DC vs Heller

[hccobb 0]

Today the Supreme Court will here the first Second Amendment case since 1939. Last year the DC circuit court ruled that the D.C. ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment and was therefore, unconstitutional. D.C. challenged this ruling and took their case to the SCOTUS. Over 60 amicus briefs have been filed in this case both for the petitioners and for the respondent.

The court will determine whether the DC circuit court's ruling that the second amendment upholds the individual's right to bear arms is correct, or that the second amendment only applies to the states' right to raise a militia and arm them.

Folks this is big.

If you are a freedom loving individual and believe that the second amendment is the one that "enforces all others" then this is possibly the most pivotal case of the current generation. Any ruling other than an individual right leaves the door open for registration, confiscation, and who knows that else. I don't see how it can come down other than a ruling in favor of the individual right. If not, it will take some serious constitutional acrobatics to justify anything else.

Yet, there is a very real prospect that this could change the landscape of constitutional law forever. A ruling against the individual right would show that the Constitution is no longer the "law of the land" but more like the Pirate Code:

"Guidelines."

[arnaldoabru 11]

I own guns.So don't start responding that this is about some libbie wanting to do away right to protect ourselves.But here I go...

The anti-abortion politicans and right wingers say that abortion should be decided at the state level.That is what they are trying to do,right.Put laws on the books in individual statesand then letting it fighting its way up the courts.So..........if abortion is a state issue,why isn't handgun control.Here we have a state(i know d.c. is not a state,but for argument sake,let's pretend it is)deciding on an constitutional issue of feedom and the right doesn't like it.

Again, I love my guns,but where is the consisteny in the argument.

[pensacola tiger 0]

Because there is nothing specifically in the constitution addressing abortion. The second amendment directly addresses the issue of gun ownership. The constitution states that anything not directly addressed in the constitution is reserved for the states. The Supreme Court has, over many years, bastardized the constitution by allowing federal laws concerning issues not addressed in the constitution and by interpreting what is in the constitution in ways probably never intended by the authors thereof. To digress from the constitutional issue....the DC law states that people cannot have handguns in their homes. This law was written decades ago. Since then the crime rate in DC has risen dramatically. (These facts from ABC Nightly News tonight.) So I guess the law didn't mean much to the criminals. Go figure.

[CCTAU 3,349]

I own guns.So don't start responding that this is about some libbie wanting to do away right to protect ourselves.But here I go...

The anti-abortion politicans and right wingers say that abortion should be decided at the state level.That is what they are trying to do,right.Put laws on the books in individual statesand then letting it fighting its way up the courts.So..........if abortion is a state issue,why isn't handgun control.Here we have a state(i know d.c. is not a state,but for argument sake,let's pretend it is)deciding on an constitutional issue of feedom and the right doesn't like it.

Again, I love my guns,but where is the consisteny in the argument.

Once again a true leader in logic. I guess if you use a gun to abort a baby then it would apply. But until there is an abortion amendment, you have apples and oranges.....and not just the ones in your head.

[hccobb 0]

Because there is nothing specifically in the constitution addressing abortion. The second amendment directly addresses the issue of gun ownership. The constitution states that anything not directly addressed in the constitution is reserved for the states. The Supreme Court has, over many years, bastardized the constitution by allowing federal laws concerning issues not addressed in the constitution and by interpreting what is in the constitution in ways probably never intended by the authors thereof. To digress from the constitutional issue....the DC law states that people cannot have handguns in their homes. This law was written decades ago. Since then the crime rate in DC has risen dramatically. (These facts from ABC Nightly News tonight.) So I guess the law didn't mean much to the criminals. Go figure.

Not only are handguns banned, but your long guns must be disassembled and trigger-locked. The argument the defenders of the DC ban make is that the amendment is only there to protect the FedGov from disarming a state militia (i.e. National Guard) and that it only protects weapons suitable for militia service. DC argues that handguns are not militia weapons and that the disabling of long guns is legitimate because they can be assembled for milita use and that the second amendment has nothing to do with the right of self defense.

After listening to the oral arguments yesterday I feel pretty good that the court will find for the individual right, and that an outright ban is verboten. However, I fear they may kick the issue of "reasonable" restrictions back down to the lower courts - which means it will be years before unreasonable gun laws get struck down. However, with a probable Obama presidency on the horizon I find this somewhat reassuring.

As to abortion...what? Abortion isn't a right protected by the bill of rights...so it gets kicked back to the states in a states' rights issue. The 14A says that if a right reserved if not protected by the Constitution then it's up to the states. Firearms are directly protected by the bill of rights.

