Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
From Associated Press
March 09, 2007 1:53 PM EST

WASHINGTON - The District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns was overturned Friday by a federal appeals court, which rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

[Eric Brenneman]

Looks like someone got something right for a change!

[Al Willits]

Its about time......

Considering DC is one of the worst spots for crime, its been to long a coming.

Al

[Jim Becker]

Please do not let this get political or, um...too spirited. The thread will be pulled if it does.

Jim
SMC Moderator

[Dennis Peacock]

Understand that this is political enough already. While this is a topic of much discussion, it has an even greater tendency to stir up......well...you know.

Calm comments are all that's welcomed to this thread. Otherwise, it will be removed.

[Gary Keedwell]

I will calmly say that it is in the Constitution and they are only restoring what has been taken away. Gee, I only see 2 comments and 2 warnings. Wonder what has been deleted.:confused:

Gary K.

[Dennis Peacock]

I will calmly say that it is in the Constitution and they are only restoring what has been taken away. Gee, I only see 2 comments and 2 warnings. Wonder what has been deleted.:confused:

Gary K.

Nothing deleted....just watched closely. ;)

[Mike Weaver]

Cliff,
Thanks for the information!

I missed that [great] tidbit yesterday since I was preoccupied with a Church/Boy/Cub Scout Spaghetti dinner.

-Mike

[Jim Dunn]

That they got it right or not it's still somewhat political, and scarey.

[Joe Mioux]

Guns aren't political, people are political. :rolleyes:

[Keith Outten]

A legal interpretation of the Second Amendment is probably more of a Judicial issue than Political. A final interpretation of our right to bear arms is long overdue, I think it is clear to most of the citizens of the USA but not necessarilly the members of the Judicial System.

Considering the time frame when the second amendment was written it is clear to me that civilian soldiers were primarrily responsible for establishing our independence from King of England. Without civilians owning firearms how could this have been successful? Another point is that our ability to own firearms is the only protection we have from our own Government and our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.

.

[David Wilson]

Although it is warming up, it is still too cold in Minnesota for bare arms.

[Bill Grumbine]

A legal interpretation of the Second Amendment is probably more of a Judicial issue than Political. A final interpretation of our right to bear arms is long overdue, I think it is clear to most of the citizens of the USA but not necessarilly the members of the Judicial System.

Considering the time frame when the second amendment was written it is clear to me that civilian soldiers were primarrily responsible for establishing our independence from King of England. Without civilians owning firearms how could this have been successful? Another point is that our ability to own firearms is the only protection we have from our own Government and our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.

.

Quoted for Truth.

Amen Keith! Too often the debate is framed in terms of hunting or shooting sports, but when we go back to why these guys were writing this in the first place, it all comes clear - well, to a lot of people anyway. :D

On another forum where I participate, a similar thread ran to over five pages in less than a couple of hours. Of course, it is more focused on the subject matter at hand.

Bill

[Jack Hogoboom]

Wish I could agree with you guys, but I'm afraid my conscience won't let me. If you look at history, one of the things the British tried to do during their occupation of America was to strip firearms from the population, precisely for the purpose of disarming the "civilian militia." With all due respect, if you read the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings of the time, it isn't at all clear that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to do anything other than to allow for the formation and arming of a local militia.

I don't begrudge someone the right to own a gun if they have a rational reason for having it and have demonstrated their competence with it. Personally, I wouldn't want a gun anywhere in my house, nor would I let one of my children play in a house if I knew there was a gun there. It simply isn't worth the risk.

It can't possibly be denied that America has the highest murder rate in the civilized world. It is no coincidence that our society makes guns more readily available than almost any other society on the planet. Just to the North of us, Canada has a murder rate that is a fraction of ours. In many other places, the police don't even carry firearms.

As a parent of four small kids, I am all for reasonable restrictions on the availability of firearms. Those who want them and can demonstrate responsibility in using them should be free to have them. However, it is very difficult for me to see why someone should be allowed to own a handgun without restriction. It is easier to get a gun in this country than a drivers' license. Yet no one doubts the wisdom of having people prove their basic competence before giving them the right to drive a car....

The NRA and other gun proponents like to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. That is exactly the point. If you limit the right of someone to own an unlicensed handgun, you make it that much harder for someone to kill someone else in a fit of anger or passion. If it is harder to do or requires something other than the pulling of a trigger, maybe it wouldn't hapen as much.

So for those of you cheering this decision, please continue to be safe with your firearms. For me, this is yet another sad example of how special interests triumph over common sense. Your joy will be more than offset by the anguish and grief of a parent in D.C. whose kid gets killed next week in a drive-by shooting.

[John Shuk]

I don't begrudge someone the right to own a gun if they have a rational reason for having it



Who decides what is rational?

[Bill Grumbine]

Personally, I wouldn't want a gun anywhere in my house, nor would I let one of my children play in a house if I knew there was a gun there. It simply isn't worth the risk.

I hope you don't own a swimming pool then Jack, or let your children play at a home which owns one. Many more children die in swimming pool accidents each year than in gun accidents. There are plenty of guns at my house, and to the best of my knowledge, I have never shot anyone or their child while they were here. You were here, and I didn't shoot you.


It can't possibly be denied that America has the highest murder rate in the civilized world. It is no coincidence that our society makes guns more readily available than almost any other society on the planet. Just to the North of us, Canada has a murder rate that is a fraction of ours. In many other places, the police don't even carry firearms.

