Supreme Court to back right to bear arms

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Financial Times

The US Supreme Court appears ready to rule that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun in their home for self-defence, a ruling that could help Republicans in the upcoming presidential election.

Hearing the most important gun rights case in nearly 70 years, the justices on Tuesday spent 98 minutes engrossed in a lively debate about British and American legal traditions relating to the right to bear arms, especially in self-defence.

By the end of Tuesday’s session, it appeared clear that a majority of the court would rule that the US constitution protects the right of individual Americans to “keep and bear arms” – but that federal, state and local governments will retain some powers to regulate firearms.

-----

The justices sparred over whether those words guarantee the right of individual citizens to bear arms, or only the collective right to bear arms in a state militia.

A majority of the nine justices, including the crucial “swing” justice Anthony Kennedy, who often holds the balance of power on the court, appeared to believe the amendment guaranteed an individual right to weapons.


Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

---

As a gun-owner I do hope they come down on the side of a law-abiding individual being able to own a gun and against cities/states that infringe on that right. I feel it is an issue in my right to have the means to defend myself.

[Taverner]

1. Good

Again, this is a minor issue for me - but I'm glad the draconian laws of DC have been changed

[cadaverdog]

35. Obviously you don't live in DC where over 70%

of the people are against handgun ownership.

[zanne]

40. According to some people on DU,

The citizens of DC WANT MORE GUNS!

[MaryCeleste]

106. Substitute abortion for guns...do you feel that the will of the people should trump a womans right

to choose? Gun ownership is on a lot more solid footing than Roe. If they take a state based approach, Roe is history.

I like to know the source of your statistic. When I lived in DC lots of people had handguns, they just did not declare them, figuring if they shot a perp, it was okay to risk a firearms charge for their family's safety.

[iverglas]

112. asked your wife what she thinks about all that?

I thought there was just a slight chance that someone might look at your "name" and think you wouldn't be likely have a wife. I mean, not where you live.

It's just so unbelievably hilarious that the exact same members of the US Supreme Court who upheld the most vile and unconstitutional assault on women's rights to occur in the last some time -- the recent decision upholding a law that makes it a criminal offence for women and their doctors to choose a medical procedure that is in the best interests of the woman, in the most complete and contemptible disregard for women, women's lives, women's health and women's - yes - rights -- are the very members of that Court who are about to strike down the reasonable restrictions on firearms possession in issue in this case.

Isn't that just the funniest thing? I'll bet you wouldn't believe it if I told you that some of them were also the exact same members of that Court that handed your country to George W. Bush on a platter not too long ago.

Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, ... Thomas ... look at the d/Democrats standing up to be counted!!

And look at the, er, d/Democrats singing their praises.

Five stopped clocks, all telling the same time. It's just one great big coincidence, isn't it?

[MaryCeleste]

115. My late wife supported choice for abortion and gun ownership

She was a great progressive who taught shooting to women and helped other women get the reproductive resources they needed.

Roe is in real danger, and needs to get fixed by Federal legislation, but no one has the gumption for that. Maybe after the mid term election. National protection of abortion is one of the things Canada got right. They are sure screwed up on the gun issue.

My nick is from a ghost ship...one of these days I need to figure out how to do the custom avatar thing and use a picture of it.

[zanne]

140. Canada is "screwed up" on the gun issue?

What's their murder rate compared to ours? How do the number of shooting deaths compare to ours?

[raebrek]

176. Never Mind Self Delete N/T

[PinkTiger]

205. You can't compare it.

We have a gun culture in the US that would never be removed, regardless of those who want to remove the guns.
What we need is gun control, so we know who has the guns, and who the guns belong to.
Then we need strong laws that control those gun's transfer, and a way to get unregistered guns off the streets.
This would help.
I'm not for banning guns -- I'm for control.

[zanne]

217. I'm not for banning guns either.

But so many people on DU who are gun lovers seem to think that anyone who wants controls on guns is a "gun grabber". IMO, alot of them would be happy with fewer gun regulations.

[Bake]

163. Roe needs no federal legislation.

It's either in the constitution or not. So far, SCOTUS says it is, in the right to privacy (although it's been chipped away to an extent). That's why this election matters so incredibly much.

Bake

[MaryCeleste]

199. Yet...

If the current court makes guns a states issues, they will be bound to do the same for choice. Same logic will apply. Then all hell will break loose with a patchwork of restrictions.

A better choice would be national legislation defining things that states can not chip away at. However, not nearly enough of the congress critters are willing to stand up to be counted.

Hiller is being called the Gun version of Roe V Wade for good reasons

[zanne]

218. Why would they have to do the same for choice?

Please explain.

[Speaker]

167. LOL

It's just so unbelievably hilarious that the exact same members of the US Supreme Court who upheld the most vile and unconstitutional assault on women's rights to occur in the last some time...

It was the women's movement that forced the dichotomy.

I back a woman's ownership of her reproductive organs, 100%. The gummint does not even have the right to know if she's pregnant, mush less the result of the pregnancy.

The problem started with the million whackjob march. Women were so confident in their newfound right that they were ready to begin abolishing the rights of others.

They were happy about the fact that they legally were property owners of their uterii, and decided to put an end to the rights of others.

The gun control movement seriously began.

Now the dichotomy.

If I, as a pro gun male, vote for a woman's right to choose, I am at the same time voting against the right to defend my life.

So, as a sovereign citizen, what is more important to me; my right to live, or your right to kill a mistake.

Sorry, toots, you lose.

As long as the Democrats force me to choose between dieing or letting you own your own crotch, you lose.

You will not conclusively have your rights until you grant me mine.

[iverglas]

180. it's those uppity women!!!

Yup, give 'em an inch of human rights, and they'll take your guns.

Never mind that their bodies are none of your business and nothing that they do in respect of their reproductive organs will ever kill you or deprive you of the ability to earn an income or terrorize your neighbourhood, while what some of you do with your guns will do all of that. No, you have invented the perfect equivalency: my uterus and your gun. And some people wonder why some people say the things they do about firearms and phalluses.

A body is not property, despite the moronic ravings of the loonitarians. I do not own my body. I am my body, my body is me. You are not your guns, difficult as it may be for you or others to distinguish between them.

Women were so confident in their newfound right that they were ready to begin abolishing the rights of others.
They were happy about the fact that they legally were property owners of their uterii, and decided to put an end to the rights of others.

And that makes not a shred of sense, except as misogyny incarnate.

As, of course, was everything else in your post.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

225. Take it up with your elected officials in CANADA.

You don't live here, we really don't care what you think.

David

[zanne]

219. One of the most sexist posts I've ever read.

Where the hell do you come from?

[defendandprotect]

185. A society's need for "gun control" should still override whateve the latest gang

of right-wing fanatics on the Supreme Court think of the 2nd amendment . . .

after they remove the first 13 worlds --- !!!

[toopers]

119. That is the thing about individual rights . . .

it does not matter what the majority wants!

[arundhatiroyfan]

149. If true, good for them.

I'd welcome a handgun ban.

[selador]

160. what matters is the constitution, not popular polls

what 70% of the people want shouldn't trump somebody's constitutional rights

this country operates on rule of law, and a constitution

there is a way to override the constitution. it's called amendment. what a popular poll reveals about what people WANT is not relevant to what the constitution protects.

if tomorrow, 70% of people wanted govt. run prayer in public schools would that make it ok?

[Mojorabbit]

174. Would you say the same

if 70 percent were against abortion?

[DCKit]

200. Home invasions aren't yet a problem here in DC...

but as the economy continues to decline, it's going to become an issue. People who continue to buy into "People don't kill people, guns kill people" aren't going to have a defensible position much longer - the criminals aren't paying attention to the gun laws and not everyone can sell drugs in a limited market. Besides, Big Pharma and the insurance companies want that market and have much better representation from the street to the WH.

If the gun laws were enforced and real penalties were common (most aren't even prosecuted), I'd be more understanding of the ban. As it is, I regularly see teens and young adult males with guns stuck down the back of their pants and showing clearly through their t-shirts. The ban ONLY works against people who abide by and respect the law.

[Freddie Stubbs]

203. Look at how well banning handgun ownership has worked in DC

[shain from kane]

2. Dodge City. We'll be wearing guns and holsters in 6 months.

[Thepricebreaker]

5. You can carry in texas and there arent any abnormal problems via guns there..

[depakid]

11. Aren't any "abnormal problems?" In texas?

:crazy:

[zanne]

39. Well, let's just lookee here...

In Texas, on March 1, W.C. Frosch, 74, shot 15 year-old Brandon Robinson through a window. The boy and his friend, Devin Nalls, 16, say they were cutting across his yard on the way to check out another neighbor's party. Though Brandon survived, Devin's mother died in an accident as she drove the boys to a hospital.

Texas has a new gun law that allows a gun owner to shoot people on their property who they "fear" will attack them. They don't have to "retreat" to safety anymore.

[slackmaster]

179. We've never had to retreat to safety here in California either

Maybe Mr. Frosch wasn't really acting within the intended scope of Texas law.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-castlesider_17met.ART0.State.Edition1.4604bc1.html

And maybe the story of what happened that night hasn't been fully told.

http://metrocolumnistsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/mr-frosch-responds.html

Texas has a new gun law that allows a gun owner to shoot people on their property who they "fear" will attack them.

