U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2008, 07:29 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,321,196 times
Reputation: 2558

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
On what grounds? The new emergency law conforms with every provision of Heller. Under the old law, you could not own a handgun at all unless it had been purchased prior to the passage of the law. Now you can own a handgun and keep it in your home (though nowhere else) for purposes of self-defense. There ya go, Justice Scalia.
Thats not true. They had a permit system, they just issued no permits. Guns owned before the law were grandfathered.

The grounds are that its still unreasonable. Theres nothing reasonable about telling you you can have a gun for protection, as long as its locked up or unloaded. Theres also nothing reasonable about not allowing you to move about with it. If its for protection you need to shoot it in practice to become proficient with it & learn to use it safely.


Quote:
The decision was 5-4.
No kidding, theres 4 justices that should be impeached.


Quote:
What Scalia actually said: We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

The new law does not require that handguns be kept inoperable at all times. It instead establishes an equivalence to an example specifically cited by Scalia. DC does not prosecute for jaywalking those individuals who disobey a DO NOT WALK sign while fleeing from an attacker. This does not render jaywalking laws unenforceable under other circumstances. The new handgun law specifically excludes from coverage any instance where an individual faces a threat of immediate harm. The law thus does NOT make it impossible for citizens to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and is therefore not unconstitutional under the standards of Heller.
Its effectively the same thing. Your comaprison to Jaywalking is retarted. I'd bet that if/when a DC resident has to shoot someone, if DC can prove the guy did not have to assemble, unlock or load his gun pryor to defending himself they will charge him with violating their stupid law.


Quote:
True.
But thats what they did now didn't they?


Quote:
False. Semi-automatic handguns are not an entire class of weapons, but a particular and narrow subset of one, and as Scalia points out, there is ample and constitutionally valid reason for prohibition of many types of modified or enhanced weaponry, sawed-off shotguns being among them for example.
LOL thats funny. An automatic handgun is not modified nor enhanced. Its a design almost as old as revolvers, being invented before the turn of the 20th century & is a different class of firearm. Period.


Quote:
Please. The DC law does not now nor has it ever applied to the police. (It does apply and always has with regard to employees of private security companies.)
And why not? The police are civilians. If its dangerous enough for them to carry guns surely the poeple they protect should have acess to them. Since they are just people, if they can manage to handle auto pistols safely then certainly the rest of them can.


Quote:
Those weapons that an officer is expected to have common need for in the course of ordinary police work are kept at the ready. All others ARE in fact kept secure in trunks and otherwise out-of-the-way places to be brought to the ready only as circumstances may warrant. If it is not your experience while patrolling your home to find armed criminal elements lurking in your den or dining room three or four times a week, then you are in a situation that is analagous to the latter practice by police.
You miss the important part, or skip it intentionally.
These people that the police need guns to protect themselves from, they are being sought out because they already victimized someone. How on earth is that cops life more important than the victim?

If its reasonable for a resident of DC to be said to have protection afforded him by a locked unloaded gun than why is it not reasonable for the police to load their sidearms after a drug dealer starts shooting?

In both cases its unreasonable & utterly stupid.

Quote:
Police like this law. If they find you on the street or in your car with a gun, they can bust you. No waiting around for you to do something with it. If they answer a domestic dispute call and spot a gun in the open, they can bust you. No stopping off to pick up the coroner on the way back to the same address 45 minutes later.
Great, how does one go about getting their gun, that must be unloaded & locked up, home without commiting a felony? Where does one buy a gun in DC?
DC police may like this law, they are acustomed to their elite position & monopoly on legal firearms. That does not justify them violating peoples civil rights, that is what this is about. A city banning black people after dark would be commiting an equal violation of civil rights. Theres people that could argue that most violent criminals in a givin city are black & be right, but its still a violation of civil rights. This is NO different.

Fact is in this country they have to "wait around until you do something" before they arrest you. Its called a presumption of innocence & this violates that civil right as well.


Quote:
Some people need to think more than they do.
Some dont seem equipped for thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2008, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Between Philadelphia and Allentown, PA
5,077 posts, read 12,707,769 times
Reputation: 3713
Restrictions have been placed over the last few years because stupid people do stupid things. Historically, if the most evil people on the planet want to get their hands on a gun, they can. That will never change even if the most dramatic gun laws were in place, that would just not change. We live in an unfortunately but increasingly dangerous and violent society which then makes the very responsible gun owners (like us) go out and arm up more because we see the violence creeping into our neighborhood and we want AND have the right to bear arms and protect what's ours.
Gun laws are gun laws, they will constantly ebb and flow because there are so many people on both sides of that fence.
I however, do not want someone telling what I can and can't do with regards to my gun rights. If I want to go out and buy 10 guns in one week, that should be my right. I don't want someone telling me that I have to limit in any way, shape or form my hobby either. If I want to carry my weapon on my person, that should also be my right and if I've passed a criminal background and have a permit to do so that is also my right and not up to someone else to dictacte to me how to do that.
Should gun laws be looked at and revised? I don't know about that, but I do think that when purchasing a gun you need to be checked out further but don't know how to go about that. I also think that if you are a parent of a child under the age of 15 (I think this is a reasonable age), that if your child gets injured as a result of YOUR stupidity (i.e. leaving a gun out) then YOU as the parent should be convicted for your actions.
Violent crimes are going to happen, there isn't much you can do about that. But, as American citizens, we have rights and they are very clear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 07:45 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,741,368 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunluvver2 View Post
If Obama is elected and he appoints two or three Justices to the SCOTUS you can kiss the right to keep and bear arms goodbye.
On what grounds are these claims made? Anything Obama has said?