Guns are illegal in just about any way shape and form in places like Canada and England. So why is gun crime on the rise in these places? Why do they have any gun crime at all? DC is the perfect example. It has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet it has one of the highest rates of murder. In places where honest people are allowed to own and carry guns, the murder rate as well as the crime rate is significantly lower. If you really look at how many guns are out there and compare the number of people who own them legally to the number of crimes occurring with them, you will see that the use of a gun in a crime is statistically very small.


It is easier to get a gun in this country than a drivers' license. Yet no one doubts the wisdom of having people prove their basic competence before giving them the right to drive a car....

You ought to try buying a gun in your own state Jack. You would find our very quickly how restrictive NJ is. Want to carry one? As they like to say in Joisey, "fuggedaboutit!" It doesn't seem to stop the bad guys in Camden, Trenton, Jersey City, etc though.


The NRA and other gun proponents like to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. That is exactly the point. If you limit the right of someone to own an unlicensed handgun, you make it that much harder for someone to kill someone else in a fit of anger or passion. If it is harder to do or requires something other than the pulling of a trigger, maybe it wouldn't hapen as much.

Read some history books Jack. People have been murdering one another since day one. Cain did not use a gun on Abel. Check out the crime statistics for a gun free society like New Zealand, and you will find a lot more in the way of stabbing and bludgeoning deaths, since they can't get their hands on guns.


So for those of you cheering this decision, please continue to be safe with your firearms. For me, this is yet another sad example of how special interests triumph over common sense. Your joy will be more than offset by the anguish and grief of a parent in D.C. whose kid gets killed next week in a drive-by shooting.

Do you really think that people are going to start shooting one another up more now that guns are legal to keep in DC? Criminals are just that, and have no regard for the law whatever that law might be. You are a lawyer Jack, you know that. It is already against the law to kill people, regardless of how one might do it, so I fail to see how you can possibly say that now that people can have a legal gun in their house for protection, more people are going to be killed in drive by shootings. If anything, a few more people might be killed breaking and entering, but now it will be more likely that the bad guy is going to get it rather than the innocent homeowner.


None of this even begins to address the real reasons for the 2nd Amendment, but I will not go into those to avoid having this thread shut down.

Bill

Edited for spelling error.

[David Epperson]

Red some history books Jack.

Bill
Or possibly even quicker read the actual DC court decision. As they cover many of the major points behind it.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

[Gary Keedwell]

Wish I could agree with you guys, but I'm afraid my conscience won't let me. If you look at history, one of the things the British tried to do during their occupation of America was to strip firearms from the population, precisely for the purpose of disarming the "civilian militia." With all due respect, if you read the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings of the time, it isn't at all clear that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to do anything other than to allow for the formation and arming of a local militia.

I don't begrudge someone the right to own a gun if they have a rational reason for having it and have demonstrated their competence with it. Personally, I wouldn't want a gun anywhere in my house, nor would I let one of my children play in a house if I knew there was a gun there. It simply isn't worth the risk.

It can't possibly be denied that America has the highest murder rate in the civilized world. It is no coincidence that our society makes guns more readily available than almost any other society on the planet. Just to the North of us, Canada has a murder rate that is a fraction of ours. In many other places, the police don't even carry firearms.

As a parent of four small kids, I am all for reasonable restrictions on the availability of firearms. Those who want them and can demonstrate responsibility in using them should be free to have them. However, it is very difficult for me to see why someone should be allowed to own a handgun without restriction. It is easier to get a gun in this country than a drivers' license. Yet no one doubts the wisdom of having people prove their basic competence before giving them the right to drive a car....

The NRA and other gun proponents like to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. That is exactly the point. If you limit the right of someone to own an unlicensed handgun, you make it that much harder for someone to kill someone else in a fit of anger or passion. If it is harder to do or requires something other than the pulling of a trigger, maybe it wouldn't hapen as much.

So for those of you cheering this decision, please continue to be safe with your firearms. For me, this is yet another sad example of how special interests triumph over common sense. Your joy will be more than offset by the anguish and grief of a parent in D.C. whose kid gets killed next week in a drive-by shooting.
Let's not be naive...the guns (millions of them) are out there and no law is going to make them go away. Hundreds of thousands of people pack a gun "illegally", unfortunately alot of them are the criminal element. The law abiding people , on the whole, are responsible and abide by the law and do not carry without permit. Right now, the laws are so bent from our rights, that is is near impossible to get these permits.
Alot of people probably don't know how many people were against going against King George and his England. Most of them were well "connected" and enjoyed the "government" in total control. I am no fanatic, but I can see our government getting out of control again. Some say it is already too late. Just remember, that no matter how many laws they make, the criminal element will always have their protection, and those at the Boston Tea Party were considered the "criminal element"

Gary K.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Jack......whether or not firearms are involved.....the reason for those driveby shootings is a failure of parents to responsibly raise their children and a failure of society to hold people responsible for their actions. Until I was say age 12, if ANY adult saw me doing something I should not be doing, if they'd smacked my bottom and my parents found out, my parents would have called them up and thanked them. More than once when I was introduced to a paddle in school because I needed disciplining. Parents not being heavily involved in raising their kids and teaching their kids morale values is the reason those driveby shootings occur. A lot of folks want to say that having both parents working is the reason there isn't more parental involvement in raising their kids. Both my parents worked. As the oldest of 6 kids I got to babysit the clan most the time.

