same, just responding to someone else who seemed to suggest that abortion laws are uniform from state to state. They are not.

However, I ask again, if you have access to a shotgun but not a handgun is that the same as a “ban” on firearms, or is it just a restriction on a right? I'm just asking because this is likely part of what the court will be considering. I'm not advocating for a full-on ban of guns.

As I wrote earlier, I think laws restricting guns in one area and not in another are ineffective and should be tossed. I thought the D.C. ruling was correct, and I suspect this one will follow along the same way.

0

Satirical 4 years, 6 months ago

This is only tangentially related, but I thought it was interesting:

"Texas Boy, 5, Shoots Down 800-Pound Alligator" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,559103,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g4:r2:c0.000000:b28076698:z10

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 6 months ago

remember_username, it's unwise to pick out parts of the Constitution and say they support you. I could just as easily say that having the ability to protect you and your family's life from very real dangers is far more important to domestic tranquility than your unfounded fears of "spray and pray" shoot outs.

You reasons aren't very compelling. Especially in light of the fact that millions of crimes are prevented every year because of firearms and that people lose their lives because of gun control laws. What do you say to the family of Alan Berg, a Jewish talk show host in Denver who was killed by white supremacists in 1995 after receiving several death threats? He applied for a handgun permit and was denied--the reason, only applicants with a "true and compelling need" could get one. The police said "just because you fear for your life is not a compelling reason to have a permit." He never got the chance to show whether a handgun could have saved his life. Is your peace of mind worth more than his life?

Quotes from "No Self-Defense Allowed" Washington Times, November 5, 1995.

0

kansastruthteller 4 years, 6 months ago

Show me one state where you can't get an abortion? So to take your analogy about handgun vs firearm, would you be ok with a state limiting abortions to those pregnancy caused by rape and nothing else? I doubt that you would.

There are restrictions on gun purchases....age requirements, mental health, criminal background checks, etc. These are different than prohibiting ownership.

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

KS: "If a City or State can legally ban a gun, then a City or State should be able to ban an abortion!"

Yet there are various restrictions from State to State with regard to access to and requirements for obtaining an abortion. If you have access to a shotgun but not a handgun is that the same as a "ban" on firearms, or is it a restriction?

0

ferrislives 4 years, 6 months ago

Yes it does Satirical. Thanks for the detailed information. I learned something today. The incorporation of Washington D.C. in the US is pretty confusing at times.

0

TheGreatSantini 4 years, 6 months ago

If we outlawed ignorance and stupidity there wouldn’t be senseless gun violence. That is as realistic as outlawing guns.

0

Satirical 4 years, 6 months ago

remember_username... "It looks like SCOTUS is limiting their interpretations to inclusion of handguns as arms in the second amendment "

No, the Heller decision included rifles and shotguns, which were also included in the weapon ban, which the SCOTUS struck down.

"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

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

"In the DC case the remediation of the case noted that the respondent should still register the hand gun and apply for a “license to carry the hand gun in the home”." - Remember_Username

You are incorrectly paraphrasing what the court stated, the Court said, "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with . . . licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

0

remember_username 4 years, 6 months ago

satirical and ferrislives - It looks like SCOTUS is limiting their interpretations to inclusion of handguns as arms in the second amendment and that the DC use of trigger locks "infringed" on the 2nd Amendment. In the DC case the remediation of the case noted that the respondent should still register the hand gun and apply for a "license to carry the hand gun in the home". They copped out on further clarification of "bearing arms" except to state that the 2nd amendment is NOT unlimited and thus does not allow the carrying of just any gun wherever a person wants.

0

TrooGrit 4 years, 6 months ago

ok, remember...how the heck do you think to know the minds of "a number of Framers"? Oh, because they lived in a simpler time, without so many socialist nut jobs, who believe that they are entitled, no matter what the cost, we should do away with guns? Holy Swampgas, batman! Remember, given that DC is nearly 70~80% black, you are now a racist, by this community's standards. Take away the guns, the blacks just keep murdering. Tsk.

