March 17, 2008
Supreme Court Memo
Gun Case Causes Bush Administration Rift
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON — Suppose that after decades of silence on the subject, the Supreme Court was to decide that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership, as opposed to a right tied to service in a militia.
Such a ruling would be a cause for dancing in the streets by proponents of the individual-rights view — or so it might seem. After all, the great majority of federal courts have long refused to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right, and the Supreme Court itself has said nothing for nearly 70 years.
But nothing is quite that straightforward when it comes to the case to be argued Tuesday on the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control law. Judging by the sniping from within the Bush administration at its own solicitor general, Paul D. Clement, for a brief he filed in the case, a long-awaited declaration by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual right would not be nearly enough.
The local law, which dates to 1976, is generally regarded as the strictest gun-control statute in the country. It not only bars the private possession of handguns, but also requires rifles and shotguns to be kept in a disassembled state or under a trigger lock. Mr. Clement’s brief embraces the individual-rights position, which has been administration policy since 2001 when John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, first declared it in a public letter to the National Rifle Association. But the brief does not take the next step and ask the justices to declare, as the federal appeals court here did a year ago, that the District of Columbia law is unconstitutional.
Not that the solicitor general’s brief finds the law to be constitutional, or even desirable. Far from it: the brief offers a road map for finding the law unconstitutional, but by a different route from the one the appeals court took. The distinction may seem almost picayune, but it is a measure of the passions engendered by anything to do with guns that Mr. Clement’s approach is evidently being seen in some administration circles as close to a betrayal.
The brief argues that in striking down the District of Columbia’s law, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit took too “categorical” an approach, one that threatens the constitutionality of federal gun laws, like the current ban on machine guns. Mr. Clement asks the justices to vacate the decision and send the case back to the appeals court for a more nuanced appraisal of the issue.
This was a fairly standard performance for a solicitor general, who has a statutory obligation to defend acts of Congress. It is routine for any solicitor general to try to steer the court away from deciding cases in a way that could harm federal interests in future cases.
But Vice President Dick Cheney was nonetheless so provoked by Mr. Clement’s approach that last month he took the highly unusual step for a vice president of signing on to a brief filed by more than 300 members of Congress that asks the Supreme Court to declare the District of Columbia law “unconstitutional per se.” (Mr. Clement’s brief, by contrast, says that “a per se rule is clearly out of place in the Second Amendment context” because at the time the amendment itself coexisted with the “reasonable restrictions on firearms” that were in place at the time.)
The Congressional brief, circulated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, asserts that “no purpose would be served by remanding this case for further fact finding or other proceedings.” The case “involves nothing more than the right of law-abiding persons to keep common handguns and usable firearms for lawful self-defense in the home,” the brief says.
The conservative columnist Robert D. Novak, who often reflects views from inside the Bush administration, wrote Thursday in The Washington Post that there was “puzzlement over Clement” and an expectation “in government circles” that the solicitor general would “amend his position when he actually faces the justices.”
Those who have watched the 41-year-old Mr. Clement, a veteran of nearly four dozen arguments who enjoys the respect of justices across the ideological spectrum, think it most unlikely that he would bow to pressure of this sort. “Don’t count on it,” Martin S. Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor and former Justice Department lawyer, wrote on the Web site Scotusblog, adding that “the institutional cost to the office of such a reversal” would be high.
However it eventually plays out, the inside-the-administration drama underscores a point that has largely been lost in the run-up to the argument in this high-profile case: a ruling that the Constitution guarantees an individual as opposed to a collective right to gun ownership would be far from the end of the age-old debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment. To borrow from Winston Churchill, it would only be the end of the beginning.
The court would then have to move to the next stage, defining what an individual right actually entails and what government regulations it permits. In constitutional analysis, this is where the rubber meets the road. For every constitutional right, the court chooses a standard of review, essentially a determination of how high a bar the government has to clear in order to justify a regulation impinging on the right.
“Strict scrutiny,” the most protective standard, accorded to rights the court deems “fundamental,” almost always dooms to failure an effort at government regulation. The briefs on the individual-rights side of this case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, argue for applying strict scrutiny, and it is Mr. Clement’s refusal to embrace that standard that has caused such consternation.
The government’s brief argues for judicial review that would be “heightened” but not strict, employing a sliding scale that balances the impact that any restriction might have on the “protected conduct” of private gun ownership against “the strength of the government’s interest in enforcement” of the restriction. The District of Columbia’s law “may well fail such scrutiny,” the brief observes.
To its opponents, the District of Columbia law means that “individuals may never possess a functional firearm at home,” in the words of the brief filed for the plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller. He is a security guard who carries a gun on duty at the building on Capitol Hill that houses the administrative offices of the federal judiciary. His request for a permit to keep the gun in his Capitol Hill home for self-defense was turned down.
To its defenders, the law is a public safety measure that bans handguns “because they are disproportionately linked to violent and deadly crime,” as the District of Columbia’s brief puts it. “The Second Amendment was not intended to tie the hands of government in providing for public safety,” the brief asserts.
Exactly what the Second Amendment was intended to do is at the heart of the dispute. With a combined total of 69 briefs, the two sides offer competing historical and linguistic analyses of the Second Amendment’s 27 words, mystifying in their arrangement and punctuation: “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.”
Forty-four states have constitutional provisions that unambiguously protect a right to individual gun ownership, a fact that limits the potential impact of the court’s ruling no matter which way the decision goes. The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state. How the justices will take that fact into account, if at all, remains to be seen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/washingt...agewanted=print
Full Version: Second Amendment Questions
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Second Amendment, Gun Safety and Gun Control
QUOTE
Forty-four states have constitutional provisions that unambiguously protect a right to individual gun ownership, a fact that limits the potential impact of the court’s ruling no matter which way the decision goes.
The states in their wisdom, took the ambiguity out of the equation. The meaning of those "27 words" has always been crystal clear to me.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 17 2008, 01:08 PM) 
The states in their wisdom, took the ambiguity out of the equation. The meaning of those "27 words" has always been crystal clear to me.
We joust on, my friend.
I will say this --- I hope I never see any more federal legislation regulating the use of firearms for the rest of my life unless it can be passed jjst about unanimously in Congress.
The assault weapons ban was a travesty.
Obama needs to take Howard Dean's approach that 2nd Amendment issues are best left to the states.
A Key Case on Gun Control
In a landmark case, the Supreme Court considers just how far the Second Amendment's freedoms go
By Emma Schwartz
Posted March 6, 2008
Dick Heller, a longtime resident of the District of Columbia, carries a handgun for his job as a private security guard. But at the end of his shift, he packs up the .38 revolver and stashes it in a vault. He would like to keep a gun for protection at his Capitol Hill home, where he has endured the sound of gunfire for years. But he can't, because D.C. law forbids it. "They give me a gun to protect them," he says of the government, "but I'm a second-class citizen when I finish work."
Dick Heller is the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.
(Charlie Archambault for USN&WR)
A weapon confiscated by the D.C. police.
(Charlie Archambault for USN&WR)Related News
In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control
Gun Control Laws
Controlling Guns in Philadelphia
Excerpts From Friend-of-Court Briefs
One of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, the D.C. statute is the focus of a March 18 U.S. Supreme Court hearing that marks the most significant case on gun control in decades. With Heller as plaintiff, it is the first test since 1939 of whether the Second Amendment supports an individual's right to bear arms and not just a state's right to form a militia. It is a crucial distinction. A ruling in favor of the individual right could trigger a wave of constitutional challenges to gun control laws nationwide. And it could suddenly bring a volatile issue—one particularly uncomfortable for Democrats—into play during a presidential election year.
"It's significant because either it's going to fuel attempts to restrict gun ownership or it could put a constitutional wet blanket on any effort to control gun ownership," says Martin Redish, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University.
For all the passion on both sides of the Second Amendment debate, the Supreme Court has said remarkably little over the years about to whom the right applies. Specifically, the amendment states that "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."
For most of American history, courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to the collective right of states to assemble groups of armed citizens, such as the National Guard. Nine federal circuit courts have upheld that position, and the Supreme Court favored it when it last considered the issue in the 1939 case. (While that decision upheld the federal regulation of an individual's use of sawed-off shotguns, it didn't directly address the scope of the Second Amendment.)
Individual freedom. But in the past few decades, more and more legal experts have supported the position that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to have guns. Although they remain in the minority, proponents include some noted liberal scholars, including Harvard University law Prof. Laurence Tribe and Yale University law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar. At the core, their reasoning is simple: Most other freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, such as free speech, have been widely interpreted as protecting an individual right; therefore, the Second Amendment should be treated no differently.
After a federal appeals court upheld the individual-right argument in 2001 (even as it did not strike down the law in question), the Justice Department, under then Attorney General John Ashcroft, shifted its policy in favor of the individual right. Emboldened, millionaire legal activist Robert Levy, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, bank-rolled a group of lawyers to target the D.C. handgun ban in court. They lined up half a dozen residents as plaintiffs, including Heller, and sued. (Heller's claim is the only one that has survived.)
The D.C. law, like laws in Chicago and New York City, doesn't explicitly bar handguns; it requires that all residents register them with the city. Since the city stopped registering handguns in 1976, no one who hadn't registered by then can have a handgun at home. The result, effectively, is a ban. D.C.'s law also bars residents from keeping any other firearm, such as a rifle or a shotgun, loaded or assembled.
It is the combination of these restrictions, among the most severe in the nation, that has made the D.C. law vulnerable to challenges by individuals claiming a right to self-defense. Wrote the National Rifle Association in a court brief: "Had Americans in 1787 been told that the federal government could ban the frontiersman in his log cabin, or the city merchant living above his store, from keeping firearms to provide for and protect himself and his family, it is hard to imagine that the Constitution would have been ratified."
That essential argument has the backing of scores of supporters, some of them unlikely bedfellows, from Vice President Dick Cheney to the Association of Physicians and Surgeons to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. One brief was filed by Pink Pistols, a gay and lesbian firearms group whose motto is "Armed gays don't get bashed." Likewise, a group of female state legislators has argued that armed women are better able to protect themselves.
The city says that the ban is necessary to protect public safety: In a city with heavy gun violence, fewer guns mean less opportunity for criminals to get hold of them. It argues that the text of the Second Amendment, beginning as it does with a reference to militias, makes it clear that the freedom guaranteed by the amendment is only a collective one. A group of historians specializing in early America, in a brief supporting the city, agrees. When the framers wrote the amendment, the historians argue, "Americans were hardly shy about identifying and discussing such fundamental rights as representation, trial by jury or freedom of conscience. The fact that references to the keeping of firearms are so few and terse...is itself an indicator of how minor a question this was at the time. The same cannot be said about the role of the militia in the constitutional order."
