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.
I have a very good understanding of the Second Amendment. As I have said here before, the problem with the Second Amendment is that the proscription against "infringement" does not preclude "regulation." Yes, you are right: the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment does protect and individual right to have a gun; but that is not the real issue. Indeed, it is - as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out in United States v. Hale - irrelevant. The real issue is how the Supreme Court defines the nature of that right; and, more to the point, what level of judicial scrutiny will apply to a constitutional challenge to a law "infringing" that right. The question is: Is owning a gun a "fundamental" right subject to "strict scrutiny"; or is owning a gun - like owning a car or an airplane - not a fundamental right and where the challenged regulation would be subject to some lesser standard of review (e.g., "rational basis" to the governmental interest served)? The latter is why the appeal in District of Columbia v. Heller should be every gun owner’s worst nightmare, because if you think for one moment that the Supreme Court is going to rule that you have an unrestricted right to have a gun, you are dead wrong. The handwriting is on the wall: you only have to read the amicus brief filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the Bush administration by Solicitor General Paul D. Clement; which, while in favor of an individual right under the Second Amendment, nevertheless urged the court uphold federal gun laws restricting the possession of firearms. As I have predicted before, the proponents of the Second Amendment will soon find themselves the more "well regulated."
By the bye, I am not British.
One of the interesting things is that the NRA has tried for years to keep cases like the DC case out of the court. They know they are going to lose and once the court makes clear the limits of the rights afforded under the second amendment the NRA is in a bit of a box.
My best guess is that the Supreme Court rules that the District can't have an total ban on all handguns and they will send the case back to the lower court to establish what is a reasonable process for the District to use in deciding whom to allow to keep a handgun in their house.
these may be posted on a pro-gun ownership site, but if you look in the small print under each table it shows where the information came from, such as polls and police and government information.
When you are disarmed by the airline regulation you are then vulnerable to assault by anyone willing to punch or kick you for whatever reason. Do you trust a stewardess to be able to defend you from an aggressive passenger? I don't. I would have to defend myself and would prefer to have a weapon handy.
If the box cutter boys had to face an airplane with several armed passengers I doubt if they could actually have hijacked the 9/11 airplanes. I think that outcome, even if a few passengers were accidentally injured, would have been a far better outcome than what actually happened. Armed people are very difficult to intimidate.
You know, they didn't have guns, people COULD have done something to stop them. They only had knives, after all.
these may be posted on a pro-gun ownership site, but if you look in the small print under each table it shows where the information came from, such as polls and police and government information.
Thanks. This looks like a basis to start. It will take some time to get through it. From a quick reading it seems that Kleck takes a very broad view of what consists of defensive gun use -- e.g. I take a gun illegally to a bar. You threaten me in the bar and I pull back my coat to reveal the weapon and you walk away. As I interpret Kleck's approach, this counts as a DGU.
not only that, but members of certain religions are exempt from joining in the militia if they so desire, some of the first drafts of the second amendments had such in words.
The unorganized militia is a myth. It doesn't exist. It's the pool of people who can be drafted in time of war. If they aren't drafted they aren't anything. Get a grip.
Remember folks, the topic is "Guns", not education, not speech patterns, not even vocabulary, but guns. So lets try to kinda sorta maybe keep it related as best we can to guns.
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips I have a very good understanding of the Second Amendment. As I have said here before, the problem with the Second Amendment is that the proscription against "infringement" does not preclude "regulation." Yes, you are right: the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment does protect and individual right to have a gun; but that is not the real issue. Indeed, it is - as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out in United States v. Hale - irrelevant. The real issue is how the Supreme Court defines the nature of that right; and, more to the point, what level of judicial scrutiny will apply to a constitutional challenge to a law "infringing" that right. The question is: Is owning a gun a "fundamental" right subject to "strict scrutiny"; or is owning a gun - like owning a car or an airplane - not a fundamental right and where the challenged regulation would be subject to some lesser standard of review (e.g., "rational basis" to the governmental interest served)? The latter is why the appeal in District of Columbia v. Heller should be every gun owner’s worst nightmare, because if you think for one moment that the Supreme Court is going to rule that you have an unrestricted right to have a gun, you are dead wrong. The handwriting is on the wall: you only have to read the amicus brief filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the Bush administration by Solicitor General Paul D. Clement; which, while in favor of an individual right under the Second Amendment, nevertheless urged the court uphold federal gun laws restricting the possession of firearms. As I have predicted before, the proponents of the Second Amendment will soon find themselves the more "well regulated."
By the bye, I am not British.
Well written & you seem educated about the things at hand.
What you fail I think to recognize, that the Justices must logically take into account is the fact that its obviously a "fundamental right" given its very significant place in the constitution. Its a very different thing than a car which is not protected by the constitution & obviously ok to use a lesser standard of review. They did not put forth an amendment protecting individual transportation but they did put one forth protecting the right to bear arms.
The administration on the other hand seems anything but definitive in their opinion. the SG did as you say but Cheney signed on with a couple hundred other legislators with an oposing view in their brief.
Its understandable that some of the people that have been denying the rights of the citizenry are now spinning their wheels, some are backpedaling. Its also understandable that people are afraid some laws besides DC's may come under review & get overturned.
I do agree that most or all federal laws will be left intact. What I expect however is that the more absurd restrictive municipalities, like DC, will be forced to permit reasonable gun ownership in their borders.
I'd think even Mr Clement would have to agree that if there is any individual right then there must be a way by which a person can own a functional firearm.
What I dont understand is how the SC upholding current federal law will make us more regulated when the law called into question is, A, not a federal law & B, not a restriction at all but a virtual ban.
Many pro gun groups are uptight over this for many reasons. Not the least of which being that if the SC finds it to be a right then theres no need for such a vigorous gun lobby. I'm not simply because I'v been waiting for many years for this. Theres only one way to find, & as you stated thats for an individual right. There will be restrictions as there already are but if its recognized as a right then the restrictions will be reasonable & things like the laws in DC, NYC & chicago will be much easier to challenge.
My largest interest in firearms is collecting & hunting. Not much unlike yourself I dont think other than wealth. I'll never spend hundreds of thousands on guns. Maybe because of my social standing I'v gotten to see people in my circle lose guns at the stroke of a pen & it makes me take any attempts at further restrictions seriously as well as looking forward to a definitive ruling, whatever it shall be. My guns arent in danger, yet.
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.
As an Army officer he will have at a minimum a bachelor's degree.