Meanwhile, of the five-justice majority in Heller, Justice Roberts, 53, and Justice Alito, 58, just got there. Justice Thomas, 60, Justice Scalia, 72, and Justice Kennedy, 72, are all hale and hearty, and showing no signs of having become disinterested in their work. Of the four-justice minority in Heller, Justice Stevens, 88, is a jurist of remarkable insight and stamina, but he cannot go on forever. Justice Ginsburg, 75, and a cancer survivor, is also nearing the end of her career on the Court. Justice Breyer, 70, and Justice Souter, 69, would be on par with Justices Scalia and Kennedy. If new Court appointments are to fall to the next President then, they are most likely to come in filling seats that are currently held by Justices who were among the minority in Heller. How this would contribute to a sudden disappearance of the 2nd Amendment is not entirely clear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 08:15 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,741,368 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
No one can predict for the most part when they'll need a weapon for defense.
Do those against whom you would defend youself somehow materialize in the middle of your living room? Do they burst in, like the Spanish Inquisition in the noted Monty Python sketch? How long does it actually take a trained, experienced, practiced gunowner to load a pistol or to remove a trigger-lock? If you are somehow unable to afford yourself what little time it would take to arm yourself against an intrusion-in-progress, then you have miserably failed in your Personal Responsibility® to be properly prepared.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Scalia mocked DC over their triggerlock/disassembled requirements during the oral arguments.
Even if so, oral arguments are no part of the ruling and do not affect law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
It was pretty clear the SCOTUS said requiring a weapon be locked up, unloaded, disassembled, etc., is unconstitutional.
It is perfectly clear that they said no such thing. I cited the relevant language from the opinion earlier. Cite that which you feel contradicts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The so-called exception in DC's temporary provisions is absurd. DC was/is playing games and they'll be hammered in court over it. The courts aren't going to have much of a sense of humor with their games.
Heller establishes that the Militia Clause does not abrogate an individual right outside of military purposes, establishing a right of ownership for various lawful purposes. It specifically establishes a right to keep a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense. That is all. There is no proscription of any limits upon any conditions of ownership at all, so long as those do not abrogate the right itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
And DC knows it, one of DC's council members, as anti-gun as he was, proposed they back down on that requirement, and their semi-auto ban, rather than losing in court again. Fenty evidently hasn't learned his lesson though.
Mayor Fenty is not a member of the Council. The Council vote on the new emergency law was unanimous. If the new law is to be struck down in the courts, it will be struck down on new grounds, grounds that are not established in Heller.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 08:44 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,741,368 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Semi-auto handguns outsell revolvers and single shot pistols by a very wide margin. Scalia's standard was/is weapons that are common, bans on semi-autos are not going to hold up as they are very common weapons these days.
The common use argument is used only with respect to handguns versus long guns...

There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
-- Justice Scalia, DC v Heller

Note in particular the words "complete prohibition". There is nothing here about super-lethal versus ordinary handguns. Limitations upon the carrying of any "dangerous" or "unusual" weapon are in fact endorsed elsewhere in Heller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The Heller case didn't actually go over the sawed off shotgun issue from Miller again.
Correct. It uses them as an example and readily accedes to Miller's prohibition of them.

Last edited by saganista; 10-31-2008 at 09:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 09:04 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,473,314 times
Reputation: 8412
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Do those against whom you would defend youself somehow materialize in the middle of your living room? Do they burst in, like the Spanish Inquisition in the noted Monty Python sketch? How long does it actually take a trained, experienced, practiced gunowner to load a pistol or to remove a trigger-lock? If you are somehow unable to afford yourself what little time it would take to arm yourself against an intrusion-in-progress, then you have miserably failed in your Personal Responsibility® to be properly prepared.
A person could kick in the average door in second and be in your living room very quickly. A person could smash out a large window quickly and step right in. Are you going to have time to run to a gun safe, use a key or put in a combination, pull gun out, or do the same to remove a trigger lock, then get out your trusty box of ammo and load up that revolver cartridge by cartridge, in time for it to be of any use? Doing so is very time consuming, try it sometime for practice (if you have a gun/etc.) and see.