[channonc 466]

I listened to the arguments yesterday, and have to say I agree with hccobb's analysis. I think the Court will find for the individual in this case.

I am completely FOR the right to own a gun. In fact, we own guns in our house and that's why we don't live in DC, but a mile away from the line.

That being said, I am for reasonable restrictions such as: licensing, background checks, and requirements for safe keeping. I am ok with allowing the states to decide on the concealment issue (although I personally have no problem with concealed weapons). I am also ok with taking away someone's right to legally own a gun if they are a felon, etc.

Putting aside the statistics each side of the debate will throw around, if you aren't interested in owning a gun-- you can CHOOSE to not exercise that right. I am still baffled as to why, if you don't have an interest in owning a gun, it bothers you so much if someone else does. The criminals will always own guns no matter what the law says, so violence by guns will still continue.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Gun Ownership is a SECOND Amendment Right. It is spelled out in the Constitution.

Abortion SHOULD be a right to life issue. Instead it is dragged thru a paranumbra in the 14th. There is no comparison. Gun ownership was put into the Constitution so as to get the states to ratify the Constitution.

[hccobb 0]

I listened to the arguments yesterday, and have to say I agree with hccobb's analysis. I think the Court will find for the individual in this case.

I am completely FOR the right to own a gun. In fact, we own guns in our house and that's why we don't live in DC, but a mile away from the line.

That being said, I am for reasonable restrictions such as: licensing, background checks, and requirements for safe keeping. I am ok with allowing the states to decide on the concealment issue (although I personally have no problem with concealed weapons). I am also ok with taking away someone's right to legally own a gun if they are a felon, etc.

Putting aside the statistics each side of the debate will throw around, if you aren't interested in owning a gun-- you can CHOOSE to not exercise that right. I am still baffled as to why, if you don't have an interest in owning a gun, it bothers you so much if someone else does. The criminals will always own guns no matter what the law says, so violence by guns will still continue.

We may have to agree to disagree on some of this, but I'm totally with you on questioning why the grabbers seem so intent on forcing their hoplophobia on us that are firearms owners.

I'm not really a fan of licensing. I think it's just one step away from registration. That's really an oversimplification, but I'm too tired to hash it out. What I see as being as ideal is background checks, prohibition from felons, and the mentally ill, and then innocent until proven guilty. I think it's up to the individual to decided open or concealed carry. I disagree on open carry for tactical reasons, but I could see times where I'd want to do it. Sadly, it's banned in FL. One of the few things FL needs to work on in the firearms law department.

[CCTAU 3,349]

I listened to the arguments yesterday, and have to say I agree with hccobb's analysis. I think the Court will find for the individual in this case.

I am completely FOR the right to own a gun. In fact, we own guns in our house and that's why we don't live in DC, but a mile away from the line.

That being said, I am for reasonable restrictions such as: licensing, background checks, and requirements for safe keeping. I am ok with allowing the states to decide on the concealment issue (although I personally have no problem with concealed weapons). I am also ok with taking away someone's right to legally own a gun if they are a felon, etc.

Putting aside the statistics each side of the debate will throw around, if you aren't interested in owning a gun-- you can CHOOSE to not exercise that right. I am still baffled as to why, if you don't have an interest in owning a gun, it bothers you so much if someone else does. The criminals will always own guns no matter what the law says, so violence by guns will still continue.

Please. Would the alien that has taken over Channonc's mind, give it back. I am floored to hear these words. This would make twice that we have agreed on something. I can't remember the other thing, but at least it made a big enough impression for me to remember the impression.

The only thing I disagree with is the requirements for safe keeping. The point of having a gun is to defend ourself. The people who make the requirements for safe keeping are also the same one's who want you to be disarmed. Having a Fort Knox at my house to keep my gun in, just might create a problem for me when I need to get to it. But as a parent, I have taken precautions to insure that my children cannot get to my firearms (or theirs). I know not every parent does. But that's why we have freedoms in this country. You can't protect everyone and you can't use "the children" as an excuse to cripple the country. As sad as it sounds, there will be accidents. The solution to this is education. The schools need to allow gun education programs into the schools to take the mystery out of guns. I grew up in a house with loaded guns under the mattress, in the closet, etc.. We hunted, fished and camped. Guns were with us always and we were taught how to safely use them. The allure was just not there. We knew that if trouble came, get to a gun and shoot straight. Today is a different world, but still the same. We need to educate our kids about the one tool that has kept this country free for scores of years.

But other than that, I am completely floored that a person from the moderate left would have such a strong gun rights view. Kudos. You stayed off of my completely insane list.

