Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Court may extend gun owner rights nationwide

March 3, 2010

Advertisement

— The Supreme Court suggested Tuesday it will strike down U.S. cities’ outright bans on handguns, a ruling that could establish a nationwide ownership right fervently sought by gun advocates. But the justices indicated less severe limits could survive, continuing disputes over the “right to keep and bear arms.”

Chicago-area residents who want handguns for protection in their homes are asking the court to extend its 2008 decision in support of gun rights in Washington, D.C., to state and local laws.

Comments

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 9 months ago

A "nationwide ownership right" already exists. You'll find it in the Bill of Rights; 2nd Amendment.

anon1958 4 years, 9 months ago

"SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says...

A "nationwide ownership right" already exists. You'll find it in the Bill of Rights; 2nd Amendment. "

Im not finding anything that gives a citizen a right to own any kind of firearm they want. Handguns are more of a safety liability to a family than any kind protection. It is just dangerous and stupid to pretend otherwise.

Too many morons in this country fantasize about being Dirty Harry, Rooster Cockburn or Jonah Hex. I mock all you fools that believe in conceal and carry and would take a concealed handgun into a bar or some other volatile place if you could.

oldvet 4 years, 9 months ago

The foolish will always mock what they do not know and do not understand.

BrianR 4 years, 9 months ago

Too many morons in this country fantasize about being Dirty Harry, Rooster Cockburn or Jonah Hex. I mock all you fools that believe in conceal and carry and would take a concealed handgun into a bar or some other volatile place if you could.

Or Foghorn Leghorn.

It is taboo to drink and carry.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

Look at all the drive-by bayonettings prevented by the Scary Gun Ban that Clinton got passed.

seriouscat 4 years, 9 months ago

Anon wrote "Handguns are more of a safety liability to a family than any kind protection. It is just dangerous and stupid to pretend otherwise."

Wrong.

"Citizens use guns to defend themsleves as many 2.5 million times a year… Each year firearms are used sixty times more often to protect the lives of citizens than to take lives. The majority of these citizens defend themselves by brandishing their weapons or firing a warning shot … Only two percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. By contrast, the error rate for police officers is eleven percent."

“The Carter Justice Department found that nationwide 32 percent of more than 32,000 attempted rapes were committed, but only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were successful when a woman was armed with a knife or a gun.”

Source: Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe Bageant

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

s-cat: Far more people die inside homes where guns are kept than in homes without guns. We have gone over this one on this board recently. That is why I choose not to own.

However, the Constitution is the Constitution, and in my as always humble opinion, what I see as band-aid type guns laws of preventing them here but not there, outlawing this gun in this county but not in that county, do not work. Get rid of those laws, as this case may do, and then we can start to look at serious, wholesale gun control on a national level, where it should be. As always, I'm for training and registering legal, law-abiding owners. What will that do? Well, if not registered and you are found with a gun = jail time. No reason for a law-abiding citizen to not be registered. Use a gun in a crime = years in jail. Fire a gun while committing a crime = decade in jail, at least. Conceal and Carry type rules for everyone who wants to be a law-abiding citizen solves much of the problem.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

If airplanes were registered with the federal government and all pilots had to be trained and licensed, then crimes involving airplanes would be eliminated. Oh wait, airplanes are registered, all pilots have to be trained and licensed. That didn't prevent Mr. Nutbar from crashing an airplane into a building a few days ago. But that'll work much better with firearms, trust the feds to get it right this time.

Satirical 4 years, 9 months ago

STRS... "A 'nationwide ownership right' already exists. You'll find it in the Bill of Rights; 2nd Amendment." - STRS

Actually the 2nd Amendment currently does not apply to the states. Originally when the U.S. Constitution was adopted it only applied to the Federal government. Therefore your 1st Amendment right to free speech only protected censure by the federal government, and unless your state had a similar provision in its Constitution, a state could prevent speech. It wasn't until the 1890s that the Bill of Rights starting applying to the states through what is called "incorporation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpor...

The last SCOTUS opinion dealing with this issue said the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states, so that is still precedent (current law). However, this ruling was prior to the incorporation theory. Therefore, I see no reason this wouldn't get 8-1 approval since the 2nd Amendment has already been interpreted in the Heller decision to not allow the federal government to ban handguns. The only question is HOW the 2nd Amendment is incorporated. That actually is a very interesting constitutional question because there are numerous possible ways to do it.

Fatty_McButterpants 4 years, 9 months ago

I'm waiting to see the novel which Merrill will post on this subject. Seriously, Merrill,have you ever posted a single, brief comment, instead of your obnoxiously long, multi-post essays???

madameX 4 years, 9 months ago

"""He fully understood after reading the 2-3 page article that the constitution was violated by liberals""""


Where was this 2-3 page article from? Just curious. I'm not really sure that this is an issue that could adequately be explained in 2-3 pages unless the font was unreadably tiny or the article was ridiculously one-sided, let alone fully understood after reading said pages.