Funny how you people always fail to mention that the fear has to be reasonable.

[alarimer]

58. Except for the guy that shot two burglars AT HIS NEIGHBOR's house

Not even his own house. Not his property. He even told the 911 dispatcher that he was going to go KILL them. not scare them off or anything else. Lunatic, gun-toting piece of shit.

[tachyon]

81. And there are 2 fewer scumbag fucking burglars running around.

Too bad there aren't more like him.

[rfranklin]

87. Perhaps we should execute you next time you jaywalk...

Where should we draw the line?

[tachyon]

89. That's fine with me, I don't jaywalk. Kill 'em all.

Jeezus, do you have any idea how stupid that question was? ANY idea?

[iverglas]

113. sez YOU

You don't jaywalk. Ha. Tell that to the asshole with the gun who says you did.

Oh wait. You won't be able to. You'll be dead.

How's that go? History is written by the victors ... the victims just aren't there to cross-examine them.

[zanne]

146. Do you have an idea how stupid you sound? ANY idea? nt

[sergeiAK]

152. Is someone's sarcasm detector broken? -nt

[Political Heretic]

126. So would you be in favor of the death penalty for people arrested for robbery?

And if so, would you prefer they had access to due process in determining their innocence or guilt, or is it better if we just have armed vigilantism rather than a constitutionally protected right to due process?

[zanne]

153. Are you going to answer the question posed to you ? nt

[galileo3000]

229. Who should be trusted with the Power to Kill

It is an interesting question. We obviously want law enforcement to have this ability, but to use it prudently. However, if I thought my wife, children, friends, family or neighbors were threatened by anyone who was not being prudent, I know I would want that power. I can meditate, hope, pray, and argue in the intellectual vacuum but if someone has just broken into my house and panics, all of my rationality will not save my family. For years I have been on fence about guns (and my wife is afraid of them), but I also think that idealism doesn't exist much in Baltimore. It isn't that I want to make the problems worse, its that I want to be able to outlast the problems. Hopefully I wont think too long.

[Quantess]

120. LOL. I remember that story.

Good for him, I say.

[zanne]

148. There was another "hero with a gun" story up here in NH recently...

A cop stopped a motorist and a real "hero" with a gun stopped to "help out". He shot the motorist because this hero thought he was threatening the cop. It turns out the cop and motorist knew each other very well and had personal animosity toward each other. They were just arguing as they usually did. The "hero" is facing charges now.

For every "hero" story, there is a "stupid" story.

[selador]

162. except there isn't

"For every "hero" story, there is a "stupid" story."

except there isn't. the FACT (vs. rhetoric and anecdotal examples) is that CCW holders are MORE law abiding than the general public, and have very few incidents involving unlawful use of firearms. that has been confirmed via over and over again

in over 20 yrs of law enforcement (here's some anecdotes) i have only had good experience with CCW holders.

[zanne]

214. Not to make light of your law enforcement experience, but...

A link or two would be appreciated to substantiate your claims. In what capacity were you part of law enforcement?

[Speaker]

170. LOL

Not even his own house. Not his property. He even told the 911 dispatcher that he was going to go KILL them. not scare them off or anything else. Lunatic, gun-toting piece of shit.

Don't move to Texas.

We'll miss you.

I promise.

[boilinmad]

230. "Texas" and "guns"...

....two of the worst things in the world ! GUNS FUCKING SUCK

[sofa king]

151. Same here in rural Virginia.

Although we do seem to be having something of a problem with bears. And the local Presbyterian Church holds a "Murder at the Church" fundraiser every year, which is a little bit creepy if you ask me.

There are probably just as many guns per capita out here as there are in DC, the main difference being that out here the law abiders are far more likely to be packing.

[michreject]

8. I wear one now

Everywhere I go. I have a CCW.:)

[raebrek]

178. Are you allowed wear your weapon when you are logged into

this site? :sarcasm:

Raebrek!!!

[bean fidhleir]

9. I just watched "The Russians Are Coming!" again

I don't know if you've ever watched it - it was made 42 years ago. The climactic confrontation is a good portrayal of one role for the militia. The film is a political comedy, but I don't find it hard at all to imagine replacing the Russian sub crew with, say, a gang of Homegrown Sicherheitsdienst.

I think it would be very hard to be looking down the barrels of 30-40 firearms of various kinds, aimed with grim determination by everyone from teenagers to combat vets in their 80s. You'd just know, with complete and stomach-turning certainty, that if the balloon goes up, you personally will leave the scene in a bag.

[selador]

161. just like WA state

in WA state it is 100% legal to carry openly guns or concealed (the latter requires a permit)

i have yet to see dodge city break out here

it's also legal to carry on college campuses.
i have yet to see dodge city break out at the university of washington, or evergreen state college.

but don't let facts get in the way of ideology and scare tactics.

[Thothmes]

215. Virginia is also open carry. also no Dodge City.

[Speaker]

169. "Dodge City. We'll be wearing guns and holsters in 6 months."

Yep. Just like the 38 states that have "shall issue" concealed carry.

Oh, wait, they ALL have lower gun death rates than DC.

[bean fidhleir]

3. " appeared to believe the amendment guaranteed an individual right to weapons"

"appeared to believe"?? How on Earth could they possibly "believe" anything else? The evidence is completely overwhelming.

[slackmaster]

4. Small step in the right direction

My advance congratulations to the people of DC for getting a small piece of freedom restored.

[OKthatsIT]

46. I agree...the 2nd Amendment stays.

Im actually surprised the Supreme Court hasn't denied that right before now.

[Hydra]

6. Good

Not that it will protect us from the microwave guns, but at least it won't come down to the police and the criminals being the only ones who have them.

[michreject]

I'm with you

I'll buy another one in June to celebrate.

[tachyon]

7. The SC does get it right now and then...like Lawrence vs. Texas

;-)

[depakid]

12. Lawrence isn't the case that you want to be comparing this to

if you're into guns, at least.

[tachyon]

13. I wasn't doing any comparing, I just said they sometimes decide correctly

And gave an example.
Is it okay if I make that observation? :D

[depakid]

20. Lawrence doesn't recognize much of a right at all

I haven't run the cases, but I think it may be the only instance where the supreme court ever struck down a statute using the rational basis test.

In other words, the statute bore no rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. No fundamental right (or substantial right) involved.

Aside from the firearms issue, I think the courts reasoning will be interesting- and likely not something too many people will end up crowing about on either side.

[plantwomyn]

54. Except maybe

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY!
Oh, there is that little thing about equal protection of the law too. Jeez.
BTW queers have guns too.

[depakid]

62. Lawrence didn't recognize a fundamental or substantial right

to privacy in the bedroom- or anywhere else. If they had, the court would have applied heightened scrutiny.

All they did was say in effect that Texas's attempt to legislate morality via that particular statute didn't further a legitimate state purpose.

VERY different thing.

Similarly, the court could overturn the DC statute under various grounds, without ever reaching the constitutional question of an individual right to own handguns.

[Joe Steel]

10. So much for the Conservative abhorrence of judicial activism

If they declare an individual right on the basis of the arguments, we might as well toss the whole concept of written law.

[AZ Criminal JD]

18. One case may not go the way you want

And you are going to "toss the whole concept of written law"? A bit of a overreaction. Double the meds.

[Joe Steel]

21. When Conservatives take-up judicial activism, law is dead.

They've railed about judicial activism for years. Now they've adopted it as a legitimate form of governance.

[AZ Criminal JD]

24. Even if that is true, it certainly doesn't come from this case.

[zanne]

41. Yup. It's been rampant since Dec. 12, 2000. nt

[davepc]

29. last i checked it was the SCOTUS job to interpret the law/constitution

but if you don't like the way they interpret it, it's "judicial activism".

[Joe Steel]

71. It's judicial activism when they make stuff up.

If they find an individual right in the Second Amendment, it will be because they put it there. Call it judicial activism or call it making stuff up. It's all the same.

[tachyon]

83. Or it might be because James Madison put it in there.

You want it both ways: activist good when it suits your agenda, condemn the activism when it doesn't. That's just simple hypocrisy.

[davepc]

114. Ah the 2nd Admendment. The only one where "the people" really means "the states"

[Auggie]

14. I think if James Madison had really meant this as an individual right he would

have omitted "A well regulated Militia" from the beginning.

[tachyon]

15. I don't think that was his explicit language. He wanted to modify the Articles

rather than tack on amendments and he proposed fairly specific accommodation for conscientious objectors:
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/madprobll.htm

[Auggie]

19. Interesting -- especially conscientious objectors. I didn't know.

Thanks for the link.

[Joe Steel]

23. It doesn't matter what Madison wrote.

Gun lust is all-consuming. Gun nuts will interpret the words as they must to get their guns.

[tachyon]

25. And the gun-grabbers will continue to bitch and moan.

See how that works?

[Joe Steel]

30. It's all so clear now.

We are no longer a nation of law but of those who have the power to ignore the law.

[tachyon]

31. Uh, ignoring (unjust) laws is a proud progressive, liberal legacy.

Perhaps you should be discussing this with those who fought harder than I for civil rights.