NEXT!

[CCTAU 3,349]

I listened to the arguments yesterday, and have to say I agree with hccobb's analysis. I think the Court will find for the individual in this case.

I am completely FOR the right to own a gun. In fact, we own guns in our house and that's why we don't live in DC, but a mile away from the line.

That being said, I am for reasonable restrictions such as: licensing, background checks, and requirements for safe keeping. I am ok with allowing the states to decide on the concealment issue (although I personally have no problem with concealed weapons). I am also ok with taking away someone's right to legally own a gun if they are a felon, etc.

Putting aside the statistics each side of the debate will throw around, if you aren't interested in owning a gun-- you can CHOOSE to not exercise that right. I am still baffled as to why, if you don't have an interest in owning a gun, it bothers you so much if someone else does. The criminals will always own guns no matter what the law says, so violence by guns will still continue.

We may have to agree to disagree on some of this, but I'm totally with you on questioning why the grabbers seem so intent on forcing their hoplophobia on us that are firearms owners.

I'm not really a fan of licensing. I think it's just one step away from registration. That's really an oversimplification, but I'm too tired to hash it out. What I see as being as ideal is background checks, prohibition from felons, and the mentally ill, and then innocent until proven guilty. I think it's up to the individual to decided open or concealed carry. I disagree on open carry for tactical reasons, but I could see times where I'd want to do it. Sadly, it's banned in FL. One of the few things FL needs to work on in the firearms law department.

I don't really see licensing as a registration. The licensing is for a concealed "weapon". There are many times I carry a decent size knife. But the powers that be do not know what kind or the serial number. It just means that I have been vetted and deemed clean enough to be trusted to hide my weapon so that when I need it, it's there. I also know many folks who are licensed and do not even carry a gun. They have it so that anything that can be considered a weapon is covered. So from this standpoint, I think it's just a document that says I have been cleared to carry. Not to mention, if you have one, then you don't have to get a background check when purchasing a firearm in some cases. So if you buy and sell frequently (2,3 times a year) then you eliminate the hassle.

[channonc 466]

I listened to the arguments yesterday, and have to say I agree with hccobb's analysis. I think the Court will find for the individual in this case.

I am completely FOR the right to own a gun. In fact, we own guns in our house and that's why we don't live in DC, but a mile away from the line.

That being said, I am for reasonable restrictions such as: licensing, background checks, and requirements for safe keeping. I am ok with allowing the states to decide on the concealment issue (although I personally have no problem with concealed weapons). I am also ok with taking away someone's right to legally own a gun if they are a felon, etc.

Putting aside the statistics each side of the debate will throw around, if you aren't interested in owning a gun-- you can CHOOSE to not exercise that right. I am still baffled as to why, if you don't have an interest in owning a gun, it bothers you so much if someone else does. The criminals will always own guns no matter what the law says, so violence by guns will still continue.

Please. Would the alien that has taken over Channonc's mind, give it back. I am floored to hear these words. This would make twice that we have agreed on something. I can't remember the other thing, but at least it made a big enough impression for me to remember the impression.

The only thing I disagree with is the requirements for safe keeping. The point of having a gun is to defend ourself. The people who make the requirements for safe keeping are also the same one's who want you to be disarmed. Having a Fort Knox at my house to keep my gun in, just might create a problem for me when I need to get to it. But as a parent, I have taken precautions to insure that my children cannot get to my firearms (or theirs). I know not every parent does. But that's why we have freedoms in this country. You can't protect everyone and you can't use "the children" as an excuse to cripple the country. As sad as it sounds, there will be accidents. The solution to this is education. The schools need to allow gun education programs into the schools to take the mystery out of guns. I grew up in a house with loaded guns under the mattress, in the closet, etc.. We hunted, fished and camped. Guns were with us always and we were taught how to safely use them. The allure was just not there. We knew that if trouble came, get to a gun and shoot straight. Today is a different world, but still the same. We need to educate our kids about the one tool that has kept this country free for scores of years.

But other than that, I am completely floored that a person from the moderate left would have such a strong gun rights view. Kudos. You stayed off of my completely insane list.

NEXT!

I think reasonable requirements for safekeeping are not just a necessity for saving lives, but the pocketbook of the gun owner. In today's litigious society, gun owners will be responsible if accidents happen with their guns, but if your gun was in a safe and say one of your children's friends broke into the safe and was later injured by your gun, you could at least have a reasonable defense in court.