Whatever the founders intended, many of those who oppose the D.C. law insist that they are not advocating unrestricted gun freedom. "Reading the Second Amendment to secure the right of a law-abiding individual to possess a common handgun for personal defense," wrote a group of former Justice Department officials, including former Attorneys General Edwin Meese and William Barr, "does not call into question any existing federal firearms regulations, including those restricting the possession of machine guns."
Just how much of an impact the Supreme Court's decision will have on the gun debate depends in large part on how the court frames it. There is also a chance that any decision may not apply directly to states because D.C. is not a state. A ruling upholdingonly a collective right to bear arms would come as a blow to gun-rights advocates, who have long used the individual-rights argument to rally support against control laws.
What limits? If the court embraces an individual right to bear arms, the result is less clear. A big question is how far that freedom extends. In the past, the Supreme Court has recognized a government's ability to limit or regulate nearly every constitutional right; the freedom of speech, for instance, does not extend to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. It's a position the Bush Justice Department appeared to recognize when, in supporting individual gun rights, it cautioned the Supreme Court against defining that right so broadly that it effectively restricted the government's ability to place limits on gun ownership. Such a ruling, the Justice Department said, could invalidate existing federal laws, including the machine gun ban.
But a ruling in favor of a restricted individual right—one that allowed some government regulation of guns—could, paradoxically, do more harm than good to the gun-rights lobby. An endorsement of individual rights would come as a moral victory, but support of restrictions could represent a loss; it could tacitly uphold most of the gun control legislation across the country.
"Even if the Supreme Court says [bearing arms] is an individual right, it's not likely to be the end of state and local government efforts to enact gun laws," says Jon Vernick, a public-health professor at Johns Hopkins University. "There are at least two parts to any answer to the question of what we might expect to see next: What does the Supreme Court say is permissible, and what do policymakers think is possible?"
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nation...ntrol_print.htm
Controlling Guns in Philadelphia
A violence-plagued city bumps up against a rural state's law
By Emma Schwartz
Posted March 6, 2008
Homicides were rising twice as fast as in other large cities—an average of one gunshot murder a day. If those statistics from Philadelphia in 2006 were terrifying, the numbers in City Council member Darrell Clarke's district were even worse. On some blocks, the chance of getting shot was roughly 1 in 50. The problem seemed clear: The city needed tools to keep guns away from violent criminals.
Related News
A Key Case on Gun Control
In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control
Gun Control Laws
Excerpts From Friend-of-Court Briefs
Video: D.C. Gun Unit
Video: District of Columbia v. Heller
But Clarke has since learned that in Philadelphia, as elsewhere, tightening gun laws is no simple task. Pennsylvania, whose Constitution explicitly gives citizens a right to defend themselves, is among a majority of states that forbid cities to pass gun laws stricter than those enacted by the state. A challenge to these so-called pre-emption laws—laws pushed by the National Rifle Association—has made Philadelphia a major battleground over the Second Amendment.
The debate took off amid the violence of 2006 when a group of politicians, including Democratic Gov. Edward Rendell, asked the state legislature for a hearing on the problem. The Republican-led body did so only after the Philadelphia Democrat chairing the House appropriations committee threatened to hold up the state budget if it didn't.
The divide that emerged mirrored the demographic split over gun control nationwide. Urban politicians wanted laws limiting handgun purchases to one a month and requirements that owners report lost or stolen guns. And they called for an end to the pre-emption law. But Pennsylvania, where some school districts mark the opening of hunting season with a holiday, is a largely rural state. And rural legislators opposed the measures.
Change of heart. Last year, with Democrats in the statehouse, the gun control advocates regrouped and, borrowing a move from the NRA playbook, took polls. They made a difference. Republican Rep. Kate Harper of suburban Philadelphia initially opposed the gun limit, advocating instead tougher enforcement of existing laws. But when she saw that her constituents largely favored the limit, she changed her mind. Countering, Republicans proposed hiring 10,000 more police officers. "Guns aren't the problem," says Rocco Ali, president of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. "The problem is the criminal element." Once again, the bills died.
Undeterred, Philadelphia passed laws in May targeting handguns and illegal purchases. The city can't implement them, of course. So the council has filed a lawsuit to challenge the pre-emption law. Even if they fail again, council members say they hope a court case will change legislators' minds.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politi...lphia_print.htm
A violence-plagued city bumps up against a rural state's law
By Emma Schwartz
Posted March 6, 2008
Homicides were rising twice as fast as in other large cities—an average of one gunshot murder a day. If those statistics from Philadelphia in 2006 were terrifying, the numbers in City Council member Darrell Clarke's district were even worse. On some blocks, the chance of getting shot was roughly 1 in 50. The problem seemed clear: The city needed tools to keep guns away from violent criminals.
Related News
A Key Case on Gun Control
In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control
Gun Control Laws
Excerpts From Friend-of-Court Briefs
Video: D.C. Gun Unit
Video: District of Columbia v. Heller
But Clarke has since learned that in Philadelphia, as elsewhere, tightening gun laws is no simple task. Pennsylvania, whose Constitution explicitly gives citizens a right to defend themselves, is among a majority of states that forbid cities to pass gun laws stricter than those enacted by the state. A challenge to these so-called pre-emption laws—laws pushed by the National Rifle Association—has made Philadelphia a major battleground over the Second Amendment.
The debate took off amid the violence of 2006 when a group of politicians, including Democratic Gov. Edward Rendell, asked the state legislature for a hearing on the problem. The Republican-led body did so only after the Philadelphia Democrat chairing the House appropriations committee threatened to hold up the state budget if it didn't.
The divide that emerged mirrored the demographic split over gun control nationwide. Urban politicians wanted laws limiting handgun purchases to one a month and requirements that owners report lost or stolen guns. And they called for an end to the pre-emption law. But Pennsylvania, where some school districts mark the opening of hunting season with a holiday, is a largely rural state. And rural legislators opposed the measures.
Change of heart. Last year, with Democrats in the statehouse, the gun control advocates regrouped and, borrowing a move from the NRA playbook, took polls. They made a difference. Republican Rep. Kate Harper of suburban Philadelphia initially opposed the gun limit, advocating instead tougher enforcement of existing laws. But when she saw that her constituents largely favored the limit, she changed her mind. Countering, Republicans proposed hiring 10,000 more police officers. "Guns aren't the problem," says Rocco Ali, president of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. "The problem is the criminal element." Once again, the bills died.
Undeterred, Philadelphia passed laws in May targeting handguns and illegal purchases. The city can't implement them, of course. So the council has filed a lawsuit to challenge the pre-emption law. Even if they fail again, council members say they hope a court case will change legislators' minds.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politi...lphia_print.htm
This is why I oppose federal gun control.
It makes no sense to waste time pushing through legislation that will never do what it was intended to do.
In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control
Why it's been years since significant federal legislation
By Emma Schwartz
Posted March 6, 2008
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politi...ntrol_print.htm
The scenario is all too familiar: A disturbed gunman opens fire in a school, an office, or a shopping center and, before horrified spectators, slaughters innocent men, women, and even children. After the massacres at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University, and Omaha's Westroads Mall, the question is always the same: How could this tragedy have been prevented? Inevitably, there are calls for tougher gun control, and routinely they are followed by arguments about Second Amendment rights, along with protestations that "guns don't kill people; people do." In the end, the reactions to these tragedies serve only to remind how deeply divided Americans are when it comes to guns.
Four out of every 10 Americans own a gun. And nearly 3 out of 4 believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to have a firearm. Recent Gallup polls show that only 38 percent of Americans think the most important way to combat gun violence is through stricter gun laws; 58 percent believe more should be done to enforce current laws instead. And more than two thirds oppose an outright ban on handguns.
Lost momentum. Perhaps that's why, despite the steady toll of gunshot violence, it's been nearly 15 years since there has been a significant push for gun legislation on the federal level. Back in 1993, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Brady bill, which imposed background checks on gun buyers, and the following year, Congress banned private ownership of assault weapons. But the momentum didn't last. Months later, Republicans took over Congress, and in 1996, the House voted to repeal the assault weapons ban. Although the Senate failed to follow suit at the time, in 2004 Congress let the ban expire.
The Democrats learned the perils of reviving the gun control issue during the 2000 presidential campaign when candidate Al Gore pledged to limit handgun sales, crack down on gun shows, and support state registration of firearms. It was a liberal position that some think cost him the vote in a few southern, pro-gun states, including his home state of Tennessee. For many Democrats, the lesson was clear: Gun control was a losing—and consuming—issue. "You can talk about guns, or you can talk about everything else," says Dane Strother, a Democratic media consultant. "If you start talking about guns, everyone bridles, be it pro-gun or antigun. You'll never make it to healthcare. You'll never make it to the economy."
That attitude has carried the day as Democrats have tried to pick up more seats in pro-gun states like Missouri and in the Southwest. Many of the Democratic victories in 2006 came from conservative candidates like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a gun-owning former marine whose senior aide was arrested last year for accidentally carrying Webb's gun into a Senate office building.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has talked much about gun control. Both Democratic candidates have endorsed the idea of tracking down illegal guns, but both have dropped their onetime support for licensing gun owners and registering new guns. At their Nevada debate in January, Clinton said she would reinstate the assault weapons ban. And Obama vowed to increase access to data that help trace the origin of guns used in crimes. But he acknowledged the gun control divide when he said: "We essentially have two realities when it comes to guns in this country.... We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets." Republican candidate John McCain has long endorsed an individual right to have guns.
Under Republican leadership, Congress did little to toughen gun control laws, and what Congress has done since then has largely been to relax laws. In 2003, for instance, it passed an amendment to block the government from publicly releasing most data that trace guns used in crimes. And in 2005, Congress gave gun manufacturers immunity to lawsuits if their firearms were used in crimes. The only significant federal gun control legislation, which increased funding for mental health background checks, was passed in December, under Democratic leadership and in the emotional wake of the Virginia Tech massacre. Other than that, says Andy Goddard, whose son was injured in the shooting, "people don't know how poorly protected they are."
In the states, however, the debate over gun control is as robust as ever. In a number of major cities, rising crime rates have pushed the issue to the front of the public agenda. Gun control advocates, led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have been pushing for laws that would help target illegal gun trafficking: allowing states access to gun-trace data, requiring background checks at gun shows, and forcing gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons. "We have more than 250 million guns in this country, and not all of those guns are in the hands of rational people," says Jim Sollo, vice president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety, a gun control advocacy group.