I was raised with guns. Started hunting with my father, carrying a 22 rifle at the age of 9. Bought my first shotgun at age 13. Still have that shotgun. I raised 3 kids. My oldest son is a local deputy sheriff. My daughter works for an airline in Customer Service though...she has a degree in automotive mechanics and she's been both a police officer and a deputy sheriff and she's quite pretty and petite I might add. She's not a gorilla like her Dad. My youngest son is in the Navy on a Navy scholarship at the dental school at the University of Texas Houston. None of my kids hunt but they all shoot. They didn't enjoy hunting and that's fine. They were raised around guns. Gun were kept out of their reach when they were young. They were taught that guns are not toys and they were taught to handle them responsibly when they became old enough to understand what they were. And they knew I'd grow them an inch if I or my wife caught them playing with a gun....they are not toys.

I got drafted in 1968. I quickly enlisted in the Navy. I was the ultimate pacifist. 11 days before leaving for Navy bootcamp I met a young woman on a blind date. 3 days later I asked her to marry me. 8 days later after signing my checking account and savings account over to her I left for Navy bootcamp. She was a young blonde divorcee with 2 towheaded kids. We married two days after I came home from bootcamp. I nearly lost her to cancer in 1993. In 1970 while stationed in Brunswick GA I was at school and a man came into the house we were renting and tried to rape her. When I got home that evening I was and am NO LONGER a PACIFIST. Believe me it was a life altering experience....for me........A short time later I had a 16 gauge pump shotgun in the house for personal protection. I will defend my family. BTW...I adopted those 2 twoheaded kids ...they know it...and they call me Dad. We had our third child in 1972.

Those criminals commiting the driveby shootings....most of them have the guns illegally already. At least now, DC residents have an option of arming themselves in self defense.

[Frank Chaffee]

…….Another point is that our ability to own firearms is the only protection we have from our own Government and our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.
Keith,
“…the only protection”? “…our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.”?

I have long thought that the checks and balances of the three branches of the USA government, combined with the one person, one vote system is a most wonderful system. Is what you are proposing contained in the US Constitution? If so, I missed that part.

Please supply a reference to the Article, Section and Clause.

Thank You,
Frank Chaffee

[David Epperson]

Keith,
“…the only protection”? “…our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.”?

I have long thought that the checks and balances of the three branches of the USA government, combined with the one person, one vote system is a most wonderful system. Is what you are proposing contained in the US Constitution? If so, I missed that part.

Please supply a reference to the Article, Section and Clause.

Thank You,
Frank Chaffee
It's contained in the Declaration of Independence, as well as in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers that detail the debate leading up to the writing of the US Constitution. In fact it's contained in the very spirit of why this country was formed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
The 2nd Amendment was a required addition to the Constitution, required by the Anti-Federalists component of those states that were represented during the writing and signing of the US Constitution, to insure that "we the people" always had the tools required should this action be needed again. Thomas Jefferson once stated that it was his expectation that it would be required most likely once per generation or about every 20 years or so. Luckily he managed to help forge a Republic that was a bit stronger than that.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Get it here:
http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

It is easly the most accessable well documented analysis on Second Amendment history, law, and theory I have seen to date. The Judge does not swamp the reader with incomprehensible crap trying to get angels on the head of a pin to dance, he is rather straight up and to the point.

It's a good read the dissent by Karen Lecraft is well written but not so well documted.

[Gary Keedwell]

Yes, there are three branches of government but unfortunately they are not working like our founding fathers envisioned. Judicial activism is run rampant here in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
We have judges overturning the will of the people. In this state they (judges) are going against our constitutional right to vote. And even when we vote for something the jugdes have the gall to overturn the will of the voters. One particular case is where they had a partition signed by the required amount of voters to put the question of marriage by same sex people on the ballots. They are actually preventing the citizens from voting on it.
Where does it end? I don't think our founding fathers envisioned people in black robes telling the masses what is good or not good for us.
I know this is the good old USA but erosion of rights is sometimes so gradual that it is often times never seen till you are far down the road.
Gary K.

Gary K.

[David Epperson]

Get it here:
http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

It is easly the most accessable well documented analysis on Second Amendment history, law, and theory I have seen to date. The Judge does not swamp the reader with incomprehensible crap trying to get angels on the head of a pin to dance, he is rather straight up and to the point.

It's a good read the dissent by Karen Lecraft is well written but not so well documted.

Only real problem I saw with Judge Lecrafts dissent was her inability to realise that "state" as used in the 2nd refered to a "state" of being as opposed to a State of the union.

But another good read is the US V. Emerson decidion of the 5th Curcuit Court in TX.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/guns/emerson.htm

[Keith Outten]

Frank,

I had the Declaration of Independence in mind when I made the statement concerning the peoples right to overthrough the Government. The second paragraph mentions our rights and our responsibility to remove our Government and initiate a new Government in two separate places. These remarks were not specific to just the British Crown.

I can provide the text if you don't have a copy of the document.

Who can question our right to overthrow our Government when that is exactly what the our ancestors did in the late 1700's.

The intent of Article II is very clear to me in that citizens may become a militia when necessary to provide for the security of the State, which is exactly what happened during the Revolutionary War. We cannot do that if we are not allowed to keep and bear arms. "The Militia" was comprised of citizen soldiers who were called to arms and represented the largest portion of our defense capability during the Revolutionary War, they were not professional soldiers.

.

[Joe Mioux]

you know, the shooting sports are a wonderful family acitivity.

I love shooting clay birds with the boys. Hopefully, the girls will take interest.

I also love Quail hunting.

I also enjoy owning well built firearms.

Joe

[Michael Gibbons]

The Lefts side veiw of the second amendment is twisted. Just think what would happen if they decided that the rights are founding fathers devised were only meant for a select few? They were written for everyone. If I could go back in time I would have it reworded to say "In order to ensure a free state, ALL citizens are required to buy, purchase,and own firearms and will be uncondtionally authorized to store, house, keep, carry, and conceal on their person such arms to protect self, family, hearth, home and country and to keep government fearful of the governed" something like that that would be so simple and plain that even Hillary Clinton and Sarah Brady couldn't argue the point.

