Quote :

"HockeyRoman I enjoy my right to be able to defend myself against a tyrannical and abusive government through armed means. The Bush Regime reminded me very well why we should be armed in case our rights are trampled on. hooksaw What a hideous contortion."

hooksaw: please leave

6/27/2008 7:39:14 AM

^ Why, because I took issue with making the historic and long overdue ruling at issue into a cheap shot against Bush? Dude, STFU.

6/27/2008 7:45:17 AM

it wasn't a cheap shot against bush. It was a statement on one of the main reasons early Americans were armed to being with - to fight their government should it be necessary

6/27/2008 8:00:38 AM

Quote :

"The Bush Regime reminded me very well why we should be armed in case our rights are trampled on."

6/27/2008 8:09:21 AM

your description "hideous contortion" does not, and cannot, grammatically, refer to the sentence about bush. It was referring to HockyRoman's correct interpretation that we can and should be able to use our right to bear arms against a tyrannical and abusive government.

6/27/2008 8:15:24 AM

So, the "Bush Regime" is "tyrannical"? Seriously, shut. . .the fuck. . .up.

6/27/2008 8:18:33 AM

jesus, what part don't you understand?
The aside about bush was obviously hyperbole. The main point about taking arms against a tyrannical government is 100% valid.

6/27/2008 8:37:04 AM

Quote :

"The aside about bush was obviously hyperbole."

You've finally pinpointed the problem, Detective Horse!!!1

6/27/2008 8:39:28 AM

Does anyone here have data that supports gun violence in break-ins are a massive occurance as you gun rights people are claiming to believe?

If they are so prevalent then why don't we see massive criminal murders in our homes each year?

The Dept of Justice has almost 30,000 gun related deaths in 2001, with suicide making up over 50% of them. So what part of the 38% homicide is through break-ins?

I cannot figure the stance Constitutionally I would take, however personally I see no need for everyone to own a gun. The reasoning of Scalia and most gun-lovers on this board does not make sense, "the gun is a weapon of choice, because in one hand you can point and the other you can dial the police" is a hilarious statement. If not a little too close to the NRA's official platform.

I am curious about how having a child-lock or such a device being unconstitutional as well. Safety locks are almost akin to keeping drunk drivers off the road, but instead keeping a loaded weapon out of the hands of children. Both lower the chance of a horrible accident from occuring.

And that is where taking on gun rights is a problem. Are you going to take on background checks next? NC already does not have a waiting period, how does that enable a gun-lover to be happier if all they want is to a)hunt or b) protect their property?

I'm sorry but as much as the circle of self pat of the backs is going on here, is doesn't convince me that America is safer. The fact that handguns are now accessible on the streets of inner cities, for the sake of it, just doesn't make me believe this was a well thought out position.

6/27/2008 9:39:54 AM

Quote :

"Does anyone here have data that supports gun violence in break-ins are a massive occurance as you gun rights people are claiming to believe?"

For clarification, are you asking how often criminals use firearms during break-ins, or how often homeowners kill intruders?

6/27/2008 9:44:15 AM

^^ Trigger locks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djc_k0oIc10

I wish I could find the video of some politician who was attempting to demonstrate how easy a trigger lock is to open--but he couldn't get it open.

Search the Armed Citizen Archives

Quote :

"During the decades the American Rifleman has published 'The Armed Citizen' column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times. This archive contains 'Armed Citizen' entries from the present back to 1958. The database is searchable by key word and state and results are displayed in chronological order according to the month of publication in the American Rifleman."

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 9:44:56 AM

The thing about tyrannical government is it usually takes away your rights by scaring you into giving them up. The Bush regime used the 9/11 incident to scare Congress into passing the USAPATRIOT act, and employed things like roving wiretaps, sneak-and-peek searches without warrants, and national ID cards via the REALID act to erode our privacy rights. The no-fly list makes a lot of people afraid to be too vocal in their opposition. The reason we still have some of our gun rights still intact is because most of the people who own guns support the Republican party, which in turn protects the Second Amendment, lest they lose their supporters. If Bush could have his dream come true, we'd have all the guns we want, but also have chips implanted that track every move and purchase we make. If this administration is tyrannical, it's very covertly so. We don't even notice that our transactions, communications, and interests are catalogued and monitored to assess whether we're "up to something".