I'd suggest that it is you, who are untrained, in living with this modern liberal society you have created. "Take away guns, and only criminals will have guns" is just as true today, as ever. God help you if you come into my house, unannounced, at night. We'll read about you in the obit section under "Worthless piece of trash dies" boo hoo

0

remember_username 4 years, 6 months ago

Liberty - Not just my peace of mind but a good percentage, if not a majority, of The People for whom the Constitution was written. Peace of mind is a part of "insuring domestic Tranquility" don't you think? A number of the Framers felt the Bill of Rights to be superfluous in light of the Preamble.

Its more than "peace of mind", its simple public safety. The Supreme court in its ruling overturning the DC ban noted there exist sensitive locations where the right to keep and bear arms can be restricted. The world the Framers lived in was different. We won't know, but in all honesty, do you think they would have stated the 2nd amendment so in light of the firepower of modern weapons and the "pray and spray" mentality of the untrained citizen?

0

TrooGrit 4 years, 6 months ago

While you are at it, Supreme Court made up of wise, worldly individuals...please also rule on whether it's legal or not to possess railroad ties. Apparently, those too, can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Perhaps we could get Porchie to go up to Chicago and minister to those poor misguided youth who find imaginative new uses for ordinary items. There you go, Porchie as the new Intercity Minister Between Ethnically Cooperative Integrated Local Embarkee's.

(Sorry...laughter!)

0

Satirical 4 years, 6 months ago

ferrislives... "I thought this was already decided by the Supreme Court with Washington D.C"

Yes, but no.

A little background first: When the U.S. Constitution was written it only applied to the federal government, not to states. After the adoption of the 14th Amendment the SCOTUS began applying the U.S. Constitution to the States through something called "incorporation". So in other words, your freedom of speech, and other rights in the Bill of Rights, could be violated by your state but not the federal government (however most states adopted something similar in their State Constitution).

However, the SCOTUS didn't incorporate all of the Bill of Rights; it looked at each right individually as one- by-one cases came before them relating to each right. Some rights the SCOTUS even decided not to incorporate (apply to the states). Because the SCOTUS has never looked at the 2nd Amendment after adopting the incorporation theory, they have never really answered whether it applies to the states.

Because the challenge involved D.C., which is federal land, the SCOTUS again didn't have to address the question of incorporation (although in footnotes it indicated it would likely pass the incorporation test). Therefore, the court must now decide if not only the federal government, but also the states are prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bare arms.

Hope that makes sense.

0

ferrislives 4 years, 6 months ago

I answered my own question by re-reading: "The court last year moved in the direction of voiding tough gun control laws when it struck down a prohibition on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city with unique federal status. Now the court will decide whether that ruling should apply to local and state laws as well."

Hopefully they'll make the same decision as with D.C.

0

ferrislives 4 years, 6 months ago

Please clue me in: I thought this was already decided by the Supreme Court with Washington D.C.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 6 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"You don't see the problem with irresponsible handgun use in urban areas?"

What will training and permits do to curb inner city criminals irresponsibly using handguns? Nothing. It's a false solution that does nothing to cure the real problem.

0

Satirical 4 years, 6 months ago

Remember_Username…

So you want to amend your reasoning behind requiring licensing from - it’s reasonable because we require licensing for other stuff, and change it to - “the degree of training for, and licensing regulations are proportional to the possible risks involved.”

Just so I understand your new position - your criteria is that if something is dangerous it mandates training and licensing, and the more dangerous to activity or item is, the more training and licensing should be required? However, the flaw in your argument is that you don’t have a minimum threshold for when something is dangerous enough to require any training or any licensing. If there is no minimum threshold then as I stated before, a knife, baseball bat, and mace are all dangerous; and according to your test one should still be required to have training and licensing, but less so than for a gun.

If there is a minimum threshold, then apparently the question is where is the line, and whether certain guns are below or above that threshold. If you wish to establish a threshold then I would be happy to discuss whether that threshold is too high/low and whether handguns, etc are fall above or below that line.

I have never contended the 2nd amendment has no exceptions, and reasonable restrictions can’t be imposed. The question therefore is - what infringements on the right to keep and bare arms are reasonable? Obviously Chicago and D.C. think their regulations are reasonable.

