| Author |
Topic:
Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/18 2:59pm
Subject:
Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
- Date Edited:
3/18 2:59pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Supreme Court Hears Gun-Control Case
WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia’s gun-control law, long regarded as the strictest in the country, came under heavy scrutiny before the Supreme Court on Tuesday as the justices revisited the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the first time since 1939. The statute, enacted in 1976, all but completely bans the private possession of handguns, and some justices signaled that led them to find it too restrictive.
Here it is, baby. A historic moment for our young, dynamic Supreme Court. Can't wait for the court's opinion. Will it be guns fired in the air in the streets of DC in celebration, or guns fired in the air in the streets of DC in celebration...by criminals?
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
3/18 3:09pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
|
I've always thought that the second amendment has been used to justify far too much gun ownership, and when I was living in DC, I liked the ruling. There is *zero* need for further proliferation of guns.
-----signature-----
 Cressbeckler 2008!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
3/18 3:09pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
- Date Edited:
3/18 3:20pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
This has been a big deal in select circles, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Typically, blanket bans haven't played out very well under court review, but this issue does have multiple layers.
I've always thought that the second amendment has been used to justify far too much gun ownership, and when I was living in DC, I liked the ruling. There is *zero* need for further proliferation of guns.
That's only because you're talking a very narrow view of the issue.
Would you be as comfortable to say "I've always thought that the First Amendment has been used to justify far too much freedom of speech..."
The two arguments that are going to be debated before the Court are:
1)Does the 2nd Amendment apply to private ownership of firearms?
If it does, then the protection is just as strong as the protection for speech, press, assembly etc.. If it doesn't, then ownership can be regulated like any other administrative function of government.
2)Does a blanket ban fit within the general protections of the Constitution?
DC's ban applies to all ownership of handguns-legal, illegal alike. Typically, the SC has taken a dim view against blanket bans on anything, be it porn, certain behaviors, whatever. Personally, I'd say that if the SC doesn't strike it down, I would be surprised if it doesn't make DC narrow the scope of the ban as it exists.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
3/18 3:27pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
|
My prediction based on some of the comments by the justices today I heard: 6-3.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
3/18 3:27pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
|
The only people who should have guns are law enforcement/security and military personnel. The end.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women."--Sarah Palin
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
3/18 3:47pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
If criminals don't have guns, they'll use VBIEDs. 
Anyway..2nd Amendment strife has been under the radar for quite some time, from what I can remember. The assault-weapons ban pretty much just died quietly.
And frankly, I'm of the opinion that gun laws are just bandaids being slapped on waay bigger societal issues so that politicians on both sides can look like they're "doing something." Neither side is really right; you can't shoot all the criminals in the country, but obviously you can't totally disarm them all either.
Better economy & education=less crime.
-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/18 7:16pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
I can't begin to guess how the SC is going to come out on this, but I do know that a blanket ban on handguns is not the same thing, and cannot be equated with a blanket ban on all firearms, although of course the majority opinion may end up equating the two and prove me wrong.
I'm with Quix on this. A big city like DC or Chicago doesn't need any more handguns floating around than it already has. Keep a hunting rifle locked in a gun safe in your basement and voila, your right to bear arms remains intact.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DeathStar1977
Registered:
Jan '03
|
Date Posted:
3/18 7:29pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
ShaneP
Agreed.
IMO the ban should be overturned. So long as one passes a background check, one should be able to own a handgun, shotgun, rifle, etc. Machine guns (fully-automatic) are for the military.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
3/18 8:32pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
I can't begin to guess how the SC is going to come out on this, but I do know that a blanket ban on handguns is not the same thing, and cannot be equated with a blanket ban on all firearms, although of course the majority opinion may end up equating the two and prove me wrong.
I don't know. However, it's easy to do a comparison with a different topic. What if DC enacted a law that said "due to public health concerns, all gay sex is now prohibited, no exceptions." Gay sex isn't all sex, but an arbitrary ban on one type didn't stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. Certainly, the government can regulate such behavior- sexual behavior in public, for example is different than sexual behavior in private. But such regulation is not absolute.