Quote:
Even if so, oral arguments are no part of the ruling and do not affect law.
It is perfectly clear that they said no such thing. I cited the relevant language from the opinion earlier. Cite that which you feel contradicts.
It makes their opinion very clear, particularly when the author of the decision made the statement. Anyways, you quoted this: "We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

It's pretty clear the disassembled/trigger lock/etc. requirements are unconstitutional, as it makes it impossible for people to use the guns for their purpose. See above statement on trigger locks/etc. DC and you yourself are just playing games with words to try to get what you want.




Quote:
Heller establishes that the Militia Clause does not abrogate an individual right outside of military purposes, establishing a right of ownership for various lawful purposes. It specifically establishes a right to keep a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense. That is all. There is no proscription of any limits upon any conditions of ownership at all, so long as those do not abrogate the right itself.
Wrong. They stated it was not a complete look at the Second Amendment, but they also stated that only "unusual and dangerous weapons" may be restricted or prohibited, and they did not define those words in the least. Of Arms and the Law: "dangerous and unusual weapons"

Quote:
Mayor Fenty is not a member of the Council. The Council vote on the new emergency law was unanimous. If the new law is to be struck down in the courts, it will be struck down on new grounds, grounds that are not established in Heller.
Fenty has been intimately involved in the whole thing from the start, you should know that. He has been pushing for them to defend their laws before the court, and to craft as restrictive laws as they could after they lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 09:11 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,473,314 times
Reputation: 8412
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
The common use argument is used only with respect to handguns versus long guns...

There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
-- Justice Scalia, DC v Heller

Note in particular the words "complete prohibition". There is nothing here about super-lethal versus ordinary handguns. Limitations upon the carrying of any "dangerous" or "unusual" weapon are in fact endorsed elsewhere in Heller.


Correct. It uses them as an example and readily accedes to Miller's prohibition of them.
"Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. . .The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."



"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons."

They did not say the Second Amendment only protects handguns. They applied the "common use" argument to all arms not just handguns. Those in common use are protected, only "dangerous and unusual" ones may be restricted/prohibited. And they did not define that phrase either. And as the statements above make it clear, the triggerlock/unloaded requirement will not be accepted by the court as constitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 6,992,930 times
Reputation: 6603
[quote=saganista;5937724]On what grounds are these claims made? Anything Obama has said?

Read Obama's book DREAMS FROM MY FATHER and you will get a pretty good idea about HOW he feels on guns and Judges.

I hope he is not elected but IF he is the right to keep and bear arms in this country will be ignored. I don't have too many years left so if he is elected it will not affect me that much. I'll be watching the drama from a fluffy cloud up overhead.

GL2

Last edited by Gunluvver2; 10-31-2008 at 09:14 AM.. Reason: left out a critical word
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 03:22 PM
 
44,584 posts, read 43,115,486 times
Reputation: 14382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
in order to enslave a population, you must first disarm them. It has happened in many countries, such as Germany and russia pre WWII
Very true. I often notice the more things a government does wrong, the more a government wants to take away gun rights. The reason: To prevent a rebellion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 03:25 PM
 
44,584 posts, read 43,115,486 times
Reputation: 14382
Quote:
Originally Posted by andreaspercheron View Post
Restrictions have been placed over the last few years because stupid people do stupid things. Historically, if the most evil people on the planet want to get their hands on a gun, they can. That will never change even if the most dramatic gun laws were in place, that would just not change. We live in an unfortunately but increasingly dangerous and violent society which then makes the very responsible gun owners (like us) go out and arm up more because we see the violence creeping into our neighborhood and we want AND have the right to bear arms and protect what's ours.
Gun laws are gun laws, they will constantly ebb and flow because there are so many people on both sides of that fence.
I however, do not want someone telling what I can and can't do with regards to my gun rights. If I want to go out and buy 10 guns in one week, that should be my right. I don't want someone telling me that I have to limit in any way, shape or form my hobby either. If I want to carry my weapon on my person, that should also be my right and if I've passed a criminal background and have a permit to do so that is also my right and not up to someone else to dictacte to me how to do that.Should gun laws be looked at and revised? I don't know about that, but I do think that when purchasing a gun you need to be checked out further but don't know how to go about that. I also think that if you are a parent of a child under the age of 15 (I think this is a reasonable age), that if your child gets injured as a result of YOUR stupidity (i.e. leaving a gun out) then YOU as the parent should be convicted for your actions.
Violent crimes are going to happen, there isn't much you can do about that. But, as American citizens, we have rights and they are very clear.
You should be able to have a gun. I don't think that public fear is the only reason either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top