[Frank Chaffee]

Thank you Keith, Dave, et al, but I cannot see the Second Amendment guarantee of the citizenry’s right to bear arms “As a well regulated Militia…” as an invitation to overthrow the US government by the use of firepower for any reason. Nor can I see the Declaration of Independence, which was specifically directed to the British colonizers of this land, as a textbook for how we should deal with societal problems in our future.

Since that declaration we have created a revolutionary framework of governance by democracy. Citizens can vote! Also since that time Henry David Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience, the Mahatma Gandhi inspired the millions in the British colony of India to nonviolently repel their oppressors, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King led a nonviolent movement in the US.

Especially in this age where unimaginable weaponry is at our disposal, I suggest that we use other, and perhaps higher human functions for resolving our disputes. Every place around the globe where I see guns being used as an attempt to settle problems, I see horrific pain and destruction of innocent lives. I hope that we will focus our innate intelligence on seeking better ways to ensure that every child born on this earth has the opportunity to live a full and prosperous life.

Please note that I did not weigh in on the court decision that originated this thread, just Keith Outten’s post to this thread.

Peace,
Frank Chaffee

[Bill Grumbine]

Frank, if this were a perfect world, we would not need to resort to violence to protect ourselves or our way of life, or what we perceive to be our rights. When the Constitution was originally written, it was implied and understood by those writing it that the states would have the right to secede. Shortly after the Constitution was ratified, several New England states began the process, but did not get the support they needed, and it fizzled out. Later on, a number of southern states peacefully withdrew from the Union. We all know what came of that.

The problem, and one that our founding fathers recognized, is that government is always going to grow itself and appropriate more power for itself. They put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution to give the people the wherewithal to protect themselves from overreaching intrusive government. They would be aghast to see what we live under today. They revolted for a lot less than we tolerate in this country now.

If you look at recent world history, two of the biggest gun grabbers were Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Just look at the results of the rule of those two men alone. Between the two of them they managed to orchestrate the death of tens of millions of people, many of them their own citizens. It all started with confiscating the private arms owned by the citizenry. Once that was accomplished, the rest was easy. It could happen here too. I will not say Democrat or Republican, because I think there is not a dime's worth of difference between them anymore. They are all statists, increasing the size of the State at the expense of the citizenry.

I could go on about what I think will be the perfect government, but that would inject religion into an already volatile political discussion. ;)

Bill

[David Epperson]

Thank you Keith, Dave, et al, but I cannot see the Second Amendment guarantee of the citizenry’s right to bear arms “As a well regulated Militia…” as an invitation to overthrow the US government by the use of firepower for any reason. Nor can I see the Declaration of Independence, which was specifically directed to the British colonizers of this land, as a textbook for how we should deal with societal problems in our future.

Peace,
Frank Chaffee
No one has ever suggested that it was there to imply that it was a first choice solution. And even Gandhi realized this.


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mahatma Gandhi (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Mahatma_Gandhi/) (1869 - 1948), _Gandhi, An Autobiography_, page 446

I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. T-2-4

Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. T-2-131

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Frank...........There is a distinct difference between ideology/theory and reality and practical application of just about every subject. I won't discuss politics for those reasons. The idea that we can use higher forms of human function is commendable but.........the reality is regardless of which ideology you believe in there has been none that I'm aware that when applied and you factor in "HUMANS....as in Man.....as in Mankind" it gets distorted often beyond recognition. When I watch what has happened within the govenment of this nation in my lifetime.....in the last couple of decades .....in the last couple of years ....in the last couple months....the distortions make me cringe and have an even more deep respect for the extremely intelligent people who wrote with an unmeasureable amount of foresight, our government's constitution. That document is the adhesive that holds this country together.

[Keith Outten]

Frank,

I must agree with your overall sentiment. I wish all citizens of this planet could use "higher human functions to resolve disputes" but we won't and it is probable we never will.

Thomas Jefferson stated that he felt the people would most likely have to overthrow the Government once per generation. I expect his confidence in Government was less than many would expect and reflected his confidence in mankind.

Not much has changed in 200 years. There will always be a very small minority of the worlds population that are evil.

.

[Belinda Barfield]

[quote=Ken Fitzgerald]Jack.......the reason for those driveby shootings is a failure of parents to responsibly raise their children and a failure of society to hold people responsible for their actions.

Until criminals are taken off the streets permanently private citizenry should have the right to defend themselves.

[quote]I know this is the good old USA but erosion of rights is sometimes so gradual that it is often times never seen till you are far down the road.
Gary K. [quote]

Many times legislation that is passed for "our own good" is an insidious attempt to further total government control. While I am not in favor of overthrowing the current government, there may come a time in the future when some restructuring might be required. However, as a resident of the South (not attempting to introduce the North/South controversy) I am familiar with what happens when a portion of the population attempts to withdraw and govern itself.

Gun control is not the answer. Criminal control is the answer.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary

That is not exactly how the Federalists saw it but it's close


Is what you are proposing contained in the US Constitution?
No it's not. and It's not the law at all. You can find references to it in the Federalist papers which may give one some insight to what the founders were thinking.

And you can read some if it if you get the PDF of the opinion in this case and read page 37.

[Joe Chritz]

After a well written post about crime and criminals I have instead decided on this.

No comment.

Stop by anytime and I will discuss this very issue over beers, my treat.