[zanne]

43. Fighting for less gun control is a right-wing conservative legacy. nt

[tachyon]

48. Yes, I keep forgetting about those famous liberals, Jim Brady and Ronald Reagan.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

122. Too funny you should say that, too

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1031-11.htm

In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns.

“Earth to Sammy - who needs legal machine guns?” asked Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign. “The Chicago mobsters of the 1930s would be giddy. But the man I worked for, who gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and signed the 1986 machine gun ban, would be shaking his head.”

Actually, I think it would be fairly safe to say that a Martian looking at the last 40 years of US history would feel pretty confident describing both Brady and Reagan as "famous liberals".

And it doesn't take a Martian to figure out which are the "liberals" as between them and some of the denizens of this place these days.

[zanne]

132. You always fail to mention that they were both victims of gun violence. nt

[benEzra]

78. Keeping guns out of the wrong (color) hands for 150 years...

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[tachyon]

86. And that's the pickle the gun-grabber/slash/progressives find themselves in...

they cannot defend one policy without embracing another that has the exact opposite as a goal.

[zanne]

137. What do you have against progressives?

You guys are showing your true colors these days. Your agenda is getting very clear.

[Speaker]

175. This is why the GCA68 was passed.

>

Gotta' keep them darkies from getting guns.

[dysfunctional press]

96. then why would he say "the right of the people"...?

and not the right of the soldiers, or the right of the militiamen?

the PEOPLE need to be able to keep arms, so that when the need arises, they can come together as a militia.

[YankmeCrankme]

231. Maybe because a militia is a thing.

The people in a militia have rights, i.e. the right to bear arms. The whole second amendment is about militias not individuals. It's a grammar thing.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/articles/15951/news--the-angry-grammarian

The handwritten copy at the National Archives reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

But lots of folks—including the official U.S. Government Printing Office—omit the first and third commas: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

As University of Illinois English professor Dennis Baron wrote in the LA Times earlier this year, “The first comma in the Second Amendment signals a pause. At first glance, it looks like it’s setting off a phrase in apposition, but by the time you get to the second comma, even if you don’t know what a phrase in apposition is, you realize that it doesn’t do that.”

Instead, Baron says, “That second comma identifies what grammarians call an absolute clause, which modifies the entire subsequent clause.” Which basically means that the framers intended the Second Amendment to be about not guns, but militias."

[Traction311]

125. Is that so?

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

" the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

"It is not certain that with this aid alone , they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it."

-James Madison

[Speaker]

173. Ummmm.....nope

I think if James Madison had really meant this as an individual right he would have omitted "A well regulated Militia" from the beginning.

He clearly meant for the Second to protect two rights, just like the First protected four. The two rights being the right to keep and bear arms, and the right for neighbors to band together into militias, to protect the security of a free state.

[smb]

221. The Militia Clause

The Miller ruling shows that the militia clause provides guidance as to what sorts of weapons are and are not considered "arms" (based on the facts before the court, they found that a sawed-off shotgun was not within the definition of "arms"). Ergo, individuals have a right to keep and bear weapons of types generally carried by ordinary military personnel, but this right doesn't apply to things like grenades.

[happyslug]

224. One has to read the Miller case carefully, the Standard of Review was pro-gun Control

One must understand what the Supreme court was reviewing In Miller. Miller had been arrested and charged with violating the National Firearms Act of 1938. The National Firearms Act outlawed unregistered Machine Guns and Sawed off Shotguns. Miller had been Arrested for possessing a Sawed off Shotgun. When he was arraigned in front of a Federal Judge the Judge ruled as, a matter of law, that the Second Amendment prohibited the Federal Government from making it illegal for individuals from owning any Firearm. From that decision an appeal was made that went all the way to the US Supreme Court.

By the time the case hit the US Supreme Court, Miller had died (Killed by some of his less then reputable friends). Thus the only side presented to the Court was the Government Argument that the Trial Judge had been in error.

Now, Since the Trial Judge had ruled the National Firearms Act of 938 unconstitutional BEFORE trial, the standard of Review by the Supreme Court was same as had been in front of the Trial Judge, i.e. assuming the Government could prove everything in its case would the Statute still be unconstitutional in this case. The Supreme Court then held that issue of whether any particular Weapon was of Military usability was a fact up to a Jury to decide. Thus the Case was remanded to the Trial Judge to hold a hearing in front of a Jury to decide on the issue of whether a Sawed off Shotgun was a Military weapon. Since Miller had already been killed off in another illegal act no trial was ever held.

Basically what Miller stand for today is that the Second Amendment Covers military usable weapons and that the Federal and State Government can ban any other weapons.

Furthermore, if you look at the Militia Act of 1792, passed by the Same Congress that passed the Bill of Rights, it REQUIRES every male (The Act says "White males" but since the Civil War Amendments that has meant "All Males"), to have a .69 caliber smooth bore musket unless he is a Rifleman then a Rifle and ammunition for that rifle. These were the Regimental weapons of the time period. The Congress was made up of Veterans of the Revolution where supply of ammunition had always been a problem. To ease this problem Congress fixed the caliber of Ammunition to .69 caliber, which was the weapon in use in the US Army at that time (.69 Caliber had been the French Smooth bore weapon supplied to the US by France during the Revolution, it replaced the earlier .75 caliber British Brown Bess which had been the main US weapon till France became a source of Supply).

This is also complicated by Alexander's Hamilton's attitude to the Militia, he preferred two types, one much like today's National Guard paid, supp;lies and Equipped by the States. This Militia was to be trained on a Monthly basis to be able to be used with minimum training when needed. Hamilton also called for a Second Militia that would be called into service once a year to make sure they still had their weapons but no extra duties unless needed. These would be called into service when needed, but Hamilton believe keeping them equipped with the latest equipment and up ot date training a waste of resources. Hamilton viewed them as necessary, but NOT as offensive troops. Hamilton attitudes reflect Mao and his call for three types of Troops, first Regulars, second a trained Militia and third an people's Militia to be used as needed for local needs. Mao, unlike Hamilton, also commented that units could move from one to any of the other two types over time (Hamilton seems to also accept this but seems to be something everyone accepted so not spoken off in his time).

Given this history, the term use of Militia in the Second is Restrictive but also expansive. Military weapons of the type used at Regimental level are clearly Covered by the Second Amendment. These weapons are the modern Equivalent of the Weapons mentioned in Section one of the Militia Act of 1792.

In the Militia Act of 1792 Pistols are mentioned, but NOT in Section 1, but in Section 4 which covered Calvary. Pistols were viewed as a Calvary weapon but most US forces were NOT Calvary (Calvary was restrict to no more than 10% of all Troops, the norm for that time period). Thus pistols could be outlawed unless tied in with use of some other weapon (For example airplanes). Now when I was in the National Guard I drove a M-113 and was given a model 1911 .45 caliber Pistol instead of a M-16. If I had been called up for combat I would have preferred an M-16. The M-113 had enough room in it for me to get out with a M-16 even if I was the Driver AND I had to carry my M16 on my back instead of in my arms. Now Tank crewmen operate in even tighter confinements. In my days in the National Guard (the 1980s) tank crews were still being equipped with m3a1 Machine Guns from WWII AND M1911 Pistols. Given the tight fit of tanks AND that the ONLY way to exit was via the hatches, I could see them using Pistols and Submachine Guns like the M-3A1s. Thus tank crewmen, like the Calvary of the 1790s, have a use and need for Pistols, but it is tied in with they tanks or horses NOT to the pistols itself. Thus Congress and the States could ban Pistols unless tied in with some combat duty no other weapon could do. Since most militia will be use as Combat engineers (i.e. dig entrenchments) or infantry, there is no need for them to have pistols. Any Rifles or Shotgun would be better and a something that fired the same ammunition as the weapons of the Regular Army would be preferred.

I go into the above to point out the Second Amendment was NOT meant to interfere with the ability to form up the Militia NOR with the right of the States to selected the Militia's officers (Both rights preserved in the Constitution itself). Militia Units could be preformed by the states and be formed up as needed (Both systems had been used during the Revolution). Weapons had to be standardized, so to ease re-supply purposes. Thus the wording as to cover ALL of these commitments AND protect the right of people to form themselves into militia units like most had done in the years just before the Revolution.

This brings me to what I believe is the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. First, given that the Constitution itself gave formation of the Militia to Congress NOT the states, the language as to Militia was to permit the States and the people to form themselves into Militia units if the Federal Government did NOT do so. Given that people could form themselves into Militia Units, they had the right ot arm themselves, but Congress and the States retain the right to set what weapons the Militia can have, but such specs must include whatever is in use by the Regular troops of the US AND any obsolete or Subsequent standards. Basically if ammunition is in the supply lines of the US Army, the weapon can be used, but any weapon NOT in the Supply line can be banned. Thus it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government or the States to ban M16s, 5.56 or 7.62mm Machine Guns, for ammunition for these weapons are in the US Army Supply lines. The Federal and State Government can not ban 30'06 Machine Guns EXCEPT if it can be shown that Ammunition is NOT in the US Army Supply lines AND conversion to 7.62 is not possible (In most cases it is, so not much of a concern, the only real change needed, in most cases, is the barrel). Congress or the States could ban any other weapon, unless it can be shown it can be easily entered into the US Army Supply lines (A case can be made for 7.62x39 AK ammunition, not used by the US Army today, but supplies by the US Army to our Iraqi Allies do to the fact 7.62x39 was already in use by Iraqi Forces and is the most widespread Ammunition used world-wide).