Personally, I would be more likely to favor requiring a minimal amount of free training for firearms than mandatory licensing, which is simply a list of owners of guns.

0

TheGreatSantini 4 years, 6 months ago

Bans like in Chicago and DC are racist, basically saying “black people cannot handle gun ownership”. African Americans are fully American citizens, they should enjoy all the rights that come with it.

0

porch_person 4 years, 6 months ago

Liberty_One,

You don't see the problem with irresponsible handgun use in urban areas? Remember_username made a fine argument in his post at 8:41 PM

Like most Libertarians, you guys are short on real world solutions to real world problems.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 6 months ago

remember_username (Anonymous) says…

"I'm just asking for a little more assurance in your responsible use of the weapon"

For what purpose? Your peace of mind isn't a good enough reason. It seems you are addressing a problem that doesn't actually exist.

0

KS 4 years, 6 months ago

If a City or State can legally ban a gun, then a City or State should be able to ban an abortion! Hummmmm! Let's see how that plays in Peoria!

0

barrypenders 4 years, 6 months ago

Why use a gun to kill? Those darling kids in Chicago didn't have to. They used lumber to kill another child.

Darwin bless you all

0

remember_username 4 years, 6 months ago

Liberty - if the right to keep and bear arms belongs to "The People", why do we exempt the mentally ill and some convicted criminals? Certainly we do not want those likely to be harmful to themselves or others to walk around armed.

Kansastruthteller - If owning a gun is a fundamental right, ownership cannot be taken away like a privilege - can it?

satirical - what a satirical response. In general, the degree of training for, and licensing regulations are proportional to the possible risks involved. A firearm is more dangerous, in general, than the items you've listed, thus should be treated to a higher standard.

I personally believe the 2nd amendment covers the right to keep and bear arms, but the Framers didn't just write the Constitution for no reason. Every consideration is given to promoting the common good of all citizens referred to as The People. Just as the First Amendment does not allow me to shout GUN in a courtroom without restriction, the Second Amendment doesn't allow me to bring one to a courtroom without restriction either.

Why is it too much to ask that those few citizens carrying firearms legally confirm by permit that they are trained in safe use of the firearm they are carrying? If it was free would you be more willing? I'm not saying that a person can't own or carry a gun, I'm just asking for a little more assurance in your responsible use of the weapon than your right to vote. I know there are those of you who have taken the gun safety course, do you really want a person who can't pass that course to be carrying a gun? And if you're going to say "Don't matter to me as long as I'm packing", then I sure as hell don't want you to be armed.

0

beatrice 4 years, 6 months ago

Like the D.C. restrictions, the city bans on guns will and should be rejected. I agree with many that there are too many band-aid type gun laws that have little or no real effect. We need fewer laws, but make the few more effective to combat those who use guns illegally. I am still in favor of mandatory training -- basically make all gun owners demonstrate the same level of competency shown by the C&C folks.

Blueharley, Ted Nugent is wrong. Accidents with guns happen all the time. Just this past week, someone at a gun show in Arizona didn't realize that the gun was loaded and fired a round indoors at the show. Fortunately, nobody was seriously hurt. There is also that great youtube clip of the cop giving a demonstration to kids on gun safety and the poor guy shoots himself in the leg. Tough guy, making sure the kids were alright, but proof that accidents really do happen that aren't drug or alcohol related.

jayhawklawrence, Phoenix does not allow people to openly carry weapons into bars. You can do so on the street, but not into bars. The city did, however, recently pass a law allowing conceal and carry owners to bring guns into bars as long as they are not drinking. It seems like a bad mix, but in reality the conceal and carry folks aren't the people we should be afraid of. There haven't exactly been a rash of C&C related shootings in Lawrence, has there?

snap, Chris Rock is washed up? While you might not care for him, he remains one of the most popular comics in the world today. His concerts sell out everywhere he goes.

Sati: "I love it when liberals attack that which they don't understand."

Reminds me of conservative men talking about reproductive rights.

Liberty, yes, we should have voter training -- especially for those who live in Florida.

0

kansastruthteller 4 years, 6 months ago

The difference between driving and owning a gun is that one is a privilege and the other is a right.