NRA power. But supporters of gun control say that the strength of the National Rifle Association in many states makes it nearly impossible to even discuss laws targeting illegal guns. The powerful group has about 4 million members nationwide, a $20 million to $30 million lobbying budget, and a strong youth group raising a new generation of members. In particular, NRA foes point to the group's successful efforts to gain passage of state "pre-emption" laws that limit local power over gun laws. It has played a role in state and federal elections, for instance, joining the broader Republican-led upset of South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, a Democrat, after he supported gun control amendments to the manufacturers' liability legislation.
Not surprisingly, moderate and Democratic states, where the NRA is less influential, have voted for the greatest number of gun control laws. California, for instance, passed a law last year requiring that manufacturers stamp every firearm with a unique imprint so ammunition fired from it can be traced. (Opponents argue that releasing this sensitive information would harm investigations.) And in January, New Jersey legislators passed laws calling for owners to report lost or stolen guns, requiring criminal and mental health background checks for ammunition purchases, and increasing penalties for illegal gun possession and trafficking.
The fault lines in the gun debate aren't entirely partisan; they often mark divisions between rural areas, where hunting is deeply embedded in the culture, and urban communities, where guns are linked with drugs and crime. These cultural differences affect constituents' views: City dwellers tend to want more gun control than rural people do. And in rural districts, even Democrats often support the NRA.
For instance, the NRA is pushing for laws to prohibit private businesses from barring employees from keeping guns in their cars in a company parking lot. A measure to that effect introduced in Georgia, although it has stalled, won support from a number of Democrats, particularly those from rural areas. In Arizona, state Republican Rep. Jonathan Paton introduced such legislation after hearing from a constituent who drove an hour each day through a dangerous border area to work. "There's a lot of rural no man's land between where some people work and where they live," he says. "This is about people's right and whether they feel safe or not."
Part of the challenge in going after guns used in crimes is the lack of solid research on exactly which laws help reduce gun violence. Researchers agree that where there are more guns, there are more likely to be accidents with guns. But beyond that, a 2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded, there is "insufficient evidence" to measure the efficacy of various gun control laws, largely because of limited data.
For instance, laws requiring owners to protect children by keeping their guns locked or unloaded reduced deaths among children in Florida, research shows, but not in California or Connecticut. Laws allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons, which advocates say tend to discourage criminals from shooting, have brought little meaningful decrease in crime. And the research is mixed on whether mandatory waiting periods reduce the likelihood of suicides by impulsive gun buyers.
The effect of bans. The District of Columbia gun ban now before the Supreme Court has been at the center of contrasting research. A 1991 study found an almost 25 percent decline in homicides and a 23 percent drop in suicides by firearms following the ban and no similar drop in neighboring Maryland and Virginia, which don't have bans. But a study published five years later argued that the assessment wasn't valid because it compared D.C. with prosperous suburbs rather than with another city, such as Baltimore, where homicides also declined during the same period.
On the streets of D.C.'s rougher neighborhoods today, it's hard to see how the handgun ban has made much of an impact on crime. Last year, homicides—about 80 percent of which are caused by firearms—were up 7 percent from the year before, to 181. That makes D.C.'s one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. If the gun ban is struck down, the District will very likely see an increase in firearms ownership and perhaps a rise in burglaries by criminals trying to obtain guns.
But a new police unit formed to target illegal guns may be doing more for public safety than a ban alone. Every day about two dozen officers fan out across the city's roughest neighborhoods, stopping drivers and pedestrians for traffic and other offenses and executing warrants in search of illegal guns. Some days the officers come up dry. But in the first three months of the program, they seized nearly 120 guns, increasing the city's average monthly recovery by about 35 percent from the previous year. The city would have a program without a ban, and judging from those in possession of the guns, the program would most likely work just as well. Says police officer James Boteler Jr.: "Most of the guns we're recovering are from people who, even without the ban, would not be allowed to have one anyway." But, he adds, the ban doesn't hurt, either.
It makes no sense to waste time pushing through legislation that will never do what it was intended to do.
In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control
Why it's been years since significant federal legislation
By Emma Schwartz
Posted March 6, 2008
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politi...ntrol_print.htm
The scenario is all too familiar: A disturbed gunman opens fire in a school, an office, or a shopping center and, before horrified spectators, slaughters innocent men, women, and even children. After the massacres at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University, and Omaha's Westroads Mall, the question is always the same: How could this tragedy have been prevented? Inevitably, there are calls for tougher gun control, and routinely they are followed by arguments about Second Amendment rights, along with protestations that "guns don't kill people; people do." In the end, the reactions to these tragedies serve only to remind how deeply divided Americans are when it comes to guns.
Four out of every 10 Americans own a gun. And nearly 3 out of 4 believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to have a firearm. Recent Gallup polls show that only 38 percent of Americans think the most important way to combat gun violence is through stricter gun laws; 58 percent believe more should be done to enforce current laws instead. And more than two thirds oppose an outright ban on handguns.
Lost momentum. Perhaps that's why, despite the steady toll of gunshot violence, it's been nearly 15 years since there has been a significant push for gun legislation on the federal level. Back in 1993, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Brady bill, which imposed background checks on gun buyers, and the following year, Congress banned private ownership of assault weapons. But the momentum didn't last. Months later, Republicans took over Congress, and in 1996, the House voted to repeal the assault weapons ban. Although the Senate failed to follow suit at the time, in 2004 Congress let the ban expire.
The Democrats learned the perils of reviving the gun control issue during the 2000 presidential campaign when candidate Al Gore pledged to limit handgun sales, crack down on gun shows, and support state registration of firearms. It was a liberal position that some think cost him the vote in a few southern, pro-gun states, including his home state of Tennessee. For many Democrats, the lesson was clear: Gun control was a losing—and consuming—issue. "You can talk about guns, or you can talk about everything else," says Dane Strother, a Democratic media consultant. "If you start talking about guns, everyone bridles, be it pro-gun or antigun. You'll never make it to healthcare. You'll never make it to the economy."
That attitude has carried the day as Democrats have tried to pick up more seats in pro-gun states like Missouri and in the Southwest. Many of the Democratic victories in 2006 came from conservative candidates like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a gun-owning former marine whose senior aide was arrested last year for accidentally carrying Webb's gun into a Senate office building.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has talked much about gun control. Both Democratic candidates have endorsed the idea of tracking down illegal guns, but both have dropped their onetime support for licensing gun owners and registering new guns. At their Nevada debate in January, Clinton said she would reinstate the assault weapons ban. And Obama vowed to increase access to data that help trace the origin of guns used in crimes. But he acknowledged the gun control divide when he said: "We essentially have two realities when it comes to guns in this country.... We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets." Republican candidate John McCain has long endorsed an individual right to have guns.
Under Republican leadership, Congress did little to toughen gun control laws, and what Congress has done since then has largely been to relax laws. In 2003, for instance, it passed an amendment to block the government from publicly releasing most data that trace guns used in crimes. And in 2005, Congress gave gun manufacturers immunity to lawsuits if their firearms were used in crimes. The only significant federal gun control legislation, which increased funding for mental health background checks, was passed in December, under Democratic leadership and in the emotional wake of the Virginia Tech massacre. Other than that, says Andy Goddard, whose son was injured in the shooting, "people don't know how poorly protected they are."
In the states, however, the debate over gun control is as robust as ever. In a number of major cities, rising crime rates have pushed the issue to the front of the public agenda. Gun control advocates, led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have been pushing for laws that would help target illegal gun trafficking: allowing states access to gun-trace data, requiring background checks at gun shows, and forcing gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons. "We have more than 250 million guns in this country, and not all of those guns are in the hands of rational people," says Jim Sollo, vice president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety, a gun control advocacy group.
NRA power. But supporters of gun control say that the strength of the National Rifle Association in many states makes it nearly impossible to even discuss laws targeting illegal guns. The powerful group has about 4 million members nationwide, a $20 million to $30 million lobbying budget, and a strong youth group raising a new generation of members. In particular, NRA foes point to the group's successful efforts to gain passage of state "pre-emption" laws that limit local power over gun laws. It has played a role in state and federal elections, for instance, joining the broader Republican-led upset of South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, a Democrat, after he supported gun control amendments to the manufacturers' liability legislation.
Not surprisingly, moderate and Democratic states, where the NRA is less influential, have voted for the greatest number of gun control laws. California, for instance, passed a law last year requiring that manufacturers stamp every firearm with a unique imprint so ammunition fired from it can be traced. (Opponents argue that releasing this sensitive information would harm investigations.) And in January, New Jersey legislators passed laws calling for owners to report lost or stolen guns, requiring criminal and mental health background checks for ammunition purchases, and increasing penalties for illegal gun possession and trafficking.
The fault lines in the gun debate aren't entirely partisan; they often mark divisions between rural areas, where hunting is deeply embedded in the culture, and urban communities, where guns are linked with drugs and crime. These cultural differences affect constituents' views: City dwellers tend to want more gun control than rural people do. And in rural districts, even Democrats often support the NRA.
For instance, the NRA is pushing for laws to prohibit private businesses from barring employees from keeping guns in their cars in a company parking lot. A measure to that effect introduced in Georgia, although it has stalled, won support from a number of Democrats, particularly those from rural areas. In Arizona, state Republican Rep. Jonathan Paton introduced such legislation after hearing from a constituent who drove an hour each day through a dangerous border area to work. "There's a lot of rural no man's land between where some people work and where they live," he says. "This is about people's right and whether they feel safe or not."
Part of the challenge in going after guns used in crimes is the lack of solid research on exactly which laws help reduce gun violence. Researchers agree that where there are more guns, there are more likely to be accidents with guns. But beyond that, a 2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded, there is "insufficient evidence" to measure the efficacy of various gun control laws, largely because of limited data.
For instance, laws requiring owners to protect children by keeping their guns locked or unloaded reduced deaths among children in Florida, research shows, but not in California or Connecticut. Laws allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons, which advocates say tend to discourage criminals from shooting, have brought little meaningful decrease in crime. And the research is mixed on whether mandatory waiting periods reduce the likelihood of suicides by impulsive gun buyers.