As to weapons that have a high use by Criminal elements (i.e. Knives, pistols etc) the Federal or State Government can ban them if they have NO military usability, and if such weapon has some special military usability to those special military proposes (i.e. Pistols can be banned except by tank Crewmen, given the costs of tanks for all effective purposes a total ban can be made).

I do NOT see the Supreme Court ruling the way I believe it should, permitting DC to ban pistols BUT outlawing the registration of Shotguns and Rifles. The reason I say so is that the GOP wants this to be an issue this fall and if the Court rules as I stated above, it prohibits any restrictions as to Rifles and Shotguns, taking people who are worried about such weapons out of the GOP Coalition (i.e. Rifles and Shotguns are protected, vote Democratic do to other issues). While Pistols make up 40% of today's gun sales, most such buyers tend to be GOP voters on other issues thus NOT an advantage for the GOP.

What I see the Court ruling is that the Second Covers Pistols, as a reward to Pistols buyers to vote GOP but then leaving it open to the states to outlaw Rifles, Shotguns and Pistols so that this remains a Hot issue at Election time and low income Rural residents (And suburbanites) Vote GOP to "preserve" their right to own a Weapon. Remember this case is a DC case, DC is controlled by Congress NOT a state. It is very possible for the Court to strike down this statute but in language that but in language that implies that States and other cities CAN ban such weapons (This keeping Gun Control as a GOP issue). I do NOT see the history of the Bill of Rights to support such a position, but this court has been political ever since it selected Bush as President and I see no change now or in the near future.

[zanne]

16. The Supreme Court ruling won't change a thing.

It has already been established that individuals have the right to bear arms. For some people, though, that isn't enough. They want to have military-style arms, submachine guns, etc. and they want gun regulations to be relaxed.

The whole thing boils down to this; "Do people have the right to carry guns in any situation and in any manner that they choose"? The Supreme Court is NOT considering that at this time. The worst thing that can happen is that the ban on handguns in Washington DC and other cities will be lifted.

[-..__...]

60. That's not exactlyy true.

The ruling won't have any immediate effect outside of DC, nor will any Federal gun control laws be trashed overnight.

What this case will do for us (with an affirmation that the 2nd amendment is an individual right), is give us the foundation we need to challenge those existing laws and seek to have the 2nd ammendent incorporated under the 14th amendment.

With that in hand it should be our goal to have many (if not all), of the current state and local gun control laws
overturned.

It'll take some time, and we might not win them all, but I can promise you one thing... we'll certainly damn well try.

[dysfunctional press]

98. that will change a lot for some people.

and actually, the BEST thing is that the illegal ban on handguns in dc, and other places(chicago for one, most likely) will finally be lifted.
the only thing those bans do is to prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to legally arm themselves in self-defense. the criminals will ALWAYS be able to get/have a gun.

[tidy_bowl]

17. Only the clinically insane would....

....ever conclude that the 2nd Amendment didn't pertain to an individual's right to bear arms. Given that the Bill of Rights was enacted to enumerate what rights of citizens the government COULDN'T infringe upon it is obvious as to the intent. This twisting of semantics to the contrary has been entertaining through the years but completely pointless and let's hope that the Supreme Court will put to rest the nonsense that the 2nd Amendment pertained only to states rights to militias.

[tachyon]

26. There is actually a true irony around here...many posters hate and distrust

the government/police, then in the next breath insist nobody BUT them should have the right to arm.

[NickB79]

22. Good. We've lost too many elections because of the gun issue

The best thing Democrats can do is come out and applaud this decision and lay to rest the "Democrats want to ban all guns" bullshit spewed by the NRA. Once we get that monkey off our backs, it's just one more tactic the Repubs can't use against us in the future. This article says that this ruling may help Republicans; I personally think it will hurt them far more than they realize.

[zanne]

44. The "losing elections" argument is nothing but a myth.

I know that it serves you well and that you like to point it out every chance you get, but it's a fase assumption.

[benEzra]

85. From President Clinton's autobiography, My Life...

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

Make no mistake--even requiring minor cosmetic changes to popular civilian guns cost at least 20 of the 54 House seats lost in 1994, including the Speaker's (the first time that happened since the Civil War). Mr. Clinton badly miscalculated the backlash against the 1994 Feinstein non-ban, because he was misled into believing that the gun issue was somehow about hunting guns rather than target guns and defensive style guns.

[MaryCeleste]

108. Tell that to the late Tom Bradley and Prop 15

It brought out all the gun supporters and the Dems took hits at the state and local level.

[smb]

222. LOL

Give me one week in the Florida Panhandle, and I'll find you more than 537 people who voted Republican based on the gun issue.

[CANDO]

64. I agree

It takes away am issue for them.

[zanne]

135. Gun control isn't even an issue in this election.

Even though you'd love that. I really think you'd rather see the Dems lose than collect more guns.

[michreject]

154. Not yet , it isn't

but it will be.

The players haven't been defined yet.

[NickB79]

183. Let me see if I understand this right

By saying I want to Democrats to remove a dirty yet potent trick the Repubs have used against us for the past 30+ years, I'm somehow supporting the Repubs? Okay then, here's your hat :tinfoilhat: , since you seem to think everyone is out to get you and your cause.

[tabasco]

27. I don't mind if cities and states ban handguns.

Use a shotgun to defend your home.

[MaryCeleste]

118. Shotties are not really the best home defense weapon

unless you have a short barrel, maybe with a pistol grip.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

226. I don't find that acceptable.

I have dogs, if I have to shoot a criminal in my home, I'd rather not kill one or two of my dogs. A rifle is unacceptable because of over penetration and lack of mobility. So handguns are my only option.

David

[scarface2004]

28. i feel another university shooting coming on!

i say kid with machine gun wipes out 300 students at lecture hall....scalia defends his right to go postal!

[tachyon]

32. If it happens, it will most likely be at a "gun-free zone"

That worked out so well at Virginia Tech.

[baldguy]

33. Overturning 120 yrs of judicial precident....

[zanne]

36. The argument for gun lovers isn't about gun ownership...

Just about everybody agrees that people have a right to own guns. But gun lovers don't feel that they have enough "freedom" to own as many guns as they want to buy at once, or they don't like background checks, or they don't like gun control laws. In other words, alot of gun lovers, especially the ones on DU, want it all and they don't care about other people feeling unsafe because of our gun culture.
I feel that Americans have the right to own guns, but I also feel that I have a right to be safe from guns. All Americans should be taken into account when deciding a case like this.

[slackmaster]

38. That's one heck of a Bogeyman you've dreamed up, zanne

Most gun owners are reasonable people and as such have no problem with reasonable restrictions on things.

In other words, alot of gun lovers, especially the ones on DU, want it all and they don't care about other people feeling unsafe because of our gun culture.

I care very much about your safety zanne. I don't really care how safe you feel.

[MaryCeleste]

110. What if we subsituted Aferican American for guns in his statement?

It would be:

In other words, al ot of African Americans, especially the ones on DU, want it all and they don't care about other people feeling unsafe because of African Americans.

I just love substitution, makes reducto absurdem quite easy.

[tidy_bowl]

101. It's not about your or anyone else's.....

....'feelings' but the our 2nd Amendment rights and those trying to limit them because it 'feels' right to do so. How hard is it to understand that the basic tenet of the 2nd Amendment is to ultimately protect all the other rights in the Bill of Rights? How can you deny history when guns are taken out of the citizens hands crimes RISES and tyranny certainly follows. Gun control has worked very well for Stalin, Hitler and Mao now hasn't it? If you wish not to protect yourself, fine but don't try to tell me I can't protect myself, you haven't that right no matter how you 'feel'.

[zanne]

144. So I should ignore your "feelings" about gun ownership, right? nt

Your reply just proves to me that you're only interested in your own rights, not the rights of others.

[MaryCeleste]

202. The rights are not in conflict

My owning a gun in my home does in no way impinge on your rights in any way

[Joe Steel]

216. Your gun is a danger to the community

A gun in your home is a gun which can be stolen and sold on the street. It's a gun you can use to shoot your neighbor if you become angry or confused. No gun is safe. They all are dangers to the community.

[derby378]

220. And thus, by extension, as a law-abiding gun owner, YOU are a danger to the community?

:shrug:

[MaryCeleste]

109. Subustitute any other right in for firearms and do you feel the same way

- Too much free speech
- To much life, liberty or happiness.
- Limit the number of abortions a woman may have

If its a right, DC is dead wrong

[zanne]

145. ALL of our freedoms are limited.

You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, for example. There are no completely unfettered rights. If you gun people think you're above the rest of us, that's your problem.

[slackmaster]

164. True, and I can't fire a gun in a crowded theater either.

Unless I am an actor in a play that involves a battle or firing squad scene.

I have no problem with restrictions like that.

[sergeiAK]

172. There are restrictions like that on guns too

For example, I'm limited in where I can shoot (outside city limits, away from people and houses I don't own) and what I can shoot (things I own, of a type as to be safe, or in-season game animals with appropriate license). Perfectly reasonable.