CCTAU-- curious, but what kind of firearm education would you want to see in schools? I think if the education involved actually shooting weapons, the school could be liable if someone were killed during class while trying to fire a live weapon. My husband was on his high school's rifle team, so something like that for older children I would be ok with, but not sure I would want something like that to be mandatory.

In MD, you cannot get a hunting license without first going through a state approved hunter's safety course. When we took our class, there were several kids there with their parents. A lot of the course focused around gun and bow safety, which I thought was very helpful-- I thought it was a great way to help educate those who want to exercise their right to own a firearm. What do you think about programs like that?

[hccobb 0]

Firearm education is gun safety. Not being afraid or curious about something because it's been declared off-limits really helps lower the incidents of accidents. When you kid is taught to respect a weapon, understand how to use it, and understand the conditions on when they are allow to use it then they become much less tempting or much less scary depending on the individual.

I think the latest you should begin firearm safety and education is when you decide your child can stay home all day while you go to work. Ideally it would be before then, but I think that's the latest it should happen.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I own guns.So don't start responding that this is about some libbie wanting to do away right to protect ourselves.But here I go...

The anti-abortion politicans and right wingers say that abortion should be decided at the state level.That is what they are trying to do,right.Put laws on the books in individual statesand then letting it fighting its way up the courts.So..........if abortion is a state issue,why isn't handgun control.Here we have a state(i know d.c. is not a state,but for argument sake,let's pretend it is)deciding on an constitutional issue of feedom and the right doesn't like it.

Again, I love my guns,but where is the consisteny in the argument.

Once again a true leader in logic. I guess if you use a gun to abort a baby then it would apply. But until there is an abortion amendment, you have apples and oranges.....and not just the ones in your head.

Naw,we just use coat hangers in Georgia

[CCTAU 3,349]

I listened to the arguments yesterday, and have to say I agree with hccobb's analysis. I think the Court will find for the individual in this case.

I am completely FOR the right to own a gun. In fact, we own guns in our house and that's why we don't live in DC, but a mile away from the line.

That being said, I am for reasonable restrictions such as: licensing, background checks, and requirements for safe keeping. I am ok with allowing the states to decide on the concealment issue (although I personally have no problem with concealed weapons). I am also ok with taking away someone's right to legally own a gun if they are a felon, etc.

Putting aside the statistics each side of the debate will throw around, if you aren't interested in owning a gun-- you can CHOOSE to not exercise that right. I am still baffled as to why, if you don't have an interest in owning a gun, it bothers you so much if someone else does. The criminals will always own guns no matter what the law says, so violence by guns will still continue.

Please. Would the alien that has taken over Channonc's mind, give it back. I am floored to hear these words. This would make twice that we have agreed on something. I can't remember the other thing, but at least it made a big enough impression for me to remember the impression.

The only thing I disagree with is the requirements for safe keeping. The point of having a gun is to defend ourself. The people who make the requirements for safe keeping are also the same one's who want you to be disarmed. Having a Fort Knox at my house to keep my gun in, just might create a problem for me when I need to get to it. But as a parent, I have taken precautions to insure that my children cannot get to my firearms (or theirs). I know not every parent does. But that's why we have freedoms in this country. You can't protect everyone and you can't use "the children" as an excuse to cripple the country. As sad as it sounds, there will be accidents. The solution to this is education. The schools need to allow gun education programs into the schools to take the mystery out of guns. I grew up in a house with loaded guns under the mattress, in the closet, etc.. We hunted, fished and camped. Guns were with us always and we were taught how to safely use them. The allure was just not there. We knew that if trouble came, get to a gun and shoot straight. Today is a different world, but still the same. We need to educate our kids about the one tool that has kept this country free for scores of years.

But other than that, I am completely floored that a person from the moderate left would have such a strong gun rights view. Kudos. You stayed off of my completely insane list.

NEXT!

I think reasonable requirements for safekeeping are not just a necessity for saving lives, but the pocketbook of the gun owner. In today's litigious society, gun owners will be responsible if accidents happen with their guns, but if your gun was in a safe and say one of your children's friends broke into the safe and was later injured by your gun, you could at least have a reasonable defense in court.

CCTAU-- curious, but what kind of firearm education would you want to see in schools? I think if the education involved actually shooting weapons, the school could be liable if someone were killed during class while trying to fire a live weapon. My husband was on his high school's rifle team, so something like that for older children I would be ok with, but not sure I would want something like that to be mandatory.

In MD, you cannot get a hunting license without first going through a state approved hunter's safety course. When we took our class, there were several kids there with their parents. A lot of the course focused around gun and bow safety, which I thought was very helpful-- I thought it was a great way to help educate those who want to exercise their right to own a firearm. What do you think about programs like that?