BTW, I think the gun ban will be struck down too. When the first decision was handed down I though the basic reasoning should apply to the states, and that it was just a matter of time before a case made its was through that required the court to address specifically how it applies.

remember_username 4 years, 9 months ago

I don't know, Mr. Shewmon. Are you sure you'd be comfortable if the "lefties" you fear so much felt the way the "righties" do about the 2nd amendment, and were running around armed?

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

Law-abiding citizens with firearms are not the problem, no matter which side of the aisle they inhabit.

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

"That didn't prevent Mr. Nutbar from crashing an airplane into a building a few days ago."

snap, I didn't say training and registering of gun owners would stop all problems. However, had Mr. Nutbar been flying around and stopped at some point prior to crashing into a building, I guess you would be opposed to putting him in jail if he wasn't licensed to fly or if he was flying an unregistered plane.

However, guns and airplanes are two different things. An airplane, when it crashes and kills people, has either failed or was used in a manner unintended. When a gun is used and kills someone, it is being used in the exact manner in which it was designed and for what it was intended (putting metal slugs through or into another object at a high rate of speed). Very different things, planes and guns.

Scenario: Cop stops bad guy, and bad guy has a gun. Under my proposal bad guy would go to jail, no if ands or buts. In your scenario it is "oh, give him a chance to commit a crime with the gun first." Let's let him prove he is a bad guy. I say no. I agree with you that the law-abiding citizens with firearms are not the problem. Requiring training and registration will help distinguish the good citizens from the bad ones. I have no idea why you feel that is such a bad thing.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

The law-abiding British subjects were disarmed through a series of what seemed at the time reasonable steps. Violent crime is booming there now.

puddleglum 4 years, 9 months ago

machine guns can save lives too. I just don't see what the big deal is.

vote for puddleglum, governor of KANSAS

i promise, I will pass legislation which will fine any state resident that does not own a handgun. even handless people, whom can figure out some way to shoot a pistol with their feet. oh, the reasoning? the forefathers suggested this penalty years ago. I'm just here to enforce it.

jbiegs 4 years, 9 months ago

I don't understand the mentality of those who favor gun control. Do you really think the criminals care what the law says? No, these laws do not matter to them. Therefore, by passing gun control laws, the only ones affected are the law abiding citizens who would use them only for self defense or recreation. Stop comparing apples to oranges. Criminals can and will acquire whatever it is they desire through whatever means necessary.

PosseComitatus 4 years, 9 months ago

If only the police are allowed to possess guns would they then be considered a standing army?

KSManimal 4 years, 9 months ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says... "A "nationwide ownership right" already exists. You'll find it in the Bill of Rights; 2nd Amendment."

Stop the presses and buy Satan a parka. I agree with STRS.

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

snap: "The law-abiding British subjects were disarmed through a series of what seemed at the time reasonable steps. Violent crime is booming there now."

Liberty: "And under your proposal the good guy with the gun goes to prison too."

To Liberty's point first. You are wrong. The "good guy" would have had training and be registered as a gun owner -- much as the good guys who follow Conceal and Carry laws do now. Same thing. So you are wrong in the way you are framing my argument. You may not agree with my proposal, and frankly knowing how you think on these matters I'd be surprised if you did, but it isn't what I am suggesting.

Snap: Who is talking about disarming law-abiding citizens? Certainly not me. Your bringing up the disarming of the British has no relationship with what I am discussing -- except for the "slippery slope ... Obama wants to take our guns ... the sky is falling!" scare tactics kind of way that the NRA makes its bread and butter on.

So, back to what I suggested. Law-abiding citizens would get training and registered (means of showing proof of training, not registering every single gun, by the way). It is a means of dealing with the issue of too many criminals (note criminals, not citizens) who use guns in committing crimes (or may intend to by owning guns illegally) and how to seriously punish those who want to use guns in committing crimes. "But criminals don't bother to register," you might say, to which I would say "Duh!" That is the point. Get the guns out of the hands of those who won't obey laws. (Just trying to save a few exchanges here.) Will it be perfect? No. Would it be better than nothing at all? Yes, because we do have a problem of too many guns being in the hands of criminals in this country.

It is all very simple, really.

Oh, and to your point about violence in Britain, how many gun deaths do they have in Great Britain every year? Just asking.

75x55, thanks, but no help needed.

RoeDapple 4 years, 9 months ago

Hmmm...

Handgun deaths in Great Britain

  1. 3865

  2. 4275

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

RoeD, how does that compare with the U.S.?