The effect of bans. The District of Columbia gun ban now before the Supreme Court has been at the center of contrasting research. A 1991 study found an almost 25 percent decline in homicides and a 23 percent drop in suicides by firearms following the ban and no similar drop in neighboring Maryland and Virginia, which don't have bans. But a study published five years later argued that the assessment wasn't valid because it compared D.C. with prosperous suburbs rather than with another city, such as Baltimore, where homicides also declined during the same period.
On the streets of D.C.'s rougher neighborhoods today, it's hard to see how the handgun ban has made much of an impact on crime. Last year, homicides—about 80 percent of which are caused by firearms—were up 7 percent from the year before, to 181. That makes D.C.'s one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. If the gun ban is struck down, the District will very likely see an increase in firearms ownership and perhaps a rise in burglaries by criminals trying to obtain guns.
But a new police unit formed to target illegal guns may be doing more for public safety than a ban alone. Every day about two dozen officers fan out across the city's roughest neighborhoods, stopping drivers and pedestrians for traffic and other offenses and executing warrants in search of illegal guns. Some days the officers come up dry. But in the first three months of the program, they seized nearly 120 guns, increasing the city's average monthly recovery by about 35 percent from the previous year. The city would have a program without a ban, and judging from those in possession of the guns, the program would most likely work just as well. Says police officer James Boteler Jr.: "Most of the guns we're recovering are from people who, even without the ban, would not be allowed to have one anyway." But, he adds, the ban doesn't hurt, either.
March 30 2005, 03:19 PM'
I highlighted the new language...
Some members of Common Ground Common Sense, a website for progressives, moderates and Independents, have banded together to try and find an acceptable position on firearms issues which gun owners and non-gun owners can together support. During our discussion we distilled what issues were most important to us as individuals, families and communities and how these factors could be balanced against the needs of society. Parties came from opposite ends on this issue in many respects but used common sense and mutual respect to reach the following positon which has as its root an understanding and acknowledgment that politically the Democratic party has suffered from an unenlightened viewpoint on gun issues. This platform is an honest attempt to communicate to all Americans the commitment that the Democratic party to respect the liberty of our citizens to live peacefully and lawfully in our communities throughout our great nation. As a party, we have shed the anti-gun, pro-gun divisiveness in an effort to replace this division with an inclusive pro-responsibility approach.
The postions reads as follows:
The Democratic Party supports the ability of all Americans to lawfully possess and own firearms. In addition, we are the pro-responsibility party - meaning that we believe that once an individual assumes the responsibility of owning a gun, he or she will take the necessary steps to make certain that the gun is stored safely and out of reach of children and criminals. Our primary concern is for the health, safety and welfare of our families, communities, country and the men and women in law enforcement - our first responders - who safeguard these interests. As a party, we will support policies and programs which advance the training, support, equipping, and assistance of these officers in the execution of their sworn responsibilities.
In addition, we support gun safety measures which leave responsibility in the hands of the gun owner. This includes leaving guns unloaded and out of reach of chidlren when the gun owner is not present and/or storing the wepon loaded or unloaded. If the gun owner chooses to secure his weapon in a secure gun locker, the party supports providing the gun owner with a tax credit at the federal level to encourage such safety efforts.
Finally, we believe the best method for promoting gun safety is best left in the hands of each indivdiual state with respect for current state and federal laws.
It is our hope that this position can become a plank in the Democratic platform during the midterm elections of 2006 in an effort to broaden support and help the party to get back to become a stronger, more diverse and representative national party. We are America's party. The Democratic Party.
Remember when we all reached consensus on this?
I highlighted the new language...
Some members of Common Ground Common Sense, a website for progressives, moderates and Independents, have banded together to try and find an acceptable position on firearms issues which gun owners and non-gun owners can together support. During our discussion we distilled what issues were most important to us as individuals, families and communities and how these factors could be balanced against the needs of society. Parties came from opposite ends on this issue in many respects but used common sense and mutual respect to reach the following positon which has as its root an understanding and acknowledgment that politically the Democratic party has suffered from an unenlightened viewpoint on gun issues. This platform is an honest attempt to communicate to all Americans the commitment that the Democratic party to respect the liberty of our citizens to live peacefully and lawfully in our communities throughout our great nation. As a party, we have shed the anti-gun, pro-gun divisiveness in an effort to replace this division with an inclusive pro-responsibility approach.
The postions reads as follows:
The Democratic Party supports the ability of all Americans to lawfully possess and own firearms. In addition, we are the pro-responsibility party - meaning that we believe that once an individual assumes the responsibility of owning a gun, he or she will take the necessary steps to make certain that the gun is stored safely and out of reach of children and criminals. Our primary concern is for the health, safety and welfare of our families, communities, country and the men and women in law enforcement - our first responders - who safeguard these interests. As a party, we will support policies and programs which advance the training, support, equipping, and assistance of these officers in the execution of their sworn responsibilities.
In addition, we support gun safety measures which leave responsibility in the hands of the gun owner. This includes leaving guns unloaded and out of reach of chidlren when the gun owner is not present and/or storing the wepon loaded or unloaded. If the gun owner chooses to secure his weapon in a secure gun locker, the party supports providing the gun owner with a tax credit at the federal level to encourage such safety efforts.
Finally, we believe the best method for promoting gun safety is best left in the hands of each indivdiual state with respect for current state and federal laws.
It is our hope that this position can become a plank in the Democratic platform during the midterm elections of 2006 in an effort to broaden support and help the party to get back to become a stronger, more diverse and representative national party. We are America's party. The Democratic Party.
Remember when we all reached consensus on this?
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2008, 02:43 PM)
March 30 2005, 03:19 PM'
I highlighted the new language...
Some members of Common Ground Common Sense, a website for progressives, moderates and Independents, have banded together to try and find an acceptable position on firearms issues which gun owners and non-gun owners can together support. During our discussion we distilled what issues were most important to us as individuals, families and communities and how these factors could be balanced against the needs of society. Parties came from opposite ends on this issue in many respects but used common sense and mutual respect to reach the following positon which has as its root an understanding and acknowledgment that politically the Democratic party has suffered from an unenlightened viewpoint on gun issues. This platform is an honest attempt to communicate to all Americans the commitment that the Democratic party to respect the liberty of our citizens to live peacefully and lawfully in our communities throughout our great nation. As a party, we have shed the anti-gun, pro-gun divisiveness in an effort to replace this division with an inclusive pro-responsibility approach.
The postions reads as follows:
The Democratic Party supports the ability of all Americans to lawfully possess and own firearms. In addition, we are the pro-responsibility party - meaning that we believe that once an individual assumes the responsibility of owning a gun, he or she will take the necessary steps to make certain that the gun is stored safely and out of reach of children and criminals. Our primary concern is for the health, safety and welfare of our families, communities, country and the men and women in law enforcement - our first responders - who safeguard these interests. As a party, we will support policies and programs which advance the training, support, equipping, and assistance of these officers in the execution of their sworn responsibilities.
In addition, we support gun safety measures which leave responsibility in the hands of the gun owner. This includes leaving guns unloaded and out of reach of chidlren when the gun owner is not present and/or storing the wepon loaded or unloaded. If the gun owner chooses to secure his weapon in a secure gun locker, the party supports providing the gun owner with a tax credit at the federal level to encourage such safety efforts.
Finally, we believe the best method for promoting gun safety is best left in the hands of each indivdiual state with respect for current state and federal laws.
It is our hope that this position can become a plank in the Democratic platform during the midterm elections of 2006 in an effort to broaden support and help the party to get back to become a stronger, more diverse and representative national party. We are America's party. The Democratic Party.
Remember when we all reached consensus on this?
I highlighted the new language...
Some members of Common Ground Common Sense, a website for progressives, moderates and Independents, have banded together to try and find an acceptable position on firearms issues which gun owners and non-gun owners can together support. During our discussion we distilled what issues were most important to us as individuals, families and communities and how these factors could be balanced against the needs of society. Parties came from opposite ends on this issue in many respects but used common sense and mutual respect to reach the following positon which has as its root an understanding and acknowledgment that politically the Democratic party has suffered from an unenlightened viewpoint on gun issues. This platform is an honest attempt to communicate to all Americans the commitment that the Democratic party to respect the liberty of our citizens to live peacefully and lawfully in our communities throughout our great nation. As a party, we have shed the anti-gun, pro-gun divisiveness in an effort to replace this division with an inclusive pro-responsibility approach.
The postions reads as follows:
The Democratic Party supports the ability of all Americans to lawfully possess and own firearms. In addition, we are the pro-responsibility party - meaning that we believe that once an individual assumes the responsibility of owning a gun, he or she will take the necessary steps to make certain that the gun is stored safely and out of reach of children and criminals. Our primary concern is for the health, safety and welfare of our families, communities, country and the men and women in law enforcement - our first responders - who safeguard these interests. As a party, we will support policies and programs which advance the training, support, equipping, and assistance of these officers in the execution of their sworn responsibilities.
In addition, we support gun safety measures which leave responsibility in the hands of the gun owner. This includes leaving guns unloaded and out of reach of chidlren when the gun owner is not present and/or storing the wepon loaded or unloaded. If the gun owner chooses to secure his weapon in a secure gun locker, the party supports providing the gun owner with a tax credit at the federal level to encourage such safety efforts.
Finally, we believe the best method for promoting gun safety is best left in the hands of each indivdiual state with respect for current state and federal laws.
It is our hope that this position can become a plank in the Democratic platform during the midterm elections of 2006 in an effort to broaden support and help the party to get back to become a stronger, more diverse and representative national party. We are America's party. The Democratic Party.
Remember when we all reached consensus on this?
It seems we still have common ground on this issue, taz.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 17 2008, 02:21 PM)
It seems we still have common ground on this issue, taz.
Yeah, which is why I was screaming at the television set when Obama was giving an answer during a debate on the topic which I did not like...
My wife thought I was out of my mind...but it wasn't the first time...
Couldn't find it...
This wasn't it but something I found on that topic...
http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/200...on_edwards.html
Henderson: "I'm wondering if what happened at Virginia Tech, in your opinion, might alter the debate about gun control."
Obama: "It's early to make a full assessment on how this changes our politics and the public mood. I think all of us are still just overwhelmed with grief for the families and for Virginia Tech and obviously people here remember what happened at the university and how painful it can be (a reference to the shootings at the University of Iowa). I do think that the evidence so far at least indicates that you've got a young man who was mentally deranged, was identified as such, was temporarily committed and was still able to obtain handguns and so one critical question is, 'What happened to our background check system? Why did it fail?' and it seems like we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement on making that background system, background check system work. The second area which may be fought by the NRA, but I think has to be looked at is the availability of 19-round clips. I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believe in homeowners having a firearms to protect their home and their family. It's hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic. I said at a forum earlier this week, 'If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn't be hunting' and so that I think is something that we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about."