Joe

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Stop by anytime and I will discuss this very issue over beers, my treat.

Joe

La Fin Du Monde?? and Mcallan or Redbreast??

I'll be right over !!~!!!~!

[Ken Fitzgerald]

After a well written post about crime and criminals I have instead decided on this.

No comment.

Stop by anytime and I will discuss this very issue over beers, my treat.

Joe

And thank you Joe for what you do every day! BTW....what's the address and name of the bar?:D

[Jason Roehl]

Mt. Pleasant isn't too far from my folks' home in Midland...

I'll discuss almost anything over a beer.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I've chosen, on occasion, to apply some wisdom my father once imparted: "There is a such thing as being dead right." Granted, he was usually referring to something along the lines of "pedestrians always have the right of way", but I've also been to some of the less savory neighborhoods of Chicago. At those times, I felt personal protection at the risk of imprisonment was better than the other option. Was I law-abiding? Well...not by Chicago's extremely anti-gun laws, but I believe the 2nd Amendment reaffirms our "inalienable right granted by our Creator" to keep and bear arms.

I'll inject a little inocuous religion here, too. As a Christian father and husband, I believe it is my duty to protect and defend my family, all the while making "every effort to live in peace with all men". Usually, the peace part isn't all that difficult to me, but I have already decided that should someone come crashing through my front door, he's not going to have more than a few seconds to turn his life around, to put it mildly.

Thankfully, Indiana is generally in support of my right to keep and bear arms (I recently spent $100 for them to affirm my right to carry arms on my person for life), so that contributes to my inclination to not move from this state any time soon.

I thought that the mayor of D.C.'s response to the ruling was laughable. The statistics of the past 20 years or so bear out that as the number of carry permits issued has gone up, violent (and other) crimes have generally gone down in those same locales. Yet the mayor basically stated the opposite.

"More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott is a good place to start with the reading. Mr. Lott used to be vehemently against guns and set out to prove that higher rates of gun ownership correlated to higher crime rates. Instead, as he researched the statistics, his outlook changed quite dramatically.

[Belinda Barfield]

. . . I believe it is my duty to protect and defend my family, all the while making "every effort to live in peace with all men".

As a member of the "weaker sex" I would like to express my appreciation for your attitude of chivalry. Your wife and family are very fortunate that they have someone willing to defend them against all predators. It is a shame that you are required to do so. I salute you.

Living at peace with all men would require those men to have the same sentiment. Until such time as that may be the case, be ever vigilant.

[Dennis Peacock]

Well stated Mr. Roehl..!!! Well stated. :D

[Joe Mioux]

Well stated Mr. Roehl..!!! Well stated. :D

Hey! Aren't you one of the referees?;)

sorry Dennis, couldn't resist

Joe

[Jack Dickey]

Constitutional lawyers have said for many years that when you look at the wording of the second amendment and compare it to the wording in other areas of the Constitution , that it is obvious that the second amendment refers to an individual right ..

Seems this fact is lost in the spin ..

Firearms , like nuclear devices during the cold war , are a deterrent to crime .... If someone thinks or knows you have them , they are less likely to commit a crime against you ..

We used to go to school with loaded guns in our gunracks , with the doors unlocked , and guess what , no one ever got shot cause someone got mad , and no guns were ever stolen either ..

If you choose not to own one thats fine , free country , your choice ..

And oh by the way very early in the constitution it does say that the citizens have the constitutional authority to overthrow a tyrannical government .. They dont want you to know that either ..

[Dave Fifield]

When I first came to the USA in '92, I thought it would be cool to own a gun and go to the target range with my buddies. I bought a 9mm and a .22 S&W handguns and a .22 rifle. I did have fun shooting them for a year or so. I still have them, but they haven't been used for years (they are all safely locked away - I wouldn't be able to get to them quickly if I ever have an emergency situation). I don't know what to do with them.

Since I bought them, they passed laws in CA that stomp on my rights to sell the high capacity clips that I got with them and the rifle looks too much like an automatic weapon (so I'm told) and so I can't sell that either. I can't seem to find a local dealer that will take any of them and sell them for me.

I don't want them any more (they are just not needed around here), but I can't sell them.....what to do? :confused:

Confused....

[David Epperson]

I can't seem to find a local dealer that will take any of them and sell them for me.

I don't want them any more (they are just not needed around here), but I can't sell them.....what to do? :confused:

Confused....
Try GunBroker.com , AuctionArms.com, and/or GunsAmerica.com. You will still need to find a local FFL holder to ship them for you to the buyers FFL holder, but it should make your transaction easier. But the local dealer will not have to buy them, just ship them, which he might be more willing to do. Also by searching those sites you might find another dealer within driving distance that might be interested in them.
Just out of curiosity, what are the makes and models?

[Curt Harms]

I'll try to keep this nonpolitical. Everybody running for mayor in Philly is promising "more gun laws" or "doing something about illegal guns". Good idea. The tactics being proposed seem the same to me as those having been used against illegal drugs the past 30 years or so. The "war" against drugs has been a smashing success. Why, you can't hardly find illegal drugs in Philly, unless you look:rolleyes: I think any serious attempt at gun control would simply be another lucrative smuggling opportunity.

Curt

[Jack Dickey]

Like other laws " to protect us from ourselves " , the only ones affected are those who are law abiding citizens ..

We dont need more restrictive gun laws , we need to enforce ALL the laws that we have .. What good is a law if someone gets a plea bargain , and does little or no time , and is back out on the street ..

If all these gun laws reduce crime , why is it that DC and all the other big cities with restrictive gun laws have the highest rates of gun crime ??