State rights are important, but individual rights are more important. To suggest that state rights should override individual rights is to suggest that you agree with states prohibiting abortion, freedom of speech, education, and so on.

0

pace 4 years, 6 months ago

Not that the reasoning deserves attention, but I believe voters have to register. While the analogy to voting does not makes sense, the analogy to driving a car is valid. To own or possess a gun one should have training and to pass a test of competency to handle fire arms. If one is not competent enough to handle learning simple gun safety rules, maybe it would be better if that idiot doesn't play with a loaded guns. If you can't pass a drivers test one should not get to drive. Both cars and guns are tools that deserve respect. I am not against guns, I am against not requiring training. If you know what your safety rules and handling procedures, why are you so scared of a test?

0

Jim Phillips 4 years, 6 months ago

"KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…

Why is it that the only part of the Constitution that republicans care about is the Second Amendment?"

Pray tell! Do enlighten us.

0

Satirical 4 years, 6 months ago

I think people should be required to get a license to own spray mace, a knife, a baseball bat, or anything else which could aid them in self-defense.

This is reasonable because, as remember_username so eloquently stated; "We expect people to show that they are safely trained before they are allowed to pilot aircraft, drive a car, mix a prescription, teach a student, or design a dam, to name a few"

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 6 months ago

remember_username, those items you listed are not fundamental rights though. In addition, it's far more reasonable to require someone to have a license from the government to drive on public roads or to engage in commerce like the pharmacist, which is an allowable regulation under federal or state constitutions. The right to own a firearm is fundamental as well as the right to self-defense.

Background checks are a reasonable regulation to make sure that those who have lost their right to own a firearm, because they have committed a crime, for example, cannot purchase. What compelling legitimate purpose does licensing serve that only licensing can accomplish?

0

Satirical 4 years, 6 months ago

KansasVoter...

Why is it that liberals still don't understand what republicans care about? So either you are ignorant or are just being disingenuous....what a surprise...

Hey, let me try making a similarly ignorant statement...Why are liberals afraid of allowing the people the right to defend themselves and overthrow an oppressive government? Because they don't want resistance to their Marxist policies.

0

Satirical 4 years, 6 months ago

sfjayhawk...

States do have sovereignty, but they cannot violate the U.S. Constitution. The fact you think applying the 2nd amendment to the states violates "states rights" proves you know absolutely nothing about what that term means, and even less about the U.S. Constitution.

I love it when liberals attack that which they don't understand.

0

TheGreatSantini 4 years, 6 months ago

What happened to all the federalist (DC knows best) liberals, did they get tangled in their own web? I feel for them because we all suffer under an imperial Washington D.C., but I will temporarily partake in some schadenfreude. All Americans should work towards more state, city, town, and county independence.

0

KansasVoter 4 years, 6 months ago

Why is it that the only part of the Constitution that republicans care about is the Second Amendment?

0

remember_username 4 years, 6 months ago

Liberty - Says "Do you also think the right to vote should be subject to passing a test as well?"

I hear that argument against licensing often and I don't believe it should apply. When the 2nd amendment was written there was a test in place for the right to vote. It wasn't an test in terms we think of today but one had to fit certain parameters in order to vote.

The question of licensing is reasonable. We expect people to show that they are safely trained before they are allowed to pilot aircraft, drive a car, mix a prescription, teach a student, or design a dam, to name a few.

0

demonfury 4 years, 6 months ago

hipper_than_hip says: Since when can a city deny it residents the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights?

Answer: Since the city in question belongs to our President, who was purchased by George Soros' unlimited cash flow, who wants gun control for the purpose of political power and money.

I bet you won't hear a word on this matter from the Obamanation until a decision is made. And if the decision is correct, you won't hear much from him on that either. He wants no guns, but supports killing a fetus at any stage of gestation. The hippocracy of it all doesn't even surprise me anymore. Anyone feel like the McCain vote would have been a better choice now? Don't worry, you will.......

0

sfjayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

What happened to states rights being a fundamental value of the republican party? I guess that value left the party with the rest of the thinking people.