Liberals employ fear tactics as well, to convince people to give up their rights to own guns. They cite school shootings and urban crime as reasons to keep guns out of people's hands, and shout you down when you try to tell them that these problems would be far less serious if law-abiding citizens had the means to fight back against attackers and mad gunmen. Liberals love to shout you down because they hate the sound of logic and common sense. Never mind that Vermont allows concealed carry without a permit, and also has some of the lowest crime rates in the nation, it harms your children! Because you want your children to be defenseless, brainwashed by public education, and totally dependent on the government, don't you?

6/27/2008 10:05:23 AM

The main point of this ruling that everyone seems to forget is that the Justices ruled that requiring a license and registration of a gun is acceptable and allowed by the 2nd amendment.

So on the one hand, the NRA won, but lost a major battle.

6/27/2008 10:10:35 AM

i'd be interested to see how you spin this into the NRA losing a major battle

6/27/2008 10:11:58 AM

Quote :

"Justices ruled that requiring a license and registration of a gun is acceptable and allowed by the 2nd amendment."

6/27/2008 10:35:58 AM

Quote :

"acceptable and allowed"

Maybe--but not required. And if I buy a gun from somebody else, there's no registration requirement in North Carolina that I'm aware of--maybe in individual municipalities.

6/27/2008 10:39:50 AM

How could you possibly think it's a bad thing to require gun licensing/registration?

6/27/2008 10:45:12 AM

if you accept that

a) firearms ownership is a constitutionally protected right (which is what the NRA has always believed, and what the SCOTUS just confirmed)
b) the power to register is the power to confiscate
c) the government relinquishes power only rarely


Then from that perspective, registration is a threat to your inalienable rights. You may disagree, but that is how someone else might perceive it.

6/27/2008 10:49:40 AM

Quote :

"The main point of this ruling that everyone seems to forget is that the Justices ruled that requiring a license and registration of a gun is acceptable and allowed by the 2nd amendment. So on the one hand, the NRA won, but lost a major battle."

Yes and no. The significant thing to note here is that it pretty much forever puts to rest the notion that the Second Amendment is a "collective right", rather than an individual one. This has been the cornerstone for gun control advocacy - that there is no specific Constitutionally-guaranteed right to own firearms.

Given that, gun control advocates are on much weaker footing now - i.e., the legal presumption is now turned against gun control. Arguing that certain limitations - like license and registration - are still permitted under the level of scrutiny applied to this right is a lot like arguing that somehow the fact that the First Amendment doesn't protect yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a victor for censors - the presumption is still now overwhelmingly in favor of the individual.

I doubt the Second Amendment will be subject to the strict scrutiny standards of the First, but the fact that this case has re-established the individual rights interpretation will make it very difficult to achieve any kind of comprehensive firearms ban in the future.

With that in mind, while I can still see registration being viewed as a threat to individual firearms owner privacy, I have to wonder if the objections to it will die down a bit, especially if it is now perceived that it will be unlikely to be the first element of a confiscatory policy. i.e., if the right to firearms is an individual right, passing laws to confiscate them will be much more difficult legally, I imagine.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 10:52 AM. Reason : Registration]

6/27/2008 10:51:09 AM

i just dont see how the ruling yesterday can possibly be construed as losing a battle for the NRA...I'm sure citizens in Washington DC agree...and when similar challenges happen in Chicago and other places with handgun bans, and the bans are again ruled unconstitutional, it will be another win for the NRA aka the Constitution

btw anyone want to go in and open a gunshop in DC? we could make a killing

6/27/2008 10:52:31 AM

^ Because the leftists here know their side lost big time with the holding at issue. They're desperately seeking anything they can spin as some type of "victory"--no matter how marginal.

6/27/2008 10:58:35 AM

also who was it that said they would do everything in their power to circumvent this...some liberal senator or representative...she made it sound like this wouldnt hold up...i wish i could remember her name...she thinks a supreme court decision is going to be easy to circumvent?

6/27/2008 11:05:18 AM

i think this ruling is not particularly bad in its likely effects. but i think it will confuse the issue and there will likely be a "landmark" gun case every few years until someone writes a more clear opinion.