I cannot yell "fire" if there is no fire. But I have the right to the capability to do so, on the condition that I only use it for a just/legal purpose. Just as I have the right to firearms as long as I commit no felonies/other disqualifying crimes.

Restrictions are on use, not possession. I have a right to the tools needed to slander, but no right to slander. The government does not ban keyboards because I could commit libel with one.

[MaryCeleste]

198. How does having a readily accessible handgun in my home

mean I think I am above anyone else. Nobody is asking for private nukes.

[benEzra]

37. Hardly. Pretty much all the 1800's cases viewed the 2ndA as an individual right,

where they touched on it. The court didn't do much with it in the 20th century, though again where they touched on it (primarily in U.S. v. Miller), they seemed to imply it belonged to individuals but carefully avoided specifying its scope. Most of the "collective rights" decisions have been at the circuit level, but those have been split.

This is largely new ground for the USSC, and is quite historic.

[benEzra]

34. Actually, I believe a pro-gun ruling will help DEMOCRATS...

by taking the specter of new bans on popular guns right off the table. And it looks like the court may be leaning in that direction. (Fingers crossed here.)

An anti-gun ruling would help the repubs by allowing them to play on the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme, play up the possibility of a new ban on "assault weapons," and other such crap.



----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

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

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[clayton72]

49. Divisive issues

Gun rights versus gun control is an issue that is used to divide the people and distract us from the real issues we should be focused on. Guns, abortion, drugs, prayer in school, etc is all balloney used to divide and conquor us. Dems must drop this and other divisive issues. How much time and money have been wasted on this topic? And essentially little has changed. Gun laws have little effect on rates of crime and murder. Economic opportunity and success do. If you want to stop crime, fix the economy. Give people jobs. Give people pride. Give them something to loose. A wonderful properous life with good health. A home in which to live. People who are prosperous, eductated, and healthy have little reason to commit crimes, to use drugs, etc.
This is an issue that time and again has cost the democrats seats. Let us not forget the republican take over of 1994. The republicans rallied around the gun issue in response to the Brady bill and swept the democrats from power. And what changed? Well crime did go down, yes, but the economy was strong and unemployment low. The budget was ballanced and community services were well funded. This trend has reversed and up until today little to nothing has changed with regards to gun laws. What has changed? The economy. Community services and programs designed to help the downtroded have been gutted. People are loosing their jobs, their homes, their health coverage, their way of life.
Please for the love of God drop this issue, Dems! It will only hurt the party and keep them from doing the good work that must be done to help repair the damage to our country. Forget gun control, we need corporate control.

[NaturalHigh]

42. "I feel it is an issue in my right to have the means to defend myself."

I agree completely.

[zanne]

45. But how will I defend myself from you? nt

[tachyon]

50. Hire some Blackwater agents. But remember they're armed too.

...

[zanne]

133. In other words, you admit that you just want to intimidate people. nt

That snarky remark just shows me and others who agree with me what we've suspected all along; your hunger for guns is really a hunger to intimidate others. You have to be the "big man" with firearms. You just shot yourself in the foot. (Which is fitting, really).

[smb]

223. What It Shows

The snarky response shows our (well deserved) contempt for people who try to infringe on constitutionally protected liberties.

[NaturalHigh]

53. If you don't try to break into my house, you won't have to worry about it.

Anyone who tries to break into my house, however, better hope my aim is not good. I live in Oklahoma, where we're allowed to have guns and allowed to use them to defend ourselves and our property.

[tachyon]

66. There are some people here, I have noticed, who do not recognize your right to

self-defense. As incredible as it may sound to the untutored casual observer, some DUers sincerely believe it is better to sit back and allow an attacker to execute innocent people as long as they care to continue the carnage than to
permit anyone (except perhaps the police which may be way across town) to actually resist or "fight back" by virtue of
their own state of armament.

[NaturalHigh]

190. I've noticed that.

I've also noticed that they seem to think banning handguns will actually solve our society's violence problems. Never mind that even where handguns are banned (Washington D.C.), there is still plenty of handgun violence to go around.

[zanne]

134. That's what they all say...

Until they find a stranger at the door, get paranoid and shoot without asking questions first.

[NaturalHigh]

191. Well, I've never shot anyone yet, so I guess I'm not that big a threat.

Believe it or not, I've had plenty of strangers show up at my door, and I haven't shot any of them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

227. Your choice?

If you feel that I'm a threat, my advice is get a gun and start practicing because at this point you are about 30 years behind.

David

[NaturalHigh]

52. Wrong place.

delete

[ConcernedCanuk]

47. I can't imagine Canada with everyone allowed handguns, just can't imagine it.

.
.
.

I used to have a few rifles, but now just one for target shooting.

I wouldn't mind having a handgun, but if that means everyone else can, then I'm happy to do without.

Handgun permits are generally only issued to enforcement people, or individuals that belong to a gun club.

"carrying" is not an option for individuals - If one owns a handgun, it must be in a locked case, and only taken out when at a gun club for target shooting.

The World would be in better shape if we had never invented guns, bombs, planes etc.

Sure, we wouldn't live as long, be able to visit far away places as often,

But the planet would be in better shape.

And "live" longer.

[Charlie Brown]

55. Canada's gov't is headed by conservatives right now, yes?

If they govern as wrecklessly, cruelly, and unaccountably as they have in America, in a few years, maybe it will not be so distasteful to imagine. After all, the last line of defense between a state-gone-mad and the people may be an armed citizenry.

[benEzra]

56. That WAS Canada a decade or two ago.

I can't imagine Canada with everyone allowed handguns, just can't imagine it.

That WAS Canada a decade or two ago, and IIRC your murder rate was even lower then than it is now, AFAIK.

Back in the '90s, you guys could own guns we weren't allowed to own because of Bush the Elder's inane import restrictions and our stricter-than-yours barrel length restrictions. Yes, there was more red tape involved, but a law-abiding Canadian could own pretty much anything then that we can now, I believe.

[ConcernedCanuk]

63. You are wrong there - handguns and "pretty much anything" has not been available

.
.
.

To Canadians for as long as I can remember.

And I've been around a little longer than a decade.

If I'm wrong, give me links - I've lived here for over 50 years, target shot and hunted - so you are gonna have to prove me wrong

I think I'm right.

as for

"you guys could own guns we weren't allowed to own "

Enlighten me on that one - cuz that seems outrageous to me.

I've been seriously "into" guns since 1980 - never owned a handgun because it's illegal/restricted

And reduced my number of rifles to just one before our Gun Registry started back in the 90's.

So again

Please enlighten me.

A link that some may find interesting on Canada and firearms:

Canada Firearms Centre

[benEzra]

70. Here was the situation in the late 1980's/early 1990's:

Basically, any target shooter could own a handgun or a military-lookalike rifle, and most of the rifles in question weren't particularly restricted. Prior to 1977, rifles and shotguns weren't significantly restricted at all, I believe.

(written in 1989)

Enacted in 1977, Canada's prevailing gun law divides weapons into three basic types. In the "Prohibited weapons" category, sawed-off shotguns or rifles are completely illegal. Fully automatic weapons are legal only if they were registered to their current owner before January 1, 1979. Simple possession of tear gas for self defense is also a serious felony.

Intermediate controls apply to "Restricted weapons." These include all handguns, and any long gun the Governor in Council (the federal cabinet) places on the restricted list. In 1983, the Council placed the FN-FAL rifle (a large Korean war semi-auto from Belgium) on the restricted list, even though only one crime had ever been committed with the FN-FAL (a 1962 bank robbery by "the beetle bandit").

To receive a Restricted Weapon Registration Certificate, an applicant has the burden of proving that the gun will be used for one of four purposes: "to protect life where other protection is inadequate," or "in connection with a lawful profession or occupation," or for use in target practice, or by an applicant "who is a bona fide gun collector."

The first step for a prospective handgun purchaser will typically be to join a shooting club, and shoot with club members' guns at the range. After observing the applicant for a while, the club will write a letter of recommendation to the police, attesting that the applicant may be entrusted with a handgun.

The applicant takes the letter to the police, who run a criminal records check on the applicant. Next, they visit the place (usually the home) where the applicant intends to store the handgun. After subjectively evaluating the applicant's suitability, and investigating how the applicant will store the (locked) gun safely at home, the police will issue a restricted weapon permit.

That permit allows the individual to buy as many guns as he wants. Each gun, however must be officially registered with the police. The person may purchase a restricted firearm at a dealer, obtain a police permit to transport the restricted gun to and from the police station, and then take the gun with the permit to the police for registration.

The police fill out a form, and give two copies to the purchaser, keeping other copies for themselves. The purchaser must return one copy to the gun vendor, and then return directly to the police station with the gun. The police stamp the purchaser's copy of the form. The other copy must stay with the gun anytime the gun leaves the person's home.

The police send their own copy of the form to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the Mounties) in Ottawa, who in a few months will send the purchaser an official certification that he legally owns the gun, and a permit to transport the gun to a particular shooting range. Permits to transport restricted weapons to target ranges must be renewed every three years.

In practical terms, handguns are still readily obtainable; an applicant merely has to be a gun collector or belong to a target shooting club.