More people are killed in automobiles than by firearms , but I dont see anybody trying to ban automobiles .. Acceptable risk I suppose ...

Wrong topic to get me started on ..

[Joe Chritz]

For Jason.. I grew up in Midland, three miles north of the mall off Blackhurst road. Graduated Dow High in 89.

Ken... The bar's name is "The Hound's Den" It is about half of my basement.

Poker, pool and all the trimmings.

Everyone is welcome.

As a side note it is a pleasure to follow a thread as such that actually remains civil. Everyone should be commended.

Just because I don't agree with someone's opinion doesn't mean I don't half to like them. Agree to disagree and all that. In fact I have had this exact discussion with one of our detectives when they CCW law was in the works. He was dead set against it and was sure it would lead to all kinds of crime. He still is even though, years later there is no statistics to back it up.

Joe

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Constitutional lawyers have said for many years that when you look at the wording of the second amendment and compare it to the wording in other areas of the Constitution , that it is obvious that the second amendment refers to an individual right ..

Some of us have. The Constitutional scholar Larry Tribe says it's individual and not some mushy un-focused collective right.




And oh by the way very early in the constitution it does say that the citizens have the constitutional authority to overthrow a tyrannical government .. They dont want you to know that either ..

I don't think I know what you mean by "very early in the constitution" There is only one Constitution and no where is that codified into law. However the early Federealist founders clearly understood that an armed civilian militia would serve not merely to be able to turn out to repel invaders but to also serve as yet another check against tyrrany at home. In fact the preamble before the comma in the amemdment was added dutring the Second Congress to satisify the Antifereralists. It does not serve to limit the second half of the 2nd Amendment.

Go to the PDF of the opinion in this case and take a gander at page 37.
The opinion can be found here:
http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

You can find the following words on page 37
"(Alexander Hamilton), No. 46
(James Madison) (arguing that an armed populace constitutes a check on the potential abuses of the federal government) "

[Ryan Cathey]

I agree with you. Born here(western Kentucky) and I've been here my whole life. From a very young age I knew where the guns were, they weren't hidden, and I knew that they weren't toys and that I shouldn't play with them. I still know where they are(heck if I look to my left right now the gun cabinet is staring back at me) and my brother and I are trusted enough and know how to properly use them to the point where we are trusted with them if we want to go target shoot at my uncles' house even if no one is there. Guns don't kill people and people don't kill people...stupid people kill people.

-Ryan C.

[Joe Chritz]

Jack..

I used to think the same thing about plea bargains as you. Until I got into the system so to speak and I can tell you they actually do more good than bad.

Many time (most times) the person will receive the same or nearly the same sentence as if they were convicted of the more serious crime. This is because of sentencing guidlines. They are complicated for the attorneys to figure out.

Our "reasonable doubt" standard is a difficult one to overcome in many cases. It has been abanded in many other "civilized" countries. The whole "it's better for 10 guilty people to go free than one innocent person to get convicted". I can't argue with the logic. Even if it makes the job exponential more difficult. Sometimes a slam dunk lesser is better then risking a loss if it goes to jury.

Ever hear the term "jury nullification"?

I have some stories of a couple cases on both sides of that exact deal.

It would be great to run every case to the max no matter what. It isn't practical and would cause a slow, backlogged system to grind to a crashing halt. It sucks but it is.

Joe

Edit: Cuz my grammar ain't so good. :D

[Jack Dickey]

Well if it happens ( plea bargain ) according to what you say then I'm fine with that part of it .. I'm not a lawyer , nor " in the system " so to speak , dont claim to be ..

I think for the most part gun control ( something I am much in the loop with ) is disarmament of law abiding citizens by politicians who use it ( and other issues ) to stir people up to carry out their own agenda , which , many times is more in their interests than the public interest ..

However the facts dont support their logic ( or lack of it ) ..

[David Dundas]

Perhaps Richard Jeni would still be alive today, if guns were not so easily available to people, despite the fact that clinical depression affects a sizeable proportion of the population at some time in their lives. I suppose some Americans, in their pursuit of individual freedom at any cost, would be happy that his life was the price that had to be paid so that others could be free to own guns.

David Dundas

[Keith Outten]

Lets keep on topic folks, this thread is about Article 2 of the Constitution and its legal interpretation.

.

[David Dundas]

I thought the thread related to the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

To an outsider like myself, it appears self-evident that the first part of this sentence demonstrates that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted in the context of service in a well-regulated militia, such as the National Guard. But then, what would I know?

David Dundas

[Gary Keedwell]

Perhaps Richard Jeni would still be alive today, if guns were not so easily available to people, despite the fact that clinical depression affects a sizeable proportion of the population at some time in their lives. I suppose some Americans, in their pursuit of individual freedom at any cost, would be happy that his life was the price that had to be paid so that others could be free to own guns.

David Dundas
A couple weeks ago, a man and his wife died. It was a murder-suicide. They were found with zip-ties around their necks.
If you want to kill, you don't need the second amendment.
PS. You read that right....must of taken a great effort to die with that method.
Gary K.:rolleyes:

[Belinda Barfield]

To an outsider like myself, it appears self-evident that the first part of this sentence demonstrates that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted in the context of service in a well-regulated militia, such as the National Guard. But then, what would I know?

David Dundas




The National Guard does serve the same purpose as the original state and local militias. As you are an outsider, you may not be aware that our National Guard is currently being called upon to support our Regular Army, and handle natural disastors, and keep the peace when required at a local level. This being the case the Guard is stretched a little thin currently. If it became necessary for well regulated State and local militias to form and defend the citizens of our country, militia members would be required to provide their own arms and amunition. As there is no legislation to abolish militias, we should be prepared for the call to arms at any and all times. Being prepared means being armed.