What's being argued is if DC's blanket handgun ban exceeds the scope of the Constitution. Typically, if a behavior is protected by the Constitution, then the state has to provide a compelling argument for its limitation. The ban in DC and similar areas allow for no exceptions-it bans all private handguns, regardless of intent, legality, usage or requirement by the user. It has no provisions for a remedy.
I'm with Quix on this. A big city like DC or Chicago doesn't need any more handguns floating around than it already has. Keep a hunting rifle locked in a gun safe in your basement and voila, your right to bear arms remains intact.
Certainly, guns and crime are related, but they're not inseparable issues. Chicago's handgun ban hasn't prevented any handguns from being brought into Chicago since you can just drive 5 miles out of Cook County and go buy all the handguns you want.
I can't speak for DC, but it's kind of an open secret in Chicago that people do this very thing. In fact, there's an exception in the law that prevents charges from being brought against someone who uses a prohibited weapon to defend themselves. The exception exists because it is recognized, even if it's not admitted, that people violate it.
The blanket ban allows for easy enforcement. A stock broker who lives on Michigan Ave probably isn't going to be charged with a classification violation. A gang banger can be arrested for simply violating the arbitrary classification without committing an actual crime. It comes down to lazy politics.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
3/18 8:39pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
Mr44 posted:
I can't speak for DC, but it's kind of an open secret in Chicago that people do this very thing. In fact, there's an exception in the law that prevents charges from being brought against someone who uses a prohibited weapon to defend themselves. The exception exists because it is recognized, even if it's not admitted, that people violate it.
Well, I'd need to pop it in to watch it and get the name, but there was a guy in D.C. that served time because he shot a home intruder in his daughter's room. Former military, I believe. Its in "Michael and Me".
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
3/18 9:11pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
Well, that would suck, but also an indication that DC's ban is even more of an all or nothing proposition.
The exception didn't come automatically in Illinois either. In 2003, there was a man named Hale DeMar who used a revolver against an intruder who broke into his home as well. The community of Winnetka attempted to prosecute him, and not the intruder, for violating its ban on handguns, even after the Cook County State's Attorney declared the handgun use was in self defense.
As a result, the exemption was created. In IL, the exemption only applies to a handgun that is used within one's own home or place of business, as there is no provision for private citizens to carry guns. It also means that the actual handgun ban is all but meaningless, because all someone has to do is buy a gun outside of the banned area, and if they keep it in their house, it's not going to matter if it's used for defense.
Now, some gun shops won't sell you a handgun if you have a Chicago address, but that's store policy, nothing like that is required by the ban.
DC's ban seems to be even more absolute, which I can see working against it.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LtNOWIS
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
3/19 3:08am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
KnightWriter posted:
The only people who should have guns are law enforcement/security and military personnel. The end.
Well, when you write a constitution, you can have it your way.
In all seriousness, I spent about an hour listening to the NRA News analysis of the oral arguments. The gun rights crowd is cautiously optimistic.
The way the DC gun ban works, is that all handguns are banned. Most rifles and shotguns are legal, but only if stored unloaded and with trigger locks. This means that using the weapons for self defense is very difficult. Scalia brought up the point of just how long it takes to unlock a trigger lock. I seem to recall Roberts making the point that a ban on handguns but not rifles is like a ban on books, but not periodicals.
The old ruling that the 2nd Amendment protects the state's right to organize a State militia or defense force (Which many states have) was originally crafted in the early 20th century. It is now rejected by most scholars and legal experts. One way the District might try to defend its law is by saying the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to own firearms, but only for the collective defense of the populace. So they militia activities like target practice and the like would be ok, but a ban on effective self defense would still be legal.
