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.
Besides paranoia, what else do you think could be the reason gun laws have become more restrictive?
I think it is because our society is so much different than it was in the 18th century. To take away somoene's gun was to take away their ability to feed themselves.
The wild wild west draws images of a law system and structure that was not well equiped to protect, serve and defend citizens. Living in a rural place with no one near is quite different than living in a densley populated location.
I don't want to get into an argument about pro's & con's of gun control. Just giving some opinion on why laws about guns have changed is all.
Atfer Washington D.C. restricted handgun access, DC went into a severe crimewave.
Not exactly. After the riots that followed the MLK assassination in 1968, Congress (no home rule yet) simply let the city rot. Whole sections of the city were abandoned to gangs, drugs, and urban decay. Crime rates soared. When actual DC government did come along in 1975, one of the early things it did was to enact gun control laws that among other things banned ownership of handguns not already purchased. The laws had very little effect on crime one way or the other. Then the city built a subway system. At first, it primarily served upscale areas of the city. Then stations started appearing in the bad parts of town. Within ten years, the murder rate fell from 80 per 100K to 29 per 100K. Today, FBI statistics show that the overall crime rate in DC is on a par with that in Wichita or Omaha. The obvious lesson here is that gun control laws work -- but you may have to combine them with building a subway system to see their full effect.
The DC gun ban was recently deemed unconstitutional in DC v. Heller, 2008.
And within a month of that decision, the DC City Council passed a new emergency law. Under the terms of that law, residents must obtain a handgun permit and may keep such guns only in their homes for purposes of self-defense. Handguns must be kept unloaded, disassembled, or secured with a trigger lock, except during times when a threat of immediate harm is present. No weapons with automatic or semi-automatic loading will be permitted. Every gun owner must provide proof of residency, and must pass a written test and an eye exam. All weapons must be submitted to the city for formal ballistics testing before a permit will be issued.
DC politicians and law enforcement officials who support the new law: All but all of them. People who are opposed to the new law: Criminals and some Republicans in Congress (if that isn't a redundancy)...
And within a month of that decision, the DC City Council passed a new emergency law. Under the terms of that law, residents must obtain a handgun permit and may keep such guns only in their homes for purposes of self-defense. Handguns must be kept unloaded, disassembled, or secured with a trigger lock, except during times when a threat of immediate harm is present. No weapons with automatic or semi-automatic loading will be permitted. Every gun owner must provide proof of residency, and must pass a written test and an eye exam. All weapons must be submitted to the city for formal ballistics testing before a permit will be issued.
DC politicians and law enforcement officials who support the new law: All but all of them. People who are opposed to the new law: Criminals and some Republicans in Congress (if that isn't a redundancy)...
Theyre in court again. They already had a law that said you could get a permit they refused to issue & they already had a law that said you could have a gun unassembled & unloaded. Those ridiculous laws were both found unconstitutional & I expect the new ones will too.
Its pretty clear that the SC thinks we have a right to own pistols with REASONABLE restrictions. Its simply stupid to say they can have a gun for protection but it must be kept locked up or unloaded until you are under attack. I believe it was Scalia actually joked about the absurdity of this situation. Theres nothing reasonable about it. Can you imagine, "Please Sir! Stop raping my wife for a moment so I can unlock & load my weapon" They also found that you cant simply ban an entire class of weapons arbitrarily. They cant just ban all semi auto handguns. If they do every cop there is a felon. Unless they are above the law. Matter of fact if its reasonable that an unloaded gun is effective defense then the police have no need for loaded guns. They should keep the ammo in the trunk & go get it after they are shot at. If its good for the goose its good for the gander.
Criminals like this law, why would they want people to have acess to guns? Some people just dont think at all.
Last edited by Tin Knocker; 10-30-2008 at 09:58 PM..
Gun control laws are not a recent development. They were used in the Southern States to keep Blacks and Slaves from owning weapons before the Civil War and up until the late 20th Century. At times during the 1800's it was a hanging offense (literally) for a Black person or Native American to have a firearm. In the early part of the 1900's the Sullivan Law was put into place in New York. This was an out and out attempt by ONE political party to disarm their opponents. Do a GOOGLE using" Jim Crow Laws", "Sullivan Act", or "gun control in Native American populations", "disarming Blacks in the South".
A lot of these unconstitutional laws are still on the books and being enforced. It is going to take hundreds of lawsuits before the SCOTUS's Heller decision is going to make a difference.
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.
I am not a conservative, but I do believe in the right to own a gun. I notice that guns rights were no restricted until the 20th century starting with restricting what kind of gun you can own. It then went to other things. Some people believe curtailing gun ownership would keep murder rates down. I don't see that working too well. Atfer Washington D.C. restricted handgun access, DC went into a severe crimewave. Look at Moscow,Russia. One of the most violent cities in the world and you can't get a gun if you need to protect yourself. Tell me your opinions.
in order to enslave a population, you must first disarm them. It has happened in many countries, such as Germany and russia pre WWII
Theyre in court again. They already had a law that said you could get a permit they refused to issue & they already had a law that said you could have a gun unassembled & unloaded. Those ridiculous laws were both found unconstitutional & I expect the new ones will too.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Its pretty clear that the SC thinks we have a right to own pistols with REASONABLE restrictions.
The decision was 5-4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Its simply stupid to say they can have a gun for protection but it must be kept locked up or unloaded until you are under attack. I believe it was Scalia actually joked about the absurdity of this situation.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
They also found that you cant simply ban an entire class of weapons arbitrarily.
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
They cant just ban all semi auto handguns.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
If they do every cop there is a felon. Unless they are above the law.
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.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Matter of fact if its reasonable that an unloaded gun is effective defense then the police have no need for loaded guns. They should keep the ammo in the trunk & go get it after they are shot at. If its good for the goose its good for the gander.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Criminals like this law, why would they want people to have acess to guns? Some people just dont think at all.
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. Some people need to think more than they do.
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.
No one can predict for the most part when they'll need a weapon for defense. Scalia mocked DC over their triggerlock/disassembled requirements during the oral arguments. It was pretty clear the SCOTUS said requiring a weapon be locked up, unloaded, disassembled, etc., is unconstitutional. 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. 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.
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.
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 Heller case didn't actually go over the sawed off shotgun issue from Miller again. Based on the decision though, if Miller was tried again and evidence on his side actually presented that refuted the government's blatant lies in that case (they said the military never used sawed off shotguns, which they definately did in WWI in the trenches) and of course the various trapper model rifles were very common before the NFA was passed (short barrels under the NFA).
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.
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.
They also found that you cant simply ban an entire class of weapons arbitrarily. They cant just ban all semi auto handguns. If they do every cop there is a felon. Unless they are above the law. Matter of fact if its reasonable that an unloaded gun is effective defense then the police have no need for loaded guns. They should keep the ammo in the trunk & go get it after they are shot at. If its good for the goose its good for the gander.