[Jason Roehl]

David, read the first and fourth amendments with regard to who "the people" are. It's clear that "the people" refers to individual citizens, not State-controlled Militias. Militias at the time were ad hoc gatherings of townspeople and farmers, who practiced their weaponry skills ("well regulated"), and brought their own muskets to the fight. This is also pretty clear from many of the writings of the Founding Fathers at or around the time the Constitution was drafted.

Ironic--this is post #1492 for me...

[Bill Grumbine]

Perhaps Richard Jeni would still be alive today, if guns were not so easily available to people, despite the fact that clinical depression affects a sizeable proportion of the population at some time in their lives. I suppose some Americans, in their pursuit of individual freedom at any cost, would be happy that his life was the price that had to be paid so that others could be free to own guns.

David Dundas

David following your reasoning, there should be no gun crime at all in Australia, correct? Isn't it true that you folks turned your guns in a few years ago?

Speaking as a person with degrees in psychology, Bible, and post masters work in counseling, I can tell you right now that suicidal people are going to carry out their intent regardless of what is available to do it. It is the extremely rare case where someone will not carry out their intent because the "appropriate" weapon is not at hand. I can also tell you that there is a long range between depressed and suicidal.

On the other hand, while trumpeted in the media, these cases are relatively rare. Jack H. commented earlier on in this thread that he would not let his children play at a house where there is a gun because of the risk. But for the year 2000, swimming pool deaths for children under the age of 14 numbered 800 compared to 80 for guns. Neither is a "good" number, but the fact is the presence of a swimming pool is 10 times more likely to result in the death of a child than the presence of a gun. But we don't see calls for bans or licensing of swimming pools, do we? The same goes for murder/suicide. There are always going to be people who are depressed enough or angry enough to take a life, their own or that of another. If they are really going to do it, a gun makes it easy at times, but the absence of a gun does not change their behavior, other that causing them to use another method.

But to try and get this back on topic, look at what happens to people who cannot defend themselves from their own government. Look at the genocide inflicted in the USSR, Nazi Germany, China, Cambodia, Viet Nam, any African country you would care to name, etc. Why not stack up those numbers against a couple of individuals who misuse those things available to them?

Look at what happened in LA right after Katrina. People had to defend themselves, and not just against looters. The friendly folks of the government decided it would be a good time to go house to house and collect weapons. Why? To consolidate their own power, not to "protect" people from themselves. As Belinda has already written, the local powers that be still can't control the area. Who is left to take care of people when even in good times a 911 call can mean a wait of an hour? And when it is the people running 911 who are going to take away your right to defend yourself besides not show up when you need them, what are you to do? Roll over and play dead? That is exactly what you will do when the bad guys who never seem to get the memo to turn in their guns show up.

Bill

[David Epperson]

I thought the thread related to the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

To an outsider like myself, it appears self-evident that the first part of this sentence demonstrates that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted in the context of service in a well-regulated militia, such as the National Guard. But then, what would I know?

David Dundas



The Militia is comprised of two parts - the Organised Militia and the Non-organised Militia. The Organised portion consisted of people called into service by the State authorities for the purpose of defending the community. Called into service from the ranks of the unorganised Militia (Originally free white males between the ages of 17 and 45 - later expanded to include all free males and some women). Members call into service were EXPECTED to arrive equipped with their own arms, ammunition and supplies. So as you see, in order to form the militia mentioned in the first clause, The WHOLE of the people in the second clause needed to remain armed, and prepared. The purpose was to provide a ready defense force that was self trained, and self equipped.
So clearly it cannot be included solely to protect "only" those in "the Militia".
But there are also several references to why this was an important amendment in the writings detailing the history of the it's being included. The most fundimental of which was that, so long as the whole of the governed were armed, then our government could never become tyranical, lest they get replaced.

[Jack Ganssle]

Obviously, gun owners need to be responsible with their weapons.

I'm struck by VP Cheney's shooting incident. Here's a man whom half the country feels is responsible enough to assume the presidency should that befall him.

And yet even he isn't able to use a gun responsibly. He fired without looking properly.

Jack

[Gary Keedwell]

Obviously, gun owners need to be responsible with their weapons.

I'm struck by VP Cheney's shooting incident. Here's a man whom half the country feels is responsible enough to assume the presidency should that befall him.

And yet even he isn't able to use a gun responsibly. He fired without looking properly.

Jack
:eek: Didn't President Ford hit someone with a golf ball? What's that got to do with the second amendment?

Gary K.:confused:

[Al Willits]

"""""""""""
Obviously, gun owners need to be responsible with their weapons.
"""""""""

Kinda goes with out saying you'd think.
fwiw I've been involved in shooting for prob 40+ years now, including action pistol (formerly combat shooting) where one moves and shoots at the same time, and the stats I see tell me I'm safer on the gun range than the drive to and from the range.

Considering the amount of vehicle mishaps that take place daily, me thinks our illustrious leaders has misplaced their priorities....but what else is new.

Al

[Belinda Barfield]

Obviously, gun owners need to be responsible with their weapons.

I'm struck by VP Cheney's shooting incident. Here's a man whom half the country feels is responsible enough to assume the presidency should that befall him.

And yet even he isn't able to use a gun responsibly. He fired without looking properly.

Jack

Does Chappaquiddick ring a bell? Maybe car owners need to be responsible with their weapons as well.

