High court rejects appeal on gun rights in public
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has turned away another case over whether Americans have a constitutional right to be armed in public.
The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling upholding a New Jersey requirement for gun owners to show an urgent need to carry a handgun outside their home for self-defense. Both a police official and a judge must approve the permits.
The New Jersey law was challenged by four individuals and two gun groups, and had the backing of 19 states. The justices turned away similar questions on at least two earlier occasions.
The courts 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller focused mainly on the right to defend ones own home, but left for another day how broadly the Second Amendment may protect gun rights elsewhere.
###
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/05/high_court_rejects_appeal_on_gun_rights_in_public/
randys1
(16,286 posts)I want a machine gun like in the tv show "Combat", then I can shoot and kill imaginary Krauts (the derogatory word we used for Nazi's when I as 9 yrs old and played with toy guns)
Or, I grew up, and no longer need to play with these type of toys...
hlthe2b
(102,283 posts)I'm shocked the gang of five turned down the opportunity to finalize an armed camp US--a la Somalia.
Of course, turning a blind eye, merely lets the latter day war lords (Bundy) and others continue their armed intimidation on the rest of us.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)That is a fitting description.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it will make shall issue CCW the law of the land.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)NOT!
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is not like shall issue CCW is anything new in America so the warnings of blood in the streets sounds a little contrived.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)CCW are for cowards.... If we are going to allow cowards to carry in public at least let it be out in the open so we can see the fools for what they are...
I need to carry a gun to the mall so I can protect myself against the boogie man....
What tomfoolery...
hack89
(39,171 posts)because some CCW permit holders killed someone, there should be no CCW permit holders at all? Do you extend that standard to all things that tragically kill people or just guns? I can't imagine you would be a hypocrite on the issue.
The facts are simple - CCW permit holders have a much lower rate of violent crime than the general public. They are not the threat. It is that criminal illegally carrying in public that is the real danger. But you know that - it is just that you have no solution to that problem so you focus on CCW.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)"CCW permit holders have a much lower rate of violent crime than the general public."
Like I said, just because not all drivers that are drunk kill people, does not mean we should tolerate drunk driving...
Now compare how we regulate guns and compare to cars in our society and drinking alcohol ...
Please don't tell me you don't get that again...
hack89
(39,171 posts)think about it:
1. Simple test that 95% of the population can pass
2. No criminal background check to get a license
3. No wait to get a license
4. License is good in every state
5. You can get a license at 16 and a half years old.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)YES... I thought about it...
1. Simple test that 95% of the population can pass
- really based on what data? Test... Are you breathing... Yes! Can you see?... Yes, here you go! Now go enrich the war mongers and arms dealers to save "amerika!"
2. No criminal background check to get a license
- bad idea, see any gun massacre in the nation for the last 15 years...
3. No wait to get a license
-- stupid fucking idea, yes lets speed up the time to act on crimes of passion and rage!
4. License is good in every state
REALLY FUCKING STUPID IDEA!!! I'm sorry laws that apply to rural areas of N. Dakota and Urban areas of NY and Il are not a one size fits all...
5. You can get a license at 16 and a half years old. - Yes great idea, lets arm adolescent children, really fucking stupid idea.
You're just full of them today! Hack is the name, hack is the game.
I am done. This is all I need.
Sometimes the best argument for gun control is from pro-gun proliferation nuts themselves...
hack89
(39,171 posts)Just pointing out that guns are more regulated than cars - "We need to license guns like cars" is a common gun control argument from those that are clueless about our actual gun laws.
I don't think we should regulate guns like cars. You pointed out exactly why it is a bad idea.
You are trying too hard to be outraged. You need to slow down and read for context. It will save you future embarrassment.
hack89
(39,171 posts)But violent crimes have been rare among carrying a concealed weapon license holders. Only 2% of license holders have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior, State Police records show.
Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said he has always been a proponent of people being able to protect themselves. The troublemakers, generally, aren't the people who go through the process to legally own and carry a gun -- it's the people who carry illegally who cause problems, he said. My position was, and still is, is that the people we have a problem with with guns aren't the people who are willing to follow the law and go through the hoops and training," Bouchard said.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110731/NEWS06/107310482/10-years-after-concealed-weapons-law-unclear-why-many-state-were-gun-shy
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)hardly convincing, tell that to the victims family...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/09/two-michigan-drivers-shoot-and-kill-each-other-after-road-rage-incident/
Taylor had a misdemeanor conviction in 2006 for driving while intoxicated and separately for carrying a gun in the car, Ionia County Prosecutor Robert Schafer told ABC News. As a result, his concealed weapons license was revoked for three years. He eventually applied and received a new license four years later in 2010, Schafer said.
Just because they don't show up in statistics, does not mean they keep us safe. If that was the case, the USA would be the safest country in the world... we are not.
Googled in 5 seconds.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I thought they were related.
So let me get this straight - I said that CCW have a low violent crime rate. Your response is to google a single incident. Do I really have to explain that "low" =/= "none"? You are being deliberately obtuse. You don't like guns - why not be honest and admit that your beliefs are impervious to facts - oh wait, you just did.
hack89
(39,171 posts)mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)you can be negligent and kill your 8 yr old kid with a gun that you "thought" was empty and get away with it...
nice... try.... hardly convincing.. like I said your stats are shit.
hack89
(39,171 posts)what do you have besides some strongly held emotional beliefs? Facts don't matter if your heart is in the right place?
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)But my beliefs don't get innocent victims killed.... your "one size fits all" beliefs do.
hack89
(39,171 posts)So you cannot disprove that CCW carriers commit less violent crime than the general public?
What exactly are your beliefs - that all guns should be banned?
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)CCW holders that killed each other over "whatever", they will not be charged with crimes since they are both dead.... they will not appear in any crime stats.
The gun proliferation manufacturers made sure we do not adequately keep records of gun crimes... so your beliefs are just that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Do you understand that two examples don't shine any light on the actual topic?
The FBI and local police keep track of gun crimes. Can you show me where the "gun proliferation manufacturers" have stopped the police from keeping accurate records? Why would cities and towns with strict gun control laws defy the "gun proliferation manufacturers" by passing strict gun control laws and then turn around and acquiesce to those same "gun proliferation manufacturers" and not keep good records?
Your logic is seriously fucked up.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Great news and another step toward gun regulation sanity.