FWIW, the guns you could get in the '90s that we STILL can't were certain imported guns with military looks, due to our inane 18 USC 922(r) import regulations. Those guns would be legal here if they were made in the USA, but are verboten if imported, and you guys had no such silliness.

You can still own short-barreled rifles and shotguns that would be a major Federal felony to own here without special government authorization. For example, possession of a 17.5" barreled side-by-side shotgun is a 10-year Felony in the United States, as is possession of a 15" barreled .22 rifle.

FWIW, handguns are still legal in Canada, but you have to jump through some red tape to be able to own one, and I believe there is now a minimum barrel length that is slightly over 4 inches (correct me if I'm wrong). IPSC pistol competition is still quite popular in Canada, just as it is here.



http://www.ipsc-canada.org/

[ConcernedCanuk]

79. Owning and carrying are two VERY different issues.

.
.
.

I already know about gun clubs and collectors

But we can't carry.

USAmericans can.

BIG difference

[benEzra]

91. I didn't say anything whatsoever about carrying; I said owning.

But since licensed CHL holders in the United States commit almost no violent crimes (we are statistically less likely to be convicted of a violent felony than even police officers), CHL licensure is absolutely irrelevant to the U.S. criminal violence picture.

And, AFAIK, prior to 1977 Canadians could get permits to carry guns as well, though I'd be open to correction on that.

Violent U.S. criminals carry without getting licenses, just like violent Canadian criminals do.

The big differences between the United States and Canada isn't what we can and can't own; one big one is are our insanely militaristic approach to the drug issue that creates huge profit margins, gives rise to inevitable turf wars, and makes the relationship between the police and many inner-city residents very "us vs. them." We also have abysmal mental-health care in this country (particularly for the working class), we work the longest hours with the least time off of any industrialized nation (even Japan), we have a huge rich-poor gap compounded by a similar gap in health-care access, etc. And focusing on new gun bans only ensures that those other issues will not get addressed, just as it did in 1994.

[iverglas]

117. I just dunno

You can still own short-barreled rifles and shotguns that would be a major Federal felony to own here without special government authorization. For example, possession of a 17.5" barreled side-by-side shotgun is a 10-year Felony in the United States, as is possession of a 15" barreled .22 rifle.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec84.html
(with the math done)

“prohibited firearm” means

(a) a handgun that

(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm (4.13 in) in length, or
(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,

but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,

(i) is less than 660 mm (26 in) in length, or
(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm (18 in) in length,

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm;


“restricted firearm” means

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm that

(i) is not a prohibited firearm,
(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm (18.5 in) in length, and
(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

(d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;

Not seeing it, myself.


Basically, if you don't already own a "prohibited firearm" now, you're not getting one.

If you are a member of an approved gun club or demonstrate that you qualify as a "collector", you may acquire restricted firearms. Of course, they have to be registered, and you have to have a licence to start with. This is still a joke, however. Massive thefts of restricted weapons from "collectors" are a significant factor in the firearms crimes and homicides Toronto has experienced in recent years. Along with illegal importation from the US.

Now if such good stuff was so easy to get up here, why would anybody be driving all that way to get it??

[benEzra]

129. Short-barreled .22's (rimfire, not centerfire) are unrestricted, and

short-barreled centerfire rifles and shotgun are restricted (not prohibited) if *manufactured* with the short barrel. It is illegal to saw it off yourself (that creates a prohibited firearm).

Possession of any of the above is a 10-year Federal felony in the United States without a BATFE Form 4, unless you possess the weapon as part of police/military/government duty, under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act; the controls are the same for a 17.5" barrelled .22 or shotgun as they are for a 105mm howitzer, a fully functional machinegun or assault rifle, or a 500-lb bomb.

Prior to the '90s, moving to Canada would have been a lot more attractive than it is now, though. (And I dare say your own criminals probably don't bother too much about the prohibition on sawing off your own barrels, any more than ours do.)

[iverglas]

116. wot an expert

Handguns have ALWAYS been registered in Canada. For starters.

And no, our murder rate was not lower a decade or two ago than it is now. You know this stuff, really, don't you?

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070718/d070718b.htm

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Police reported 605 homicides in 2006, 58 fewer than in 2005. This resulted in a rate of 1.85 homicides per 100,000 population, 10% lower than in 2005. The national homicide rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s, when it was around 3.0.

Virtually all provinces and territories reported declines in their homicide rate in 2006. The most notable occurred in Ontario, where there were 23 fewer homicides.

The highest homicide rates were found again in the Western provinces. Saskatchewan, which had 40 homicides, reported the highest rate (4.1 per 100,000 population) among the provinces.

Firearms ownership rates are highest in the Western provinces. Hmm.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

Of the 605 homicides, 190 were committed with a firearm, 33 fewer than in 2005. This resulted in a 16% drop in the rate of firearm homicides. Both the rate of handguns and rifles/shotguns decreased in 2006, while the rate of sawed-off rifles and shotguns doubled from 2005.

... The longer-term trend has been a decline since the mid-1970s in the rate of firearms used to commit homicide. However, trends differ depending on the type of firearm.

Prior to 1990, rifles/shotguns were used far more frequently than handguns. However, since the late 1970s, the use of rifles/shotguns began to decrease, while the use of handguns remained relatively stable. By 1991, the number of handgun homicides surpassed that of rifles/shotguns, and the gap has continued to grow since.

In 2006, handguns accounted for 108, or over half, of the 190 victims killed by a firearm. A further 36 victims were killed by a rifle/shotgun, 24 by a sawed-off rifle/shotgun and 22 by another or unknown type of firearm.

A history lesson you seem to need.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/hist/firearms_control_e.asp

Pre-1892
Justices of the Peace had the authority to impose a six-month jail term on anyone carrying a handgun, if the person did not have reasonable cause to fear assault against life or property.

1892
The first Criminal Code required individuals to have a basic permit, known as a 'certificate of exemption,' to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. It became an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold pistols or airguns had to keep a record of the purchaser's name, the date of the sale and information that could identify the gun.

...

1951
The registry system for handguns was centralized under the Commissioner of the RCMP for the first time. Automatic firearms were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered. These firearms now had to have serial numbers. The 2-year mandatory minimum sentence created in 1932-33 was repealed after a 1949 Supreme Court decision (R. v. Quon) found that it did not apply to common crimes such as armed robbery.

...

1968-1969
The categories of 'firearm,' 'restricted weapon' <includes handguns, semi-automatic long arms> and 'prohibited weapon' were created for the first time. This ended confusion over specific types of weapons and allowed the creation of specific legislative controls for each of the new categories. The new definitions included powers to designate weapons to be prohibited or restricted by Order- in-Council. The minimum age to get a minor's permit to possess firearms was increased to 16. For the first time, police had preventive powers to search for firearms and seize them if they had a warrant from a judge, and if they had reasonable grounds to believe that possession endangered the safety of the owner or any other person, even though no offence had been committed. The current registration system, requiring a separate registration certificate for each restricted weapon, took effect in 1969.

...

1977
Bill C-51 passed in the House of Commons. It then received Senate approval and Royal Assent on August 5. The two biggest changes included requirements for Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FACs) and requirements for Firearms and Ammunition Business Permits. Other changes included provisions dealing with new offences, search and seizure powers, increased penalties, and new definitions for prohibited and restricted weapons. Fully automatic weapons became classified as prohibited firearms unless they had been registered as restricted weapons before January 1, 1978. Individuals could no longer carry a restricted weapon to protect property. Mandatory minimum sentences were re-introduced. This time, they were in the form of a 1-14 year consecutive sentence for the actual use (not mere possession) of a firearm to commit an indictable offence.

...

[alarimer]

61. A sane approach

But we're a bunch of lunatics down here.

[ConcernedCanuk]

65. A more accurate description would be

.
.
.

SOME of us are lunatics down here.

By your response I suspect you are not one of the "lunatics".

I lived in San Diego for over a year from 79-80

San Diego was my dream destination for retirement, but that all changed after the "shawknawe" thing

While I lived in SanDee, I would say that I liked over 95% of the people I met.

Too bad it's the other 5% running the country.

(sigh)

[tachyon]

69. Well Duh...it's where Bush lives...

:eyes:

[Alexander]

51. Good. Statistics show states with CCW have lower levels of gun violence.

It probably has something to do with the fact that people with concealed carry permits undergo extensive background checks and are statistically less likely to commit crimes than even police officers.

[alarimer]

57. What do you expect from right-wingers?

Everyone should have a gun so we can blow each other away for any damn reason at all.

[tachyon]

Jim Brady is a right-winger who disagrees with you.

But details like that never deter those who think the BOR is only for them.

[benEzra]

75. So is Alberto "No Habeus Corpus" Gonzales...

who is no friend of gun ownership; arch-right-winger William J. Bennett, the father of the original Federal "assault weapon" bait-and-switch; Ronald Reagan, who as the signer of the Mulford Act was the most anti-gun governor in California history, and who later supported the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch; and plenty of others.

The head of the Brady Campaign is a republican former governor, FWIW.


The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control


----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

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

[tachyon]

80. Bingo. More inconvenient truths...thanks.

;-)

[Thothmes]

143. inconvienient truths

Democratic Senators, Schumer, and Feinstein have both come out publically in the last ten years calling for an outrigth bans. How many currently serving Republican Sentors have called for a ban on firearms

[Lorien]

158. Exactly. Would anyone have expected differently?

Right wingers= bed wetting thumb suckers. I've never been scared enough to be a republican.