0

TheGreatSantini 4 years, 6 months ago

Agreed, if we can’t keep 30,000,000 illegal out of the country we won’t keep arms smugglers out of the country. In fact it will be just another lucrative industry for the Mexican cartels and apparently they can get their hands on some impressive hardware and grenades.

0

blue73harley 4 years, 6 months ago

"There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period." Ted Nugent

0

puddleglum 4 years, 6 months ago

tom, why do you have such a tiny gun?

0

kansastruthteller 4 years, 6 months ago

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says… "The Chicago police department should be allowed to get a handle on this violence and should be allowed to do so."

These gangsters violated numerous laws. Why do you think banning law-abiding citizens who have the right to own guns will stop the gang members?

I have an open mind so please explain how prohibiting me from owning a gun will prevent criminals from committing crimes.

New York and DC have had gun bans for years, but their murder rates are higher than other parts of the country where there are no gun bans.

Keep in mind, we can't keep drugs or illegal immigrants out of this country so we certaining can't keep illegal guns from getting in the hands of criminals, but perhaps you know more than me.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 6 months ago

"The Chicago police department should be allowed to get a handle on this violence and should be allowed to do so." Private ownership of handguns has been illegal in Chicago for years, if not decades. The police department up there doesn't seem to be able to get a handle on things.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 6 months ago

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

"The Chicago police department should be allowed to get a handle on this violence "

How does infringing upon citizens' fundamental rights accomplish this?

0

bondmen 4 years, 6 months ago

What scares real Americans with knowledge of human behavior and possessing a historical perspective is the desire by liberals and statists to restrict and punish the law abiding because of a few bad actors misusing firearms which you've aptly described. Let's all agree that the bad actors and boys with deadly toys should be the target of law enforcement and it's they law enforcement should arrest and prosecute. But the root cause of their bad behavior we will probably not agree on and it will not be corrected until men with children behave responsibly and begin to raise the boys they sire.

0

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 6 months ago

I lived in Chicago because of the job I had.

I was standing in a donut shop making a phone call when everyone hit the deck. I was busy talking and wondered what was going on and then I noticed the pop pop sounds. Looking out the window I saw two gangs in separate cars firing semi autos at each other. One gang was positioned behind my Taurus.

After an exchange of dozens of shots they both sped off firing at each other. I went out and checked my car and found NO HOLES. These guys are too stupid to even be able to shoot straight. Every year these folks kill innocent people and put holes in houses and cars with their silly games.

I know how to fire a weapon and I have been in the worst situations, too numerous to mention and I am still here.

The Chicago police department should be allowed to get a handle on this violence and should be allowed to do so.

The NRA and Republicans are just scaring people for political and monetary gain and it is very effective for them.

I was once a member of both but they went wacko. They don't make any sense anymore. They are not operating in the real world. It is all about politics, greed and corruption and how easy it is to yank our chains.

0

TheGreatSantini 4 years, 6 months ago

Pace, you just professed your faith in a governing body that would grant licenses. You have a blind faith in bureaucrats that I admire.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 6 months ago

pace (Anonymous) says…

"Owning a gun should require training, passing a test, it should be comparable to driving a car. It should be a regulated activity, not a profession of faith."

Do you also think the right to vote should be subject to passing a test as well?

0

bondmen 4 years, 6 months ago

For state control to be comprehensive and power firmly consolidated in the District of Corruption the Supremes must rule in favor of local and state laws to restrict and control ownership of private, law abiding gun owners and furthermore these individuals must to be subject to governance by any and all law enforcement authorities and entities, both domestic and international. If not, Americans will never be subjected to international socialist control and will never benefit from the ultimate good that emanates from illumined minds including their policies to make US all good world subjects.

0

pace 4 years, 6 months ago

Owning a gun should require training, passing a test, it should be comparable to driving a car. It should be a regulated activity, not a profession of faith.

0

1029 4 years, 6 months ago

I would never live in Chicago. Heck, I don't even fly anymore because they don't let me carry no guns with me when I do. Had to fly to Houston a few years back and it was terrifying to not be able to defend myself if somebody tried to harm my person. I was only on the plane for about 10 minutes before I peed all over myself because some guy that didn't look American looked at me funny. Had to sit through the whole flight in my own urine. I drive everywhere now.