6/27/2008 11:27:55 AM

i dont think the Supreme Court is going to re-visit this issue any time soon

6/27/2008 11:30:29 AM

Quote :

"^ Because the leftists here know their side lost big time with the holding at issue. They're desperately seeking anything they can spin as some type of "victory"--no matter how marginal."

When you make assumptions you make a large fool out of yourself. I'm a gun owner.

But don't let the facts get in your way when it comes to rambling bullshit.

Quote :

"i dont think the Supreme Court is going to re-visit this issue any time soon"

Not if the NRA has a say in the matter. They are already planning a long slew of gun cases.

Quote :

"also who was it that said they would do everything in their power to circumvent this...some liberal senator or representative...she made it sound like this wouldnt hold up...i wish i could remember her name...she thinks a supreme court decision is going to be easy to circumvent?"

It was Nancy Pelosi and she didn't say she was going to circumvent it. She said that the City of Washington DC can still regulate gun ownership through registration and licensing. All of which, the court allowed for when in the Majority opinion, Scalia wrote: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Along with: "Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

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


[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 11:31:00 AM

why would the NRA have to go to the Supreme Court? they could just use Wednesday's ruling as precendece to get handgun bans overturned in Chicago, etc...it seems the gun control people would be the ones who needed to go back to the Supreme Court

6/27/2008 11:35:52 AM

Yeah, it seems to me that if the SCOTUS had more to say about the issue, it would have been said. The NRAs lawsuits won't make it past lower courts.

6/27/2008 11:39:05 AM

Quote :

"why would the NRA have to go to the Supreme Court? they could just use Wednesday's ruling as precendece to get handgun bans overturned in Chicago, etc...it seems the gun control people would be the ones who needed to go back to the Supreme Court "

Not at all. The ruling of the court was narrow in scope towards the ban in place in washington DC, which did not allow for the registering of guns, but required that guns be registered.

Quote :

"Yeah, it seems to me that if the SCOTUS had more to say about the issue, it would have been said. The NRAs lawsuits won't make it past lower courts."

All with different circumstances that the Heller v. Washington. The court narrowed its decision to the scope of the DC gun ban.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 11:45:00 AM

Affirming the right to keep an bear arms as an individual right isn't "narrow".


If anything, this is a well worded and balanced decision. It confirms the right, yet allows states the flexibility in implementing laws that make sense due to their particular conditions.

6/27/2008 11:47:42 AM

Quote :

"If anything, this is a well worded and balanced decision. It confirms the right, yet allows states the flexibility in implementing laws that make sense due to their particular conditions."

The problem is, the court only ruled that the cities cannot prevent people from getting and licensing a gun, if they are not disqualified from getting a firearm. This ruling was that there cannot be a carte blanche prohibition on licensing and registering fire arms to keep in the home. This does not speak to the Chicago or San Fransico bans, as they are not carte blanche bans on gun ownership like DC's was.

6/27/2008 11:50:56 AM

I'd guess that was intentional. The court ruled on the case before it. Established a precedent where none had existed before, and will let it play out across the nation.

We'll see. I plan on reading the whole opinion this weekend.

6/27/2008 11:55:16 AM

The NRA probably got more than it expected, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't want more.

A lobbying group usually isn't carefully balanced to a certain degree on a issue. More gun rights are always better than less gun rights for them.

6/27/2008 11:56:14 AM

Quote :

"Established a precedent where none had existed before, and will let it play out across the nation."

The court set two important precedents with this ruling

1. The right to bear arms is an individual right
2. The right to bear arms is not an unlimited right

6/27/2008 11:57:42 AM

its never been an unlimited right

it had however been viewed in certain places as a collective right

so again unless you're saying the NRA wont be satisifed until there is absolutely no gun control at all, they got a victory

gg Supreme Court

6/27/2008 11:58:43 AM

Quote :

"This does not speak to the Chicago or San Fransico bans, as they are not carte blanche bans on gun ownership like DC's was."