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

Liberty, I am using good / bad as a paradigm for non-criminal / criminal. Consider Conceal and Carry laws that are on the books now. If a "good" person is concealing and carrying now and they haven't filed all the proper paperwork, what can happen to them? Personally, I feel that with owning a firearm comes some responsibility, and that should include filling out some paperwork. Irresponsible people incapable of filling out some paperwork probably shouldn't be armed. The last part you suggest does pose a problem, I'll admit, just as not doing what I suggests can cause problems. Consider in your just carry viewpoint, sans training and registration, what about her ex-boyfriend is caught with a firearm on the way over to see her? You would suggest that unless he has threatened her and hasn't actually shot her yet, nothing can be done to stop him. Only after he shots her will he then be a crimnal. I think it better to take the gun from his un-registered, un-trained hands first.

Let's face it, with guns and unlawful people, there is no perfect scenario.

OwlHead 4 years, 9 months ago

 Irresponsible gun owners that do not properly store their weapons and properly educate their children on safe gun use are indeed a problem....BUT you can't take away rights because people die from irresponsible gun use.  People that are licensed to carry concealed pass a background check and get an education course on appropriate use of their firearm.  At least i know who ISN"T a felon.........

OwlHead 4 years, 9 months ago

beatrice, roeDapple is pointing out that murders are going up in Britain. Britain does not allow much at all for handguns. I do not know their laws, but I do know that gun ownership is severely restricted there. So the criminals have handguns and the citizens do not have handguns to protect themselves.

gogoplata 4 years, 9 months ago

Too many morons in this country fantasize about being Dirty Harry, Rooster Cockburn or Jonah Hex. I mock all you fools that believe in conceal and carry and would take a concealed handgun into a bar or some other volatile place if you could.

Who is Jonah Hex?

There are plenty of real men and women out there with the courage to help out people in danger. Not to mention that my 88 year old grandmother armed with a .38 revolver can protect herself from people that she would have no chance against without the gun. For a lot of people gun ownership has nothing to do with being a toughguy. Guns are a tool that the weak can use to protect themselves from the strong if necessary.

RoeDapple 4 years, 9 months ago

From Wikipedia; "Jonah Woodson Hex is a fictional character, a Western comic book antihero created by writer John Albano and artist Tony DeZuniga and published by DC Comics. The right side of his face is horribly scarred. He was an officer for the Confederacy during the American Civil War, fought at Gettysburg and is normally shown wearing a tattered Confederate States Army jacket. "

I never heard of him either gogo, but what the heck, you can't argue with the anti's, they know what's good for us...

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

owlhead: "BUT you can't take away rights because people die from irresponsible gun use. People that are licensed to carry concealed pass a background check and get an education course on appropriate use of their firearm. At least i know who ISN"T a felon........."

That is exactly my point. Thanks.

RoeD, what does my Aunti have to do with this?

feeble 4 years, 9 months ago

It is interesting to note that this represents a strengthening of individual rights at the expense of states rights. I'm not advocating against the second amendment here, just noting that the will States are once again being subverted by the Fed.

1029 4 years, 9 months ago

About time SCOTUS! Good news like this makes me want to blast off a few celebratory rounds out the window on my way home from work this evening. (My commute is through a rural area, so it's okay.) God bless America.

Thinking_Out_Loud 4 years, 9 months ago

anon1958, the character was Rooster Cogburn. Which you would have known, had you read Charles Portis's novel.

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

feeble, good point. If the gun-rights folks get their way on this, it would be a case against states' rights. This seems to be a contradiction for conservatives.

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

Two feets they come a creepin' Like a black cat do And two bodies are layin' naked Creeper think he got nothin' to lose So he creeps into this house, yeah And unlocks the door And as a man's reaching for his trousers Shoots him full of .38 holes

(Chorus) Mr.Saturday night special Got a barrel that's blue and cold Ain't no good for nothin' But put a man six feet in a hole

Big Jim's been drinkin' whiskey And playing poker on a losin' night And pretty soon, Big Jim starts a thinkin' Somebody been cheatin' and lyin' So Big Jim commences to fightin' I wouldn't tell you no lie And Big Jim done pull his pistol Shot his friend right between the eyes

(Chorus)

Oooh Saturday night special... For twenty dollars you can buy yourself one too...

Oooh let me tell you all about it...

Well hand guns are made for killin' They ain't no good for nothin' else And if you like to drink your whiskey You might even shoot yourself So why don't we dump 'em people To the bottom of the sea Before some ole fool come around here Wanna shoot either you or me

(Chorus)

Ooooh it's a Saturday night special And I'd like to tell you what you can do with it too...

Courtesy of Lynyrd Skynyrd (the pre-plane crash, real Lynyrd Skynyrd!)

KSManimal 4 years, 9 months ago

blue73harley (anonymous) says...

" Lynyrd Skynyrd"

Don't you mean "Rossington and the Replacements"

:)

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

Ordinary Americans in Chicago can't have forks.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.