[Rage for Order]

59. Hooray! Score one for the Constitution!!!! n/t

[CANDO]

67. I don't understand something

It's quite explicit that the framers settled on the language of the 2A because they were trying to avoid having a standing army. This is known because of what was written by these men. The well regulated militia was to give the ability to call the citizens to arms in case of a foreign invader. They didn't say it was to guard against tyranny from within or to guard against one's neighbor. It was strictly to avoid a standing army. They saw that as a very real problem because a President may decide to use an army for empirical and/or political purposes(sounds familiar). Why the distortion towards modern day self defense? That is not what the founders intended. This takes judicial activism to extremes. I am a hunter and multiple gun owner, but am not a worshiper of the church of the NRA.

[Thothmes]

141. Yet the framers of the Constitution

authorized a standing army in Article One, section eight and Article Two, section Two of the Constitution. So they were not trying to avoid a "standing army". Their intent was to avoid a large standing army, buy using the militia to back up the standing army.

[CANDO]

168. I just read the articles you site

and they do not provide for a standing army. It gives congress the ability to raise and provide for an army....but only for up to two years. Mentions nowhere that it be a standing army of permanence. 2.2 says the President shall be commander in chief of said armies when they are necessary.

[Zorra]

68. This is such a no brainer even a conservative SCOTUS could figure it

out.

No matter what your opinion of gun ownership is, it is clear that the intent of the founders was to insure that individuals maintained the right to bear arms.

[Joe Steel]

73. Not individuals

The right to arms is declared for the People not for any person or persons.

[Zorra]

84. If you read the opinions of the Founding Fathers on this issue, their

intent is clearly that, universally, they intended for individuals to have the right to bear arms; from their writings it is very apparent that they never even dreamed that the wording of the second amendment would ever get misconstrued.

When Jefferson wrote, "We the People..." in the Declaration of Independence, do you think that he meant we only have inalienable rights as a collective, but not as individuals?

[Joe Steel]

93. One has nothing to do with the other.

"We the People" is from the Preamble to the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the "inalienable rights" of the Declaration of Independence.

[Political Heretic]

127. A well regulated militia.

Those words matter.

[Zorra]

159. Do you honestly think that any man in his right mind in the 1770's, fresh from

a long bloody rebellion against a tyrannical, oppressive, monarchical government, with fellow citizens living next to a looming lawless frontier filled with violent enemies and needing firearms to hunt food for their sustenance, is even going to consider that individuals do not have the right to bear arms? Think about it.

The idea is ludicrous.

I can just hear George Washington saying to Thomas Jefferson, "Ya know, Tom, I think we should take everyone's guns away and lock them up down at the armory. If we get attacked, we'll just go down and get those guns." And Jefferson replies, "Yeah, George, got to take those guns out of the hands of the citizenry. If they want to kill a deer for food, why, they should learn how to shoot a bow like the indians do."

Given the context of the time, and given the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the founders ever intended for individual citizens to be prevented by law from owning a firearm, how are we to conclude that the founders did not consider it not only a right but a necessity that individuals possess firearms?

I am not aware of any instance where any of the founders of this nation suggested, in any of their writings, that individuals did not have the right to own a firearm.

[Political Heretic]

188. You're right. The idea is ludicrous. I'm convinced.

However, do you honestly believe that any author of the constitution could have ever even remotely conceived the mind-boggling arsenal of mass killing devices that the word had ever known.

I concede that I like the well regulated militia part, because I like the idea of not having a standing army and all kinds of other things that go along with that. But I also concede that its hard to imagine the framers ever imagined individuals not owning a firearm.

I also believe that if the founders were alive today they would be absolutely and utterly appalled at what has come to be thanks to that amendment (not to mention the state of the world in general) and I consider it to be no less arcane than the part of the consitution and decreed a black slave to be three fifths of a person.

That doesn't mean I want to ban all guns. But I want state and local governments to have great flexibility in regulating them. Local governments having the most flexibility, states the next most, and Federal the least.

If 70% of a locality want to ban handguns, they should. Feel free to settle under another local government where 70% of the populace wants everyone to carry where they want. The state should set some broad parameters, such as.... oh, no citizens of any locality in the state are allowed to own cruise missles or something.

[Zorra]

197. I understand. I'm not a gun nut, but I did grow up in the country with a lot of

firearms around, and have a good deal of experience with them, so I'm not afraid of them like it seems many people from urban or suburban areas are.

I simply believe that, based on research, that the 2nd Amendment was intended to give individuals the right to bear arms.

I do agree with you, times have changed since the Amendment was written, and certainly believe that it is completely reasonable to place restrictions on the sale or possession of some types of weapons.

But I believe that the primary intent of the Founders in enacting this Amendment was to guarantee the US citizenry the right to own firearms in order for citizens to have some chance at fighting off an oppressive government. The Founders were extremely distrustful of governments, and rightfully so in light of all governments that had existed up to that time.

Honestly, given the tyrannical anti-democratic policies and actions of the Bu*h administration over the past 7+ years, I can absolutely see the wisdom behind the Amendment.

[tachyon]

88. Well thank GOD people are not persons.

(Can I get some of whatever you're smoking?)

[Joe Steel]

94. The People aren't persons

The People is a collective sovereign.

[sergeiAK]

100. So I have no right to Freedom of Speech?

Since I'm a person, not The People?

WTF are you smoking?

[tachyon]

104. It's a little complicated. You, as a presumable "person" have no rights...

but You, as a member of the collective "people" have all rights. There's no problem until you attempt to exercise some or all of them. Least of all the right to self-defense which coincidentally isn't even mentioned in the Constitution...so you're fucked either way!

[Joe Steel]

136. Not exactly

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making a law "abridging the freedom of speech." That's not the same as saying every person has a right of free speech. Laws forbidding the prohibition of something don't create a right to do it. However, in the almost 225 years since the ratification of the Constitution, judicial activists have created an individual right of free speech.

[sergeiAK]

150. Again, WTF.

Judicial activism creating the individual right of freedom of speech? Now I've heard it all. Forbidding the prohibition of something = allowing it. Allowing it (in the BoR, no less) = making it a right.

If "the people" have a right, but none of them does individually, do they as a group have a right? No. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a "collective right", without the individual right.

[tachyon]

102. Somehow I just knew you wouldn't share that stash.

sigh

[Quantess]

107. Sounds like communism!

:rofl: :smoke:

(spelling)

[slackmaster]

165. Would you say the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to individuals either?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You're saying that individual people don't have a right to be ecure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?

You believe that only the collective sovreign of the People enjoy such a right?

Is THAT really what you mean?

[tidy_bowl]

103. Just what do you thnk is meant....

....by the 'people' as it is clear the framers meant individual rights when referring to 'the people'? Please read your Federalist Papers.

[Joe Steel]

139. The People is a "term of art."

It's a collective noun referring to the citizens as sovereign. It's not the plural of person. The declaration of a right for the People is not a declaration of a right for each citizen.

[Thothmes]

138. Disagree

the phrase "right of the People" also appears in the IV Amendment to the Constitution. Does mean that individual persons are not protected from unreasonable searches or seizures?

[Joe Steel]

142. No. Individuals are protected explicitly.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly protects members of the People from unreasonable searches; "(t)he right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

[slackmaster]

166. Are you then saying that houses, papers, and effects have rights too?

Nice editing job on the Fourth Amendment BTW.

:argh:

It's clear that the term "persons" refers to the physical bodies of individuals.

[jody]

72. Draft transcripts of oral arguments re DC v Heller at link below, Gun-grabbers lost big time!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

[Joe Steel]

74. The arguments are irrelevant

This Court is driven by ideology not reason.

[Pavulon]

76. Lets see how the votes fall.

before that conclusion is reached.

[Joe Steel]

95. Wishful thinking

Certainly, Kennedy could do the right thing but I'm not counting on it.

[MaryCeleste]

111. I am hoping he does the right thing and dropkicks the DC ban

Ginseberg I have no hope for on this case.

[jody]

77. Questions asked by Justices and their comments suggest at least a 5-4 decision to overturn DC ban.

[Rage for Order]

82. Can you provide some specific examples of that?

Please provide a link to any decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, with the current members, that you feel were made on the basis of ideology rather than in accordance with the law.

[desk]

90. So

How will this affect other types of arms? What about laws concerning knives, batons, brass knuckles etc?

[Rage for Order]

92. I have no idea

Perhaps there are some legal types on DU that can help us out?

[Joe Steel]

97. What if I did?

And would a single decision based on the arguments disprove my point?

[Rage for Order]

99. Well, I'm guessing if you did, you would've posted it

A single decision may or may not disprove your point. However, to date I have not seen this court rule according to ideology instead of law. I'll admit I haven't followed every decision closely, but I probably would have heard something about a decision if it ran contrary to established law.

[tachyon]

105. Well, you didn't...and so you don't really have a point.

Game, Set, Match, Goober.
:D

[iverglas]

121. hahahahahahahaha hah

Please provide a link to any decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, with the current members, that you feel were made on the basis of ideology rather than in accordance with the law.

Sure.