Henderson: "Do you think this is a prickly issue for Democrats?"
Obama: "The problem that we've had is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use those firearms safely, secure them properly and I think would be amenable to reasonable gun control laws. The NRA's attitude has been that any restriction is an infringement on the rights of gun owners and you know because of the breadth of their membership and the large amounts of money that they have at their disposal, I think they are oftentimes able to scare law-abiding gun owners into thinking that Democrats are going to take away their rights and part of what I think we have to communicate is that we are committed to maintaining the rights of lawful gun owners, but that doesn't contradict the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or put limits on the accessibility of semi-automatic weapons or make sure that straw purchasers aren't dumping firearms into our inner cities."
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2008, 01:43 PM)
March 30 2005, 03:19 PM'
I highlighted the new language...
Some members of Common Ground Common Sense, a website for progressives, moderates, libertarians, and independents, have banded together to try and find an acceptable position on firearms issues which gun owners and non-gun owners can together support. During our discussion we distilled what issues were most important to us as individuals, families and communities and how these factors could be balanced against the needs of society. Parties came from opposite ends on this issue in many respects but used common sense and mutual respect to reach the following positon which has as its root an understanding and acknowledgment that politically the Democratic party has suffered from an unenlightened viewpoint on gun issues. This platform is an honest attempt to communicate to all Americans the commitment that the Democratic party to respect the liberty of our citizens to live peacefully and lawfully in our communities throughout our great nation. As a party, we have shed the anti-gun, pro-gun divisiveness in an effort to replace this division with an inclusive pro-responsibility approach.
The postions reads as follows:
The Democratic Party supports the ability of all Americans to lawfully possess and own firearms. In addition, we are the pro-responsibility party - meaning that we believe that once an individual assumes the responsibility of owning a gun, he or she will take the necessary steps to make certain that the gun is stored safely and out of reach of children and criminals. Our primary concern is for the health, safety and welfare of our families, communities, country and the men and women in law enforcement - our first responders - who safeguard these interests. As a party, we will support policies and programs which advance the training, support, equipping, and assistance of these officers in the execution of their sworn responsibilities.
In addition, we support gun safety measures which leave responsibility in the hands of the gun owner. This includes leaving guns unloaded and out of reach of chidlren when the gun owner is not present and/or storing the wepon loaded or unloaded. If the gun owner chooses to secure his weapon in a secure gun locker, the party supports providing the gun owner with a tax credit at the federal level to encourage such safety efforts.
Finally, we believe the best method for promoting gun safety is best left in the hands of each indivdiual state with respect for current state and federal laws.
It is our hope that this position can become a plank in the Democratic platform during the midterm elections of 2006 in an effort to broaden support and help the party to get back to become a stronger, more diverse and representative national party. We are America's party. The Democratic Party.
Remember when we all reached consensus on this?
I highlighted the new language...
Some members of Common Ground Common Sense, a website for progressives, moderates, libertarians, and independents, have banded together to try and find an acceptable position on firearms issues which gun owners and non-gun owners can together support. During our discussion we distilled what issues were most important to us as individuals, families and communities and how these factors could be balanced against the needs of society. Parties came from opposite ends on this issue in many respects but used common sense and mutual respect to reach the following positon which has as its root an understanding and acknowledgment that politically the Democratic party has suffered from an unenlightened viewpoint on gun issues. This platform is an honest attempt to communicate to all Americans the commitment that the Democratic party to respect the liberty of our citizens to live peacefully and lawfully in our communities throughout our great nation. As a party, we have shed the anti-gun, pro-gun divisiveness in an effort to replace this division with an inclusive pro-responsibility approach.
The postions reads as follows:
The Democratic Party supports the ability of all Americans to lawfully possess and own firearms. In addition, we are the pro-responsibility party - meaning that we believe that once an individual assumes the responsibility of owning a gun, he or she will take the necessary steps to make certain that the gun is stored safely and out of reach of children and criminals. Our primary concern is for the health, safety and welfare of our families, communities, country and the men and women in law enforcement - our first responders - who safeguard these interests. As a party, we will support policies and programs which advance the training, support, equipping, and assistance of these officers in the execution of their sworn responsibilities.
In addition, we support gun safety measures which leave responsibility in the hands of the gun owner. This includes leaving guns unloaded and out of reach of chidlren when the gun owner is not present and/or storing the wepon loaded or unloaded. If the gun owner chooses to secure his weapon in a secure gun locker, the party supports providing the gun owner with a tax credit at the federal level to encourage such safety efforts.
Finally, we believe the best method for promoting gun safety is best left in the hands of each indivdiual state with respect for current state and federal laws.
It is our hope that this position can become a plank in the Democratic platform during the midterm elections of 2006 in an effort to broaden support and help the party to get back to become a stronger, more diverse and representative national party. We are America's party. The Democratic Party.
Remember when we all reached consensus on this?
Maybe I could make one change...
He speaks as a typical Chicago Democrat.
And this will stop what?
Like you taz...This crap drives me straight up the wall.
QUOTE
The second area which may be fought by the NRA, but I think has to be looked at is the availability of 19-round clips.
And this will stop what?
Like you taz...This crap drives me straight up the wall.
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2008, 02:32 PM)
Yeah, which is why I was screaming at the television set when Obama was giving an answer during a debate on the topic which I did not like...
My wife thought I was out of my mind...but it wasn't the first time...
Couldn't find it...
This wasn't it but something I found on that topic...
http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/200...on_edwards.html
Henderson: "I'm wondering if what happened at Virginia Tech, in your opinion, might alter the debate about gun control."
Obama: "It's early to make a full assessment on how this changes our politics and the public mood. I think all of us are still just overwhelmed with grief for the families and for Virginia Tech and obviously people here remember what happened at the university and how painful it can be (a reference to the shootings at the University of Iowa). I do think that the evidence so far at least indicates that you've got a young man who was mentally deranged, was identified as such, was temporarily committed and was still able to obtain handguns and so one critical question is, 'What happened to our background check system? Why did it fail?' and it seems like we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement on making that background system, background check system work. The second area which may be fought by the NRA, but I think has to be looked at is the availability of 19-round clips. I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believe in homeowners having a firearms to protect their home and their family. It's hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic. I said at a forum earlier this week, 'If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn't be hunting' and so that I think is something that we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about."
Henderson: "Do you think this is a prickly issue for Democrats?"
Obama: "The problem that we've had is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use those firearms safely, secure them properly and I think would be amenable to reasonable gun control laws. The NRA's attitude has been that any restriction is an infringement on the rights of gun owners and you know because of the breadth of their membership and the large amounts of money that they have at their disposal, I think they are oftentimes able to scare law-abiding gun owners into thinking that Democrats are going to take away their rights and part of what I think we have to communicate is that we are committed to maintaining the rights of lawful gun owners, but that doesn't contradict the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or put limits on the accessibility of semi-automatic weapons or make sure that straw purchasers aren't dumping firearms into our inner cities."
My wife thought I was out of my mind...but it wasn't the first time...
Couldn't find it...
This wasn't it but something I found on that topic...
http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/200...on_edwards.html
Henderson: "I'm wondering if what happened at Virginia Tech, in your opinion, might alter the debate about gun control."
Obama: "It's early to make a full assessment on how this changes our politics and the public mood. I think all of us are still just overwhelmed with grief for the families and for Virginia Tech and obviously people here remember what happened at the university and how painful it can be (a reference to the shootings at the University of Iowa). I do think that the evidence so far at least indicates that you've got a young man who was mentally deranged, was identified as such, was temporarily committed and was still able to obtain handguns and so one critical question is, 'What happened to our background check system? Why did it fail?' and it seems like we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement on making that background system, background check system work. The second area which may be fought by the NRA, but I think has to be looked at is the availability of 19-round clips. I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believe in homeowners having a firearms to protect their home and their family. It's hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic. I said at a forum earlier this week, 'If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn't be hunting' and so that I think is something that we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about."
Henderson: "Do you think this is a prickly issue for Democrats?"
Obama: "The problem that we've had is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use those firearms safely, secure them properly and I think would be amenable to reasonable gun control laws. The NRA's attitude has been that any restriction is an infringement on the rights of gun owners and you know because of the breadth of their membership and the large amounts of money that they have at their disposal, I think they are oftentimes able to scare law-abiding gun owners into thinking that Democrats are going to take away their rights and part of what I think we have to communicate is that we are committed to maintaining the rights of lawful gun owners, but that doesn't contradict the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or put limits on the accessibility of semi-automatic weapons or make sure that straw purchasers aren't dumping firearms into our inner cities."
What he should have added is --- "but it is up to the the government and citizens of individual states to make certain these safeguards are legislated and the laws enforced."
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 17 2008, 02:36 PM)
He speaks as a typical Chicago Democrat.
And this will stop what?
Like you taz...This crap drives me straight up the wall.
And this will stop what?
Like you taz...This crap drives me straight up the wall.
It will force you to buy two 18 round clips...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2008, 03:37 PM)
It will force you to buy two 18 round clips...
To be completely honest...I was never one to be awed by high capacity weapons. It's all about shot placement, not "spray and pray".
I only have one gun that has a 12 round magazine, and it's more a curio than anything. My five and six shot revolvers are for serious social work.
The D.C. Gun Case
The Supreme Court approaches a momentous decision on the Second Amendment.
Monday, March 17, 2008; Page A16
TOMORROW THE Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case of extraordinary importance involving the constitutionality of the District's gun control program. The justices are being asked to determine whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms or whether private gun ownership is strictly linked to service in a state militia. The justices' answer could determine whether the District's gun ban stands or falls, and it could have ripple effects throughout the country.
We have long believed that a robust system of firearms laws is essential to the safety and well-being of the millions of people who live, work in and visit the District. Some argue that the District's gun laws -- some of the most restrictive in the nation -- have done little to reduce its crime rate. Not reflected in that argument is what the rate for violent crimes would have been had guns been even more plentiful on the streets of the nation's capital. Law enforcement officers across the country who grapple with the realities of crime are some of the fiercest advocates for meaningful gun regulation, including background checks and bans on private ownership of certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, that serve no legitimate purpose outside a military context. We wholeheartedly agree.