Maybe liberals just need to hold a gun in their hands and feel the power and the self-esteem rise. Then maybe they'd understand what us pro-constitutioners are all about. They just don't get it.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 6 months ago

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

"The city of Chicago has a right to try to gain control of an out of control situation without national politics sticking their self centered noses into their affairs."

The national government has the right to gain control of an out of control city that is violating US citizens' fundamental rights.

0

TheGreatSantini 4 years, 6 months ago

“There is no shotgun ban in Chicago. It just costs an arm and a leg to license one. I made sure I didn't live in Chicago.’

Yeah apparently poor people are not allowed to defend their lives and property in this liberal utopia.

0

tolawdjk 4 years, 6 months ago

There is no shotgun ban in Chicago. It just costs an arm and a leg to license one. I made sure I didn't live in Chicago.

0

kansastruthteller 4 years, 6 months ago

So the libs believe that the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and that states and cities can prohibit gun ownership.

It seems relatively elementary that if that is true then it is also true that cities and states could limit free speech and abortion.

Is that what the libs want - to allow cities and states to limit invididual rights?

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 6 months ago

What do has-been comedians know about Constitutional rights?

0

TheGreatSantini 4 years, 6 months ago

The violent liberal centers of America want more state and local rights, more freedom from federal laws? I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

0

remember_username 4 years, 6 months ago

hipper - that's what the Supreme court is deciding. It's always been about interpretation of the wording used in the 2nd amendment. I always imagine the Framers, upon finalizing the wording of amendment 2, saying "There that should be obvious enough - let's move on."

0

hipper_than_hip 4 years, 6 months ago

Since when can a city deny it residents the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights?

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 6 months ago

I'm in the mood all of a sudden to get my model 23 Glock .40 cal out and blow off a few rounds.

0

ivalueamerica 4 years, 6 months ago

What are the gun crime rates in countries that outlaw guns?

0

Paul R Getto 4 years, 6 months ago

Chris Rock had it right: "Let people buy all the guns they want, but charge $5,000/bullet."

0

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 6 months ago

I resent the Republicans politicizing this issue. It has been effective for them because there are enough stupid people out there to go along with the hysteria they love to produce.

The city of Chicago has a right to try to gain control of an out of control situation without national politics sticking their self centered noses into their affairs.

I do not believe there is a shotgun ban in Chicago. It is a much better weapon for home defense and you won't end up shooting someone's baby a block away when you miss what you were aiming at.

If the Republicans want to make Chicago into a Phoenix style situation where we go back to the old west, wearing 6 shooters into bars, then they can continue their march into hell for all I care.

0

northtown 4 years, 6 months ago

back to that old saying---Outlaw guns-Handguns included-and only outlaws will own guns--or weapons as we call them--I will become a outlaw when the U.S.A. of Obama bans the owning of a handgun--Take this freedom away from the public-then what is next-your right to crap?? Protect what feedom we have now-Our Oh so wonderful president is doing his best to do away with your freedom. Now i wrote this so all in lawrence could defend thier Obama!!!!!!

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 6 months ago

How many Americans have lost their property or their lives because of gun control laws? It's about time this insanity was put to an end.

As a side note, the Court is also being asked to revisit its decision in the Slaughterhouse cases regarding the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment.

0

kansastruthteller 4 years, 6 months ago

Oh the lies the anti-gunners will tell to further their agenda.

D.C. Homicide Rate at 30-Year Low Updated: Friday, 08 May 2009, 8:11 PM EDT Published : Friday, 08 May 2009, 8:10 PM EDT

Paul Wagner By PAUL WAGNER/myfoxdc WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District's homicide rate is falling. In fact, it's the lowest it has been since the early 1980s. As of Friday, May 8, 41 people had been murdered in the city. That number is down nearly 25 percent compared with the same time last year.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 6 months ago

Of course, the AP dutifully failing to mention in DC and Chicago, just two examples since the ban, gun related murders have risen sharply. Not to worry though Glenn Beck has been covering it.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.