A portion of the ruling does, as it pretty much says that licensing requirements that are "arbitrarily and capriciously enforced" are as good as bans. But, suits have been filed in Chicago already based on Heller and we'll see how those turn out.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 11:59:11 AM

Quote :

"so again unless you're saying the NRA wont be satisifed until there is absolutely no gun control at all, they got a victory"

Have you heard/read the statements from Wayne LaPierre on the ruling? Until you have done so, your hunches mean absolutely jack shit.

Quote :

"A portion of the ruling does, as it pretty much says that licensing requirements that are "arbitrarily and capriciously enforced" are as good as bans."

Yet, they made no statement on what is arbitrarily and capriciously enforced. For instance, I do not see the City of New York's licensing fees fitting into either of those two categories, nor do I see the City of San Francisco's ban on guns in public housing fitting either of those two categories.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 12:00:02 PM

maybe you could post those LaPierre comments? maybe not

besides, this is a victory for the United States and the constitution...i could care less that its only a partial victory for the NRA

6/27/2008 12:00:57 PM

Quote :

"“I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom.” "

- Wayne LaPierre

This clearly means more and more gun lawsuits.

6/27/2008 12:04:51 PM

^^^ The general idea appears to be that if the guns are not banned (not even much of an issue anymore, though), and there is licensing in place, the individual must be granted a license. No more arbitrary approval/disapproval of the licensing based on need/reason.



[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 12:05:14 PM

^^good for him, hopefully he can get citizens of San Fran, New York, etc the rights that are enumerated to them in the 2nd amendment

i still don't know why they'd have to go to the Supreme Court though and not a local or district court

6/27/2008 12:05:36 PM

Quote :

"No more arbitrary approval/disapproval of the licensing based on need/reason."

That is true, but it makes no statement on what the licensing requirment are.

6/27/2008 12:06:16 PM

Agreed. IMO it still leaves the door open for $1000 to register each gun (for now, I would expect a challenge to that, though), but as long as the person can pay up and isn't otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms, they have to grant the license.

6/27/2008 12:11:15 PM

permit to purchase state FTW

6/27/2008 12:12:36 PM

just like some people don't have the right to have a gun because they lost that right by engaging in felonious activities, I also think some cities, like DC, just don't deserve the right to own (hand)guns. Great, now they're gonna start giving away guns with cheesburgers and DC will soon be the murder capital as it was 17 years ago

6/27/2008 12:14:05 PM

Wat?

Take a look: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

The murder rate is not significantly lower than it was in 1976 when the ban was enacted and, at times, was MUCH higher.

Don't worry though, gentrification will cause a general drop in DCs crime rate, then it'll all be out in Anacostia and across the river in Md.

6/27/2008 12:20:37 PM

Allowing people to have guns in DC, is really not going to increase the crime rate in my opinion. (At least I hope it doesn't. One shooting a week in my neighborhood is plenty for me)

The people who were doing the shooting before, aren't going to now go out and purchase future weapons legally, imho.

6/27/2008 12:24:49 PM

Quote :

"Agreed. IMO it still leaves the door open for $1000 to register each gun (for now, I would expect a challenge to that, though)"

I expect that we will see a lot of lower court cases over exactly what requirements are unconstitutional for licensing purposes. It could easily be argued that $1000 is overly excessive and designed specifically to limit otherwise law abiding qualified citizens from executing their constitutional rights. And the moment some lawyer gets up with a poor [insert minority here] person to demonstrate how such a licensing requirement is actually racist and discriminatory, that requirement will be dropped fast.

6/27/2008 12:38:41 PM

Quote :

"I expect that we will see a lot of lower court cases over exactly what requirements are unconstitutional for licensing purposes. It could easily be argued that $1000 is overly excessive and designed specifically to limit otherwise law abiding qualified citizens from executing their constitutional rights. And the moment some lawyer gets up with a poor [insert minority here] person to demonstrate how such a licensing requirement is actually racist and discriminatory, that requirement will be dropped fast."

not really, the city just has to demostrate how expensive conducting the background checks are and put a reasonable labor fee to it and the high licensing and registration fees are still in place.

6/27/2008 12:40:44 PM

the cost of a background check (which isnt expensive) combined with a "reasonable" labor fee would be nowhere near half of $1000

6/27/2008 12:53:30 PM

You be suprised how expensive they could make it and still be reasonable.

6/27/2008 12:54:03 PM