The legal question is not as clear-cut, and both sides have strong arguments about how to interpret the 27 words of the Second Amendment: "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." The most direct path for victory for the District would come if the justices conclude that the Constitution protects only a collective right to bear arms. With such a ruling, an individual would have no legal standing to challenge gun control measures and federal and state governments would have free rein to enact restrictions. Before last spring, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District's laws after reading the Second Amendment as bestowing an individual right, nine of the federal appeals courts to have considered the question embraced a collective rights approach. Before 2001, when then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft endorsed an individual right, so did the Justice Department. The argument for an individual right has been gaining legitimacy even outside conservative circles; some liberal legal stalwarts have come to grudgingly accept the notion that the framers of the Constitution meant to protect an individual's right to own a gun. If the justices affirm the individual rights approach, the government then must shoulder the burden of proving that any restriction on that right is justified. Some gun rights advocates argue that the government's burden should be substantial. We strongly disagree.
The Second Amendment, while ensconced in the Bill of Rights among provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable searches, is different. Words can be offensive; bullets can be lethal. Every right, no matter how precious, is subject to some limits. If the justices recognize an individual right, they can and should allow lawmakers maximum flexibility to enact reasonable regulation. In our view, that flexibility should include the District's law, which is aimed at taking the most dangerous guns off the streets of what was once one of the nation's most dangerous cities. Anything short of this would promote perverse ideological purity over the legitimate interests of lawmakers to protect public safety.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8031602152.html
The Supreme Court approaches a momentous decision on the Second Amendment.
Monday, March 17, 2008; Page A16
TOMORROW THE Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case of extraordinary importance involving the constitutionality of the District's gun control program. The justices are being asked to determine whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms or whether private gun ownership is strictly linked to service in a state militia. The justices' answer could determine whether the District's gun ban stands or falls, and it could have ripple effects throughout the country.
We have long believed that a robust system of firearms laws is essential to the safety and well-being of the millions of people who live, work in and visit the District. Some argue that the District's gun laws -- some of the most restrictive in the nation -- have done little to reduce its crime rate. Not reflected in that argument is what the rate for violent crimes would have been had guns been even more plentiful on the streets of the nation's capital. Law enforcement officers across the country who grapple with the realities of crime are some of the fiercest advocates for meaningful gun regulation, including background checks and bans on private ownership of certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, that serve no legitimate purpose outside a military context. We wholeheartedly agree.
The legal question is not as clear-cut, and both sides have strong arguments about how to interpret the 27 words of the Second Amendment: "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." The most direct path for victory for the District would come if the justices conclude that the Constitution protects only a collective right to bear arms. With such a ruling, an individual would have no legal standing to challenge gun control measures and federal and state governments would have free rein to enact restrictions. Before last spring, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District's laws after reading the Second Amendment as bestowing an individual right, nine of the federal appeals courts to have considered the question embraced a collective rights approach. Before 2001, when then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft endorsed an individual right, so did the Justice Department. The argument for an individual right has been gaining legitimacy even outside conservative circles; some liberal legal stalwarts have come to grudgingly accept the notion that the framers of the Constitution meant to protect an individual's right to own a gun. If the justices affirm the individual rights approach, the government then must shoulder the burden of proving that any restriction on that right is justified. Some gun rights advocates argue that the government's burden should be substantial. We strongly disagree.
The Second Amendment, while ensconced in the Bill of Rights among provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable searches, is different. Words can be offensive; bullets can be lethal. Every right, no matter how precious, is subject to some limits. If the justices recognize an individual right, they can and should allow lawmakers maximum flexibility to enact reasonable regulation. In our view, that flexibility should include the District's law, which is aimed at taking the most dangerous guns off the streets of what was once one of the nation's most dangerous cities. Anything short of this would promote perverse ideological purity over the legitimate interests of lawmakers to protect public safety.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8031602152.html
QUOTE
Not reflected in that argument is what the rate for violent crimes would have been had guns been even more plentiful on the streets of the nation's capital.
This has been the consistent mantra of the anti-gun coalition. 48 states that have passed Concealed Carry laws have found the opposite to be true.
The basic right of self defense is inviolate.
In DC, it doesn't matter what kind of laws are on the books. Point of fact is that guns are around. I agree with the argument that you make. And I disagree with the Washington Post editiorial. I hope the Supreme Court doesn't buy the "collective right" argument. If they do, we are all in trouble.
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Mar 17 2008, 04:38 PM)
In DC, it doesn't matter what kind of laws are on the books. Point of fact is that guns are around. I agree with the argument that you make. And I disagree with the Washington Post editiorial. I hope the Supreme Court doesn't buy the "collective right" argument. If they do, we are all in trouble.
We in the gun community are both excited and apprehensive. I can only hope that our Founders will be smiling when it's over.
Guns don't kill
KKKops do.
51 times Sean Bell
41 times Dialo
add it up
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang...
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang...
KKKops do.
51 times Sean Bell
41 times Dialo
add it up
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang...
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang...
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 17 2008, 03:46 PM)
We in the gun community are both excited and apprehensive. I can only hope that our Founders will be smiling when it's over.
I don't know.
It depends how they rule.
Of course, I believe that the right to bear arms is provided thought state law and not the US Constitution. I believe the legislation was talking about the right of states to bear arms through their militias.
If it was provided in the Constitution then the numerous state laws regulating the possession of firearms and the numerous federal laws regulating the possession and use of firearms would be held unconstitutional. That has not happened. Why? Because the 2nd Amendment does not provide the right.
BUT --- whether or not there is a constituional "right to bear arms" --- the federal government should not be in the business of regulating the use of guns unless there is near unanimous agreement because compromise laws DO NOT WORK.
And I believe that the fact that numerous states have provided the right means that it will be held inviolate no matter the verdict.
Because as the Solcitor General has found to do otherwise would entitle people to possess unlimited weapons.
I think at a minimum if a Second Amendment right to bear arms is found by the court, there will be restrictions allowed on that right such as with Free Speech.
Communities/states may regulate free speech by time, place and manner statutes. Likewise, federal and state governments may regulate the use of firearms for public safety purposes --- assuring the greater good.
Really, I think because of all this its more of a much ado about nothing.
No matter the holding no one will lose their guns and no states will lose their right to regulate the possession of firearms by its citizens.
Gun control in the crosshairs: D.C. law at issue; justices could set weapon standard
Old Hand At Court Gears Up for Battle: Slick, wily veteran lawyer will explain to the Justices why the D.C. gun ban is consistent with the Second Amendment
Guns case goes to Supreme Court
( Published on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 )
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday morning in perhaps the most closely watched case of the term
( Published on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 )
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday morning in perhaps the most closely watched case of the term
Hornberger’s Blog
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The D.C. Gun Ban Doesn’t Work
by Jacob G. Hornberger
In yesterday’s Washington Post, there was an article about gun traffickers who are robbing gun stores in Virginia in order to sell the guns to people in Washington, D.C. The story is timely given that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in a case involving the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun ban.
According to the article,
“Firearms traffickers such as Lewis profit in an underground economy that has bustled for decades in the District, regardless of the city's long-debated prohibition on handgun ownership, one of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation.”
It is not a coincidence that a black market in D.C. handguns has been going on for decades and that the handgun ban in D.C. has been in effect for 32 years. The handgun ban itself gives rise to a black market in handguns, just as making drugs illegal has given rise to a black market in drugs.
At least one government officials seems to be aware of this economic phenomenon. As Edgar A. Domenech, head of the Washington field office of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, aptly put it, “You’re talking about supply and demand.”
There are two lessons to be learned from this.
First, making guns illegal gives rise to collateral crime — theft of guns. Why is this? Because the illegality makes the price of guns in D.C. artificially high, making it extremely profitable to steal them in Virginia and sell them in D.C. (The drug war has produced a similar cascade of collateral crime, such as muggings, thefts, and robberies in order to get the money to pay the exorbitant black-market prices of illegal drugs.)
Second, real criminals don’t give a hoot about gun-control laws. In other words, a robber or a rapist in D.C. isn’t going to say to himself, “I can’t use a gun to commit this crime because that would be illegal.”
Therefore, the people who are disarmed by a gun ban are not the violent criminals but rather the peaceful and law-abiding people who now are unable to defend themselves and their families from the violent criminals who don’t care that they are violating a gun ban by using a prohibited handgun in the commission of the crime.
Is it any surprise that Washington, D.C., has been called the murder capital of the United States? After enacting their gun ban 32 years ago, D.C. officials should have initiated a nationwide advertising campaign proclaiming: “Attention robbers, murderers, muggers, burglars, rapists, and thieves! Come to the most glorious model city in the country — Washington, D.C. — a gun-free zone, one where people are prevented from defending himself from you.”
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The D.C. Gun Ban Doesn’t Work
by Jacob G. Hornberger
In yesterday’s Washington Post, there was an article about gun traffickers who are robbing gun stores in Virginia in order to sell the guns to people in Washington, D.C. The story is timely given that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in a case involving the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun ban.
According to the article,
“Firearms traffickers such as Lewis profit in an underground economy that has bustled for decades in the District, regardless of the city's long-debated prohibition on handgun ownership, one of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation.”
It is not a coincidence that a black market in D.C. handguns has been going on for decades and that the handgun ban in D.C. has been in effect for 32 years. The handgun ban itself gives rise to a black market in handguns, just as making drugs illegal has given rise to a black market in drugs.
At least one government officials seems to be aware of this economic phenomenon. As Edgar A. Domenech, head of the Washington field office of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, aptly put it, “You’re talking about supply and demand.”
There are two lessons to be learned from this.
First, making guns illegal gives rise to collateral crime — theft of guns. Why is this? Because the illegality makes the price of guns in D.C. artificially high, making it extremely profitable to steal them in Virginia and sell them in D.C. (The drug war has produced a similar cascade of collateral crime, such as muggings, thefts, and robberies in order to get the money to pay the exorbitant black-market prices of illegal drugs.)
Second, real criminals don’t give a hoot about gun-control laws. In other words, a robber or a rapist in D.C. isn’t going to say to himself, “I can’t use a gun to commit this crime because that would be illegal.”
Therefore, the people who are disarmed by a gun ban are not the violent criminals but rather the peaceful and law-abiding people who now are unable to defend themselves and their families from the violent criminals who don’t care that they are violating a gun ban by using a prohibited handgun in the commission of the crime.
Is it any surprise that Washington, D.C., has been called the murder capital of the United States? After enacting their gun ban 32 years ago, D.C. officials should have initiated a nationwide advertising campaign proclaiming: “Attention robbers, murderers, muggers, burglars, rapists, and thieves! Come to the most glorious model city in the country — Washington, D.C. — a gun-free zone, one where people are prevented from defending himself from you.”