I feel I am being responsible as a gun owner by not depending on someone else to defend me. Not speaking of the military here as I appreciate every one of them and what they do. If a crime is being committed against me why should I expect someone else to risk his or her life trying to save mine?

[Keith Outten]

The question is;

Do American citizens have the right to own firearms?

.

[Belinda Barfield]

The question is;

Do American citizens have the right to own firearms?

.

Sorry. I bow out gracefully with this:

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” —Thomas Jefferson

[Gary Keedwell]

The question is;

Do American citizens have the right to own firearms?

.
Of course we have the right to own and carry firearms. In a perfect world we can all throw them (firearms) away. Not only do we need protection from our own government but our borders are not secure. The amount of deaths in Iraq pales in contrast to the deaths attributed every day by illegal aliens.

Gary K.

[Al Willits]

I think a better question would be "why shouldn't we have the right?"

Al

[David Epperson]

Obviously, gun owners need to be responsible with their weapons.

I'm struck by VP Cheney's shooting incident. Here's a man whom half the country feels is responsible enough to assume the presidency should that befall him.

And yet even he isn't able to use a gun responsibly. He fired without looking properly.

Jack
While it IS true that gun owner/operators need to be responsible, this is a very poor example. The VPs huntng partner freely admitted that he was NOT in the normaly expected position in the current hunting formaton being employed, where he had been instructed to be. He knew this at the time. Hunting of the sort that was being done at the time of this accident often leaves one or several hunters out of visual sight of each other. The wounded man was not in that position where he was thought to be, a position free of any intended line of fire. He had broken formation without informing the rest of the group. So no it was not the VP who did not look properly, it was the person who crossed into the possible line of fire without communicating what he was doing. The responsibility in THAT situation falls not on one single person, but on the thinking that "It's be ok if I break the rules this one time." He forgot that his safety was HIS OWN responsiblity and assumed that others would take care of it for him. Always a dangerous assumption.

[Joe Melton]

I wonder how the percentage of U. S. households where presence of a firearm has brought "safety" compares with the percentage where it has brought sadness.
Joe

[Al Willits]

Dave, every gun safety course I've taken states to know your target and where your round may go, he fired before he made sure.
Bad gun handling in my mind, unfortnately it happens.
It was the attempted cover up I didn't care for, but that's another forum...:D

Joe, John Lott has wrote several articles/books on gun control, one of them might have numbers for ya.
Might be one of them, hard to get accurate numbers things though.
Another thought is why should I/we be penalized for the misuse of a gun by someone else, be like saying I shouldn't have a car because my neighbor killed someone with his.
Problem is the neighbor, not the car or I/we.
Al

[Dave Fifield]

Why just US Citizens? What about Legal Resident Aliens?

[Matt Meiser]

I wonder how the percentage of U. S. households where presence of a firearm has brought "safety" compares with the percentage where it has brought sadness.
Joe

Same could be said for pools with respect to happieness vs. heartbreak. I can see both sides of the argument, but ultimately laws tend not to solve probelms. Have laws against drugs, underage drinking, speeding, etc really been that effective at stopping the results? Or in generating revenue?

BTW Joe, I'm not singling you out--just something in your question struck a thought.

[Gary Keedwell]

I wonder how the percentage of U. S. households where presence of a firearm has brought "safety" compares with the percentage where it has brought sadness.
Joe

We will never know because felons tend to avoid any residence that they suspect will have a deterrence waiting for them...
I also wonder how many households with swimming pools have sadness.
Gary K.:(

[Jason Roehl]

I've seen various estimates on the use of firearms by civilians to prevent a crime, not necessarily in the home. They range anywhere from 5,000 times/year (from the anti-gun crowd) to 2-3,000,000 (from the NRA). The anti-gunners tend also to include in the "children killed by guns" category deaths of 15-19y.o. gangbangers killed by other gangbangers, which is a significant number. True accidental shooting fatalities of children are probably on the order of several hundred at most.

[Rich Engelhardt]

Hello David,

Perhaps Richard Jeni would still be alive today, if guns were not so easily available to people, despite the fact that clinical depression affects a sizeable proportion of the population at some time in their lives.
Highly doubtful. Availibilty of firearms has little or nothing to do with suicide. Japan, which is nearly devoid of firearms - the rate of suicide is over twice that of the US. - Ja - 24 per 100K US 12 per 100K.

Even the rate per 100,000 for Austraila - with ever increasing gun control) is near that of the US - Aus - 14 per 100K US 12 per 100K.

(What generally happens is the qualifier - "gun" suicide - is thrown in to skew the facts/figures.)

Also, the National Guard was created in 1903 - some 112 years after the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment. It's doubtful the founding fathers would refer to a body that didn't yet exisit.


True accidental shooting fatalities of children are probably on the order of several hundred at most.
Fairly high my friend. One problem with the "children" part is what age defines a child. The CDC and the AMA often extend the age to 19 (some even higher - 24 is often cited by some).
Total in 2004 for children 0 to 14 was 63.
Total in 2004 for the age group 15 to 19 was 80.
Total in 2004 for the age group 0 to 24 was 235.
Source - CDC.

Anyhow - on topic - nice to see some common sense come out of DC for a change.

[Jason Roehl]

Thanks, Rich--I knew the number wasn't very high, but it's been a while since I let my NRA membership lapse (no real reason), so I haven't been fed a lot of this info since. Either way, 18- and 19-year-old gangbangers killing each other can hardly be called "children".

[Dennis Peacock]

OK folks....we've discussed this long enough. Let's not open any more threads on gun control. Ok? It's not going to ever be a discussion that will win the world over.

This thread is officially closed to posting.