But don't take my word for it. Will one of those members of the current Court do?

Today's decision is alarming.... It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices.

Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.

Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited.

The Court's hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed.

Though today's opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of "the rule of law" and the "principles of stare decisis."

In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court — with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. ... When "a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, the burden is undue."

You can read the whole thing here. You sorely need to read the whole thing here:

http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/supreme/ginsburg_dissent.pdf

This may be what you're looking for, in a nutshell:

Ultimately, the Court admits that “moral concerns” are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion. ... Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any ground genuinely serving the Government’s interest in preserving life. By allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent.

But who gives a shit about women who actually are in a situation of risk to life and health (unlike men who like to fantasize about being in such sitations), and whose choices about how to deal with that situation will do nothing, ever, to put anyone else at risk (unlike the choices of people who introduce firearms into situations where there are other people)?

Not ... what where their names again? ...

Roberts
Alito
Kennedy
Scalia
Thomas

I think those would be the ones you were asking about. The ones who upheld that vicious assault on women. Glad you asked.

[Rage for Order]

123. Being that it's late and i'm tired...

Would you be so kind as to provide the "Cliff Notes" version of your post? I don't have the time or energy to read a 25 page judicial opinion.

[iverglas]

124. being that I don't give a shit

No.

Funny, though. I always find this sort of behaviour funny. But then I'm easily amused.

[bean fidhleir]

155. The only respectable position to take for anyone who's a democrat

is that all assaults on individual freedom must be subjected to the "clear and present danger" test. If there's not such a danger, the attempt to constrain freedom must fail. And if there is such a danger, the constraints disappear the moment the danger lessens or goes away.

That's my view, anyway.

[Political Heretic]

128. Supreme Court already decided this correctly once before

To paraphrase,

I agree "with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

[benEzra]

130. Except the court hasn't said that yet.

U.S. v. Miller dodged that issue, which they could do since Miller had died before the trial and didn't argue his side, IIRC. But prior to his death, the court did grant him standing as an individual to bring a 2ndA case, which is about as close as they got to the scope question. The other 2ndA cases have only mentioned the 2ndA peripherally; while nearly all of them have listed it in the same vein as the other rights of the "people", there was never a direct ruling on its scope.

This is the first time the USSC has addressed the scope of the 2ndA directly, so I think you may have been spun somewhat.

District courts have gone both ways on the issue.

[Political Heretic]

131. Now that's damn interesting. I did not know that.

Thanks for the education about that.

I don't like going around saying things that aren't accurate, even if they support my position. :P

[4dsc]

147. Remember the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban

Proves how much the democratic party is anti-gun..

[benEzra]

156. Huh? (n/t)

[4dsc]

189. Bans owndership for a misdemeaner

Most domestic violence cases are misdemeaners and thus should not be banned from owning guns until 1997 and the Democratic party!! Very bad law and puts millions without the right to bear arms.

[zanne]

157. Gun control is not an issue in the presidential campaign.

Though some think it should be. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/16/america/letter.php

[eringer]

171. Supreme Court Decision Will be Conflicted

They will rule that we have the right to bear arms, but not all arms. They will not give us what every Iraqi citizen has..the right to have an AK-47 and two full clips of ammunition. Another great Bush legacy.

[Traction311]

181. Iraqi citizens had the right to an AK-47 loooong before the war

Probably since Bush was in pampers. :)

[Mountainman]

177. This needs to stop being an albatross around our necks.

If you are anti gun, so be it, but stop saying it's some just cause for liberals to take up.

As many Dems are pro gun as anti gun. We should stop letting the NRA win elections with it.

[Traction311]

182. Have the presidential candidates addressed the issue?

Where do all three stand? I know all of them have supported some gun-control bills in the past, but this can be a winning issue. The Bush administration is divided. They support the individual right to bear arms, but argued that federal laws should remain. I'm not sure if Bush has taken a side in the DC ban. Cheney has taken a harder line. No surprise, since he was always more pro-gun than Bush (in Congress, he was against the plastic gun ban and armor piercing bullets.

[fshrink]

184. Why would Law-non-abiding individuals be stripped of this right?

They don't have the right to defend themselves?

[sergeiAK]

187. Rights can be taken via due process

Like, say the right to vote. Or did you miss that in high school?

[fshrink]

194. You cannot lose your right to a jury trial (6th amendment.)

Which is another form of protection of the individual. And a few others.

[sergeiAK]

195. Yes, but the right to keep and bear arms can be lost -nt

[fshrink]

196. Which means that it's not a fundamental right.

Whereas self-protection is. It cannot be lost. It even allows to take a life (self-defense.) Therefore, arguing that the right to bear arms is based on the right to individual protection is legally inaccurate. And that is because it was put in the Constitution to empower collective protection not individual protection.

[sergeiAK]

201. How do you empower the collective without empowering the individual?

You can't. There can be no "collective right" denied to the individual.

The 2nd Amendment protects access to arms, which are useful, but not necessary, for self-defense. They may be the best means, but that right can be lost as part of a sentence, just as the court can deny a convict his 4th Amendment Rights, his right to travel freely, his right to vote, et al. These are all civil rights, and can all be rescinded via due process. Given that definition, we have almost no "fundamental" rights.

It is a civil right. Just as the 4th Amendment is a civil right. The 4th was not put in place to allow a "collective" protection from unreasonable search and seizure, but an individual one. The 1st does not protect the "collectives" right to Freedom of Speech, but the right of the individual.

[Joe Steel]

204. Easy

The political sovereign, The People, may declare for itself a right it does not declare for any person or persons.

The People, for instance, may arrest and try someone suspected of a crime. The People may imprison or kill someone convicted of a crime. No person or person may do either of those things.

[slackmaster]

206. Arresting, trying, and convicting people for crimes are exercises of powers

Not of rights.

States have powers. People have rights.

[sergeiAK]

207. Same old tired argument

The people have rights, exercisable by the individual. I have an individual right to freedom of speech, I have an individual right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and so on. If you interpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective right (a term I still maintain is utter crap), what of the 5th amendment? What of the 6th, the 4th, the 1st? Do I have any rights at all?

What you mention are the powers of the state, unrelated to the Bill of Rights.

[fshrink]

208. Then Law non-abiding individuals should have the right to protect themselves.

That is to bear arms, according to another "tired argument", which thus also appears as incoherent with its own premise.

[sergeiAK]

209. Prisoners have curtailed rights under the 4th Amendment

meaning that such rights can be abridged by due process. Is the 4th also a "collective right"?

Why is the 2nd different?

[fshrink]

210. Because you insist that it's about protection of the individual

An inmate on death-row still has his right to self-protection. If, say another inmate, puts his life in immediate danger he is still entitled to defend it, by taking the other's life if necessary. That's because self-protection is a fundamental right that cannot be stripped from anyone. So if the right to bear arms is justified by this same right, then it applies to anybody, including a Law non-abiding individual.

[sergeiAK]

211. I never stated the 2nd came from the right to self-defense

It's listed in the Constitution, making it an individual, civil, right. It is a civil, not human, right. Human rights cannot be rescinded, nor restricted, save in the most dire of circumstances. Civil rights can be revoked by due process, witness the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, etc. Prisoners have no 4ht amendment rights. Is the 4th a right?

I think our differences lie in the difference between human and civil rights. Self-defense is a human right, access to arms a civil right. Civil rights can be suspended/altered by a court, whereas human rights cannot.

[fshrink]

212. Agreed. This was in response to the O/P statement

"I feel it is an issue in my right to have the means to defend myself." Which is also the standard stance as can be seen over and over again each time this issue comes up. The difference between civil and human rights is surreptitiously mixed into the argument, which is what I called.
The simple truth is that no one feels comfortable allowing Law non-abiding individuals to bear arms because it is assumed that they could abuse it more than Law-abiding individuals. Which opens a very big can of worms and makes the case much more complex and therefore more fragile. It's easier to skip over the logical difficulties and to talk to the guts rather than to the head.

[Joe Steel]

213. Powers and rights

A "power" is the capacity to do something. A "right" is the capacity to overcome an obstacle to doing it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

186. I don't think guns are going to be a defining issue THIS election

Although I strongly oppose guns and would never own one myself, I realize that the commonly accepted tradition of private gun ownership is probably here to stay in this country and, outside of a few commonsense restrictions (i.e. background checks), I believe that we should pretty much leave the issue alone. In regards to the upcoming election, I doubt that gun control/gun ownership is going to affect races like, say, Iraq or the economy most likely will.

[pleah]

192. Good, I want to be able to defend myself when the brown shirts show up!

I may get blown away, but I will take as many of them as I can with me!

[sendero]

193. Much ado about nothing..

.... whether the SCOTUS overturns DC's ban is going to have very little effect on the rest of the country IMHO.

The "real" meaning of the 2nd amendment is moot. Guns are here and they are not going away.

[unknownone]

228. guns

I would sort of have to agree... they are here and in fact it actually brings down gun crime rates to have them here since the only people who comply with the gun laws are those who would not use them to go on shooting rampages anyways.... Just look at the jump in gun crimes in the UK after they banned guns... I do feel though this case is going to be huge... rumor has it the justices will finally say the 14th amendment incorporates the 2nd which they have been hesitant to do previously