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
It would serve everyone who voted for Ronald Reagan and George Bush 41 and 43 right if guns were totally banned after this.
Blame yourself for your votes for Reagan Bush41 and Bush43.
cuz it is YOUR fault.
I would be laughing hysterically if it happened at the irony of it.
Blame yourself for your votes for Reagan Bush41 and Bush43.
cuz it is YOUR fault.
I would be laughing hysterically if it happened at the irony of it.
Guns on Trial - Washington Times
Fighting for Our Right to Bear Arms - Robert Levy, Boston Globe
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 17 2008, 03:46 PM)
We in the gun community are both excited and apprehensive. I can only hope that our Founders will be smiling when it's over.
Frenchy, would you please explain what is meant by the expression, "Gun Community?"
QUOTE(rla @ Mar 18 2008, 11:03 AM)
Frenchy, would you please explain what is meant by the expression, "Gun Community?"
Hunters, target and competition shooters, plinkers, collectors, second Amendment activists, and those that own for defensive purposes.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 18 2008, 11:12 AM)
Hunters, target and competition shooters, plinkers, collectors, second Amendment activists, and those that own for defensive purposes.
In what sense do these individual persons constitute a Community? I don't wish to be nitpicking.
My goal is to call attention to the concept, "Community." A continueing interest of mine is the need to develop a functional conceptual Model of the Person that would help clarify discourse about the
Human experience. The most basic building blocks for such a Model must include Person, Family,
Community, Nation and World. A word that means everything, means nothing. When we mis-use the
concept of Community, we throw away an important part of ourselves. If we preserve the concept of Community to refer to all the necessary and sufficient elements of Community (territoriality,
common language, transportation and communication system, a system for the exchange of goods and services, etc.), we may actually gain more Community.
QUOTE(rla @ Mar 18 2008, 12:51 PM)
In what sense do these individual persons constitute a Community? I don't wish to be nitpicking.
My goal is to call attention to the concept, "Community." A continueing interest of mine is the need to develop a functional conceptual Model of the Person that would help clarify discourse about the
Human experience. The most basic building blocks for such a Model must include Person, Family,
Community, Nation and World. A word that means everything, means nothing. When we mis-use the
concept of Community, we throw away an important part of ourselves. If we preserve the concept of Community to refer to all the necessary and sufficient elements of Community (territoriality,
common language, transportation and communication system, a system for the exchange of goods and services, etc.), we may actually gain more Community.
My goal is to call attention to the concept, "Community." A continueing interest of mine is the need to develop a functional conceptual Model of the Person that would help clarify discourse about the
Human experience. The most basic building blocks for such a Model must include Person, Family,
Community, Nation and World. A word that means everything, means nothing. When we mis-use the
concept of Community, we throw away an important part of ourselves. If we preserve the concept of Community to refer to all the necessary and sufficient elements of Community (territoriality,
common language, transportation and communication system, a system for the exchange of goods and services, etc.), we may actually gain more Community.
OK!
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 18 2008, 07:05 AM)
I don't know.
It depends how they rule.
Of course, I believe that the right to bear arms is provided thought state law and not the US Constitution. I believe the legislation was talking about the right of states to bear arms through their militias.
If it was provided in the Constitution then the numerous state laws regulating the possession of firearms and the numerous federal laws regulating the possession and use of firearms would be held unconstitutional. That has not happened. Why? Because the 2nd Amendment does not provide the right.
BUT --- whether or not there is a constituional "right to bear arms" --- the federal government should not be in the business of regulating the use of guns unless there is near unanimous agreement because compromise laws DO NOT WORK.
And I believe that the fact that numerous states have provided the right means that it will be held inviolate no matter the verdict.
Because as the Solcitor General has found to do otherwise would entitle people to possess unlimited weapons.
I think at a minimum if a Second Amendment right to bear arms is found by the court, there will be restrictions allowed on that right such as with Free Speech.
Communities/states may regulate free speech by time, place and manner statutes. Likewise, federal and state governments may regulate the use of firearms for public safety purposes --- assuring the greater good.
Really, I think because of all this its more of a much ado about nothing.
No matter the holding no one will lose their guns and no states will lose their right to regulate the possession of firearms by its citizens.
It depends how they rule.
Of course, I believe that the right to bear arms is provided thought state law and not the US Constitution. I believe the legislation was talking about the right of states to bear arms through their militias.
If it was provided in the Constitution then the numerous state laws regulating the possession of firearms and the numerous federal laws regulating the possession and use of firearms would be held unconstitutional. That has not happened. Why? Because the 2nd Amendment does not provide the right.
BUT --- whether or not there is a constituional "right to bear arms" --- the federal government should not be in the business of regulating the use of guns unless there is near unanimous agreement because compromise laws DO NOT WORK.
And I believe that the fact that numerous states have provided the right means that it will be held inviolate no matter the verdict.
Because as the Solcitor General has found to do otherwise would entitle people to possess unlimited weapons.
I think at a minimum if a Second Amendment right to bear arms is found by the court, there will be restrictions allowed on that right such as with Free Speech.
Communities/states may regulate free speech by time, place and manner statutes. Likewise, federal and state governments may regulate the use of firearms for public safety purposes --- assuring the greater good.
Really, I think because of all this its more of a much ado about nothing.
No matter the holding no one will lose their guns and no states will lose their right to regulate the possession of firearms by its citizens.
Any takers?
I have always maintained that the "banning" of a certain class of firearms, does not constitute an abridgment of the 2nd. Amendment. I get quite an argument from my cohorts on this take.
However...Incrimentalism is the devious underpinnings of the anti-gun establishment.
However...Incrimentalism is the devious underpinnings of the anti-gun establishment.
After listening to the DC Mayor argue the legality of DC's gun banned he convinced me.
He convinced me he's a crackpot and a control freak.
He convinced me he's a crackpot and a control freak.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 18 2008, 03:52 PM)
I have always maintained that the "banning" of a certain class of firearms, does not constitute an abridgment of the 2nd. Amendment. I get quite an argument from my cohorts on this take.
However...Incrimentalism is the devious underpinnings of the anti-gun establishment.
However...Incrimentalism is the devious underpinnings of the anti-gun establishment.
I support people having the right to buy guns, even though I have no personal use for them. My father in law propbably has a dozen of them and he does use them to hunt and they do eat what he hunts. But I also dont find a problem with banning certain things either within reason. However the DC law is just jacked up.
One more thing. You would think that the Democrats would be all about gun ownership. I think the original intent was for this provision to in a sense keep the government honest. As the Declaration basically states that its the right of the governed to overthrow the government when its not serving the people. And since there are Democrats out there who think that the US is facist or heading down that path, you would think they would favor citizens having guns so they can overthrow such a facist government.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 17 2008, 01:08 PM)
The states in their wisdom, took the ambiguity out of the equation. The meaning of those "27 words" has always been crystal clear to me.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...in_dc_gun_case/
QUOTE
Even a small but growing group of liberal constitutional scholars have endorsed the individual-right view.
count me in on the side of these scholars.
Supreme Court Majority Appears To Back Gun Rights
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; 2:27 PM
A majority of the Supreme Court today seemed to clearly indicate that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to possess a firearm and several justices appeared skeptical about whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban could be considered a reasonable restriction on that right.
Two justices cleanly framed the issue confronting them after about 90 minutes of intense arguments that took a trip back to the English Bill of Rights and the founding of a new nation on this continent.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.' "
From the other side, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?''
The justices peppered lawyer Walter Dellinger, who represented the District, about whether the law provided any adequate measure for residents to own and use a firearm for self-defense.
"Is there anything to show the District considered self-defense?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Dellinger said laws that allowed residents to own rifles and shotguns were an adequate provision.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments -- and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts -- that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.
The amendment states: "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."
Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms'' that is separate.
But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening.
The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.''
Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.
The District, shortly after receiving home rule, passed the gun law in 1976, essentially banning private handgun ownership and requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the law unconstitutional last year, becoming the first appeals court to overturn a gun-control law because of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in U.S. v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.
But several justices seemed to suggest that decision was not binding on the current court. Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that Miller left the Second Amendment "very much an open issue.'' Kennedy during arguments today called it "deficient."
The court could rule in District of Columbia v. Heller at any point before its adjournment in late June.
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; 2:27 PM
A majority of the Supreme Court today seemed to clearly indicate that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to possess a firearm and several justices appeared skeptical about whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban could be considered a reasonable restriction on that right.
Two justices cleanly framed the issue confronting them after about 90 minutes of intense arguments that took a trip back to the English Bill of Rights and the founding of a new nation on this continent.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.' "
From the other side, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?''
The justices peppered lawyer Walter Dellinger, who represented the District, about whether the law provided any adequate measure for residents to own and use a firearm for self-defense.
"Is there anything to show the District considered self-defense?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Dellinger said laws that allowed residents to own rifles and shotguns were an adequate provision.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments -- and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts -- that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.
The amendment states: "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."
Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms'' that is separate.
But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening.
The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.''
Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.
The District, shortly after receiving home rule, passed the gun law in 1976, essentially banning private handgun ownership and requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the law unconstitutional last year, becoming the first appeals court to overturn a gun-control law because of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in U.S. v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.
But several justices seemed to suggest that decision was not binding on the current court. Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that Miller left the Second Amendment "very much an open issue.'' Kennedy during arguments today called it "deficient."
The court could rule in District of Columbia v. Heller at any point before its adjournment in late June.
Frenchie, watch the liberal judges. You will be surprised if you are unclear on what true liberalism is about. Don't fall for the leftist clap trap that is always hijacking liberalism
QUOTE(70sliberalism @ Mar 19 2008, 01:37 AM)
Frenchie, watch the liberal judges. You will be surprised if you are unclear on what true liberalism is about. Don't fall for the leftist clap trap that is always hijacking liberalism
True Liberalism is what our Founders were all about...A return to that would have my blessing.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 19 2008, 12:44 AM)
True Liberalism is what our Founders were all about...A return to that would have my blessing.
This has been my mantra for ages and I am not alone. Welcome.
a right to bare arms was made for t-shirt owners
so they did not have to wear long sleeves
I would laugh if everyone who didn't vote for Al Gore got what they deserve and guns were banned, leading us into martial law
by the Hillaryqueen and the biggest traitor in the history of the world, Joe the Red Lieberman.
so they did not have to wear long sleeves
I would laugh if everyone who didn't vote for Al Gore got what they deserve and guns were banned, leading us into martial law
by the Hillaryqueen and the biggest traitor in the history of the world, Joe the Red Lieberman.