Regardless, this is all speculative until the ruling comes down. Despite media reports that it's a win for gun rights, we won't really know until the end of this. And since this is the first time the Supreme Court has touched the Second Amendment in so long, District of Columbia v. Heller is sure to inspire more court cases in the decades to come.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
3/19 4:38am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
KnightWriter posted:
The only people who should have guns are law enforcement/security and military personnel. The end.
It's easy to say that in theory, but it simply doesn't work that way in practice.
I live near DC. I can see the Washington Monument from my office (well, I could if I had an outside window, but I can see it from some of my coworkers' offices). Their handgun ban has been in place my entire life. How effective has it been? The simple fact is that the ban hasn't prevented criminals from getting their hands on guns in the district. I know that from firsthand experience (PM me if you want details).
Effectively, the only people that the ban has prevented from getting their hands on handguns are the law abiding citizens. How does that make anyone safer?
Guns have legitimate uses for self defense and recreation. About a year and a half ago, I was made aware of certain threats of bodily harm made against me (again, PM me if you want details), and I had to seriously consider whether or not to buy a gun and get a concealed carry permit for protection. Because of the nature of the threats, it was not an unreasonable idea. In the end, I decided against it (and started studying Tae Kwon Do instead), but if the situation had been just a little different, the gun would have clearly been the better approach. In fact, the DC ban was one of the factors in my not getting a gun at that time (because my work sometimes sends me into the District, and I would have to leave it locked up at my office when that happened).
I should also note that if I had purchased a gun, I would have spent quite a bit of time at the NRA range close to my home in order to develop proficiency with it. There is no point in owning any tool unless you are willing to learn how to use it properly.
Should I be prohibited from owning a handgun, even when I have had clear threats made against me, because I am not a police officer or member of the military? If I were to be attacked by the person who made the threats, how am I supposed to defend myself?
A restraining order wouldn't work. How many battered wives have later been killed by husbands who ignored a restraining order? Yes, you might be able to prosecute them afterwards, but that doesn't protect the victim. The victim would still be dead!
My TKD would work against an unarmed assailant, or possibly someone armed with a knife (although that is still not recommended), but not against a gun. (I was lucky enough to know the person who made the threats against me, to know that they have an almost pathological hatred of guns.)
So, in a world where criminals have easy access to guns, how am I supposed to be able to defend myself in a situation where I have been directly threatened?
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
3/19 5:51am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
44 posted:
That's only because you're talking a very narrow view of the issue.
Would you be as comfortable to say "I've always thought that the First Amendment has been used to justify far too much freedom of speech..."
Nope, not what I am saying at all, nor is this analogous. However, I don't have the time to address this at the moment (must prepare a critical reading exercise and lectures).
-----signature-----
Cressbeckler 2008!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/19 7:27am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
- Date Edited:
3/19 7:43am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
44, thanks for the info on Chicago's law, much of that is news to me, but I haven't exactly been an enthusiast on the issue.
What's being argued is if DC's blanket handgun ban exceeds the scope of the Constitution.
I'm a pragmatist about the constitution and its interpretation. I don't necessarily believe the constitution means much of anything at all on a lot of issues.
So, whether DC's blanket handgun ban exceeds the scope of the constitution isn't "an argument" at all, it's a decision. The constitution will mean whatever the supreme court decides it means.
Of course, unless it ranks among the most extraordinarily straightforward supreme court majority opinions of all time, it may not solve the issue. All it does is shift the interpretive focuse from the second amendment onto the majority opinion (or majority opinion and concurring opinion as the case may be).
That's the way it is with most constitutional law, and so it will go with the second amendment, which certainly hasn't had its day in court to the same extent as something like search and seizure.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
3/19 7:33am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
KnightRider posted:
The only people who should have guns are law enforcement/security and military personnel. The end.
Do guns kill people or do people kill people?
We had a heavy discussion here, almost a year ago... I said the exact same thing as KnightRider. I was sure of it, too. But Jediflyer actually made me see things differently. And it took me at least half a year to admit it to myself...
Yes that's right: a Senate poster, admitting another Senate poster made him change his stance.
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