Al Gore was no friend of the gun owner...Nor is Obama or Clinton.
What did Al Gore do that was anti-gun?
WE know Clinton. She is no friend. That is for certain.
She is part of the unholy mess which is the assault weapon ban fiasco.
But what is your beef with Obama?
I could bet you a million dollars that if elected President Obama would do nothing to change the federal gun laws in this nation except where widespread support for changes came from Congress...
So why the apparent knee-jerk reaction against him on this?
I also believe the Democratic party under Howard Dean's leadership has taken a more reasoned approach on the issue.
Leave it to the states.
Do you trust Howard Dean on gun issues?
I guess I am very curious about this because no matter who wins, they will have to pick their issues very carefully -- why do you think that Obama would risk alienating a strong and vocal segment of the population to achieve what would likely be nothing?
I think this is much ado in Obama's case.
Clinton? I don't know. She has her husband's record to deal with. But Obama is a moderate -- he is not as liberal as the conservatives have tried to paint him.
He is a middle of the road guy ---- anyone who gain secure Sen. Coburn's respect is no liberal...
WE know Clinton. She is no friend. That is for certain.
She is part of the unholy mess which is the assault weapon ban fiasco.
But what is your beef with Obama?
I could bet you a million dollars that if elected President Obama would do nothing to change the federal gun laws in this nation except where widespread support for changes came from Congress...
So why the apparent knee-jerk reaction against him on this?
I also believe the Democratic party under Howard Dean's leadership has taken a more reasoned approach on the issue.
Leave it to the states.
Do you trust Howard Dean on gun issues?
I guess I am very curious about this because no matter who wins, they will have to pick their issues very carefully -- why do you think that Obama would risk alienating a strong and vocal segment of the population to achieve what would likely be nothing?
I think this is much ado in Obama's case.
Clinton? I don't know. She has her husband's record to deal with. But Obama is a moderate -- he is not as liberal as the conservatives have tried to paint him.
He is a middle of the road guy ---- anyone who gain secure Sen. Coburn's respect is no liberal...
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 18 2008, 01:52 PM)
I have always maintained that the "banning" of a certain class of firearms, does not constitute an abridgment of the 2nd. Amendment. I get quite an argument from my cohorts on this take.
However...Incrimentalism is the devious underpinnings of the anti-gun establishment.
However...Incrimentalism is the devious underpinnings of the anti-gun establishment.
There is something to be said for that.
Then again, it just may be the NRA (pawn of the gun industry and Republican party) trying to protect market share...
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 19 2008, 12:26 AM)
Supreme Court Majority Appears To Back Gun Rights
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; 2:27 PM
A majority of the Supreme Court today seemed to clearly indicate that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to possess a firearm and several justices appeared skeptical about whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban could be considered a reasonable restriction on that right.
Two justices cleanly framed the issue confronting them after about 90 minutes of intense arguments that took a trip back to the English Bill of Rights and the founding of a new nation on this continent.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.' "
From the other side, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?''
The justices peppered lawyer Walter Dellinger, who represented the District, about whether the law provided any adequate measure for residents to own and use a firearm for self-defense.
"Is there anything to show the District considered self-defense?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Dellinger said laws that allowed residents to own rifles and shotguns were an adequate provision.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments -- and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts -- that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.
The amendment states: "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."
Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms'' that is separate.
But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening.
The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.''
Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.
The District, shortly after receiving home rule, passed the gun law in 1976, essentially banning private handgun ownership and requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the law unconstitutional last year, becoming the first appeals court to overturn a gun-control law because of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in U.S. v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.
But several justices seemed to suggest that decision was not binding on the current court. Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that Miller left the Second Amendment "very much an open issue.'' Kennedy during arguments today called it "deficient."
The court could rule in District of Columbia v. Heller at any point before its adjournment in late June.
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; 2:27 PM
A majority of the Supreme Court today seemed to clearly indicate that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to possess a firearm and several justices appeared skeptical about whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban could be considered a reasonable restriction on that right.
Two justices cleanly framed the issue confronting them after about 90 minutes of intense arguments that took a trip back to the English Bill of Rights and the founding of a new nation on this continent.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.' "
From the other side, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?''
The justices peppered lawyer Walter Dellinger, who represented the District, about whether the law provided any adequate measure for residents to own and use a firearm for self-defense.
"Is there anything to show the District considered self-defense?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Dellinger said laws that allowed residents to own rifles and shotguns were an adequate provision.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments -- and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts -- that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.
The amendment states: "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."
Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms'' that is separate.
But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening.
The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.''
Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.
The District, shortly after receiving home rule, passed the gun law in 1976, essentially banning private handgun ownership and requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the law unconstitutional last year, becoming the first appeals court to overturn a gun-control law because of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in U.S. v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.
But several justices seemed to suggest that decision was not binding on the current court. Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that Miller left the Second Amendment "very much an open issue.'' Kennedy during arguments today called it "deficient."
The court could rule in District of Columbia v. Heller at any point before its adjournment in late June.
I would agree with this assessment --- the majority appears to endorse an individual rights view rather than a collective view -- but Kennedy may have just been playing devil's advocate.
Oftentimes --- the questioning is harshest by justices in areas where they are leaning because they want to make certain if they take a certain approach that it is secure.
Personally, after this argument I believe more firmly than ever that it was a collective right that our Founders were talking about...
I base my opinion on not only the introductory clause, but on the term "people". Our founders could have used "indivdiual", "citizen" or "person" and they used "people".
Back then the state was often referred to as "the people".
So basically, the Founders were saying the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
I also believe that the term "infinged" is operative.
It is not saying "a right to keep and bear arms shall exist" it says "a right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" -- infringed by who? By the federal government...
All rights not reserved by the federal government are left to the states --- thus --- states (and the District of Columbia) may regulate the possession of firearms...
It is not saying "a right to keep and bear arms shall exist" it says "a right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" -- infringed by who? By the federal government...
All rights not reserved by the federal government are left to the states --- thus --- states (and the District of Columbia) may regulate the possession of firearms...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 19 2008, 07:15 AM)
I would agree with this assessment --- the majority appears to endorse an individual rights view rather than a collective view -- but Kennedy may have just been playing devil's advocate.
Oftentimes --- the questioning is harshest by justices in areas where they are leaning because they want to make certain if they take a certain approach that it is secure.
Personally, after this argument I believe more firmly than ever that it was a collective right that our Founders were talking about...
I base my opinion on not only the introductory clause, but on the term "people". Our founders could have used "indivdiual", "citizen" or "person" and they used "people".
Back then the state was often referred to as "the people".
So basically, the Founders were saying the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
Oftentimes --- the questioning is harshest by justices in areas where they are leaning because they want to make certain if they take a certain approach that it is secure.
Personally, after this argument I believe more firmly than ever that it was a collective right that our Founders were talking about...
I base my opinion on not only the introductory clause, but on the term "people". Our founders could have used "indivdiual", "citizen" or "person" and they used "people".
Back then the state was often referred to as "the people".
So basically, the Founders were saying the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
There is one point of view that says people always refers to indivdiual citizens and state always refers to state --- not in court cases --- and not when the declaration of independence states "we the people". It is certainy used collectively there...
When the phrase derives from this...
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
To what is in the Constitution how can one say it is not a collective right...
The body of the people becomes the people...its collective -- the group...
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
To what is in the Constitution how can one say it is not a collective right...
The body of the people becomes the people...its collective -- the group...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 19 2008, 08:09 AM)
What did Al Gore do that was anti-gun?
WE know Clinton. She is no friend. That is for certain.
She is part of the unholy mess which is the assault weapon ban fiasco.
But what is your beef with Obama?
I could bet you a million dollars that if elected President Obama would do nothing to change the federal gun laws in this nation except where widespread support for changes came from Congress...
So why the apparent knee-jerk reaction against him on this?
I also believe the Democratic party under Howard Dean's leadership has taken a more reasoned approach on the issue.
Leave it to the states.
Do you trust Howard Dean on gun issues?
I guess I am very curious about this because no matter who wins, they will have to pick their issues very carefully -- why do you think that Obama would risk alienating a strong and vocal segment of the population to achieve what would likely be nothing?
I think this is much ado in Obama's case.
Clinton? I don't know. She has her husband's record to deal with. But Obama is a moderate -- he is not as liberal as the conservatives have tried to paint him.
He is a middle of the road guy ---- anyone who gain secure Sen. Coburn's respect is no liberal...
WE know Clinton. She is no friend. That is for certain.
She is part of the unholy mess which is the assault weapon ban fiasco.
But what is your beef with Obama?
I could bet you a million dollars that if elected President Obama would do nothing to change the federal gun laws in this nation except where widespread support for changes came from Congress...
So why the apparent knee-jerk reaction against him on this?
I also believe the Democratic party under Howard Dean's leadership has taken a more reasoned approach on the issue.
Leave it to the states.
Do you trust Howard Dean on gun issues?
I guess I am very curious about this because no matter who wins, they will have to pick their issues very carefully -- why do you think that Obama would risk alienating a strong and vocal segment of the population to achieve what would likely be nothing?
I think this is much ado in Obama's case.
Clinton? I don't know. She has her husband's record to deal with. But Obama is a moderate -- he is not as liberal as the conservatives have tried to paint him.
He is a middle of the road guy ---- anyone who gain secure Sen. Coburn's respect is no liberal...
Their voting records are their history...Pure and simple.
Too many years dealing with the left on this issue, taz.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Mar 19 2008, 07:41 AM)
Their voting records are their history...Pure and simple.
Too many years dealing with the left on this issue, taz.
Too many years dealing with the left on this issue, taz.
So, the left sinned with Bill Clinton and his legacy will forever haunt them?
I do not buy that and I do not think you should either.
And what is Gore's voting record?
For the Brady bill he was Vice President
For the assault weapons ban --- he was VP
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 19 2008, 09:10 AM)
So, the left sinned with Bill Clinton and his legacy will forever haunt them?
I do not buy that and I do not think you should either.
And what is Gore's voting record?
For the Brady bill he was Vice President
For the assault weapons ban --- he was VP
I do not buy that and I do not think you should either.
And what is Gore's voting record?
For the Brady bill he was Vice President
For the assault weapons ban --- he was VP
Even bill Clinton suggested that his stance on guns had a part in doing him in.
Sorry taz...The left has a miserable track record...I would need to see tangible proof of change before I will cut them any slack.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.