The NRA has a great program involving Eddie Eagle. No guns are involved, just education.

For true gun safety, a responsible adult must teach a child to respect, properly transport, carry, and shoot a weapon. Now I'm not talking handgun here. But it is true that education does equal a large part of safety. But like most things erroneously labeled taboo in our society, you really need to be able to see and feel. Dummy guns can be used and the children do not have to know they are not real. But this is something that must be done in small groups. For schools, programs like the Eddie Eagle can explain and take away a lot of the allure.

But to dictate storage of guns is a violation of my personal rights. And I do not have a problem if a parent asks if I have guns and are they safely put away before friends come over. As a parent I have the responsibility to keep my children safe. It's not the government's responsibility to come in my house and tell me how to do it. Dang, you almost had me there.

[OldNewby 27]

At stake in the gun case

The Washington Times ^ | 3-19-08 | Robert A. Levy

Does the Constitution grant individuals the right to bear arms, or is that right reserved exclusively for members of a "well-regulated militia"? After 69 years of silence on the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court took up that question yesterday in the historic case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a challenge to the District's ban on all functional firearms.

I helped bring this case to court on behalf of six Washington, D.C., residents who want to keep functional firearms in their homes to defend themselves and their families should the need arise. But D.C. law bans all handguns not registered before 1976 and requires that lawfully owned shotguns and rifles in the home be kept unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. There is no exception for self-defense. D.C., often known as the "murder capital of the nation," cannot defend its citizens and will not allow them to defend themselves.

This case requires, at a minimum, two findings from the Supreme Court: First, the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms — not a right limited to persons engaged in state militia service. Second, the District's ban on all functional firearms violates that individual right and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

An outpouring of modern scholarship — much of it by liberal constitutional scholars, like Laurence Tribe at Harvard and Akhil Amar at Yale — supports the view that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. After all, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, the part of the Constitution explicitly designed to secure individual rights. And the text of the Amendment refers to the "right of the people" — the same people mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

More at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...NTARY/517800568

[autiger4life 3]

The only thing I disagree with is the requirements for safe keeping. The point of having a gun is to defend ourself. The people who make the requirements for safe keeping are also the same one's who want you to be disarmed. Having a Fort Knox at my house to keep my gun in, just might create a problem for me when I need to get to it. But as a parent, I have taken precautions to insure that my children cannot get to my firearms (or theirs). I know not every parent does. But that's why we have freedoms in this country. You can't protect everyone and you can't use "the children" as an excuse to cripple the country. As sad as it sounds, there will be accidents. The solution to this is education. The schools need to allow gun education programs into the schools to take the mystery out of guns. I grew up in a house with loaded guns under the mattress, in the closet, etc.. We hunted, fished and camped. Guns were with us always and we were taught how to safely use them. The allure was just not there. We knew that if trouble came, get to a gun and shoot straight. Today is a different world, but still the same. We need to educate our kids about the one tool that has kept this country free for scores of years.

But other than that, I am completely floored that a person from the moderate left would have such a strong gun rights view. Kudos. You stayed off of my completely insane list.

I hate to completely blow your mind, but I actually completely agree with you on this. I think I agree with you on everything you said.

I understand the arguement of kids getting hurt in accidents, but I also saw that there is almost the same number of accidental killings as there are accidental pool drownings, so if we outlaw one we gotta outlaw the other, when in reality it was probably just an accident or a irresponsible parent.

I am very conservative when it comes to gun laws.

I think reasonable requirements for safekeeping are not just a necessity for saving lives, but the pocketbook of the gun owner. In today's litigious society, gun owners will be responsible if accidents happen with their guns, but if your gun was in a safe and say one of your children's friends broke into the safe and was later injured by your gun, you could at least have a reasonable defense in court.

Wouldn't it be nice? But if you had a gun in your house and it required a fingerprint scan and passwords out the yazoo and there was an accident, you still would be sued and you would lose. If you don't believe me see dog in fenced in back yard and fenced in pools. It is called juries who decide on sympathy, not logic. We also should litigate based on someone being scared of being sued when they shouldn't be, we should litigate to make sure that doesn't happen.

[pensacola tiger 0]

Because there is nothing specifically in the constitution addressing abortion. The second amendment directly addresses the issue of gun ownership. The constitution states that anything not directly addressed in the constitution is reserved for the states. The Supreme Court has, over many years, bastardized the constitution by allowing federal laws concerning issues not addressed in the constitution and by interpreting what is in the constitution in ways probably never intended by the authors thereof. To digress from the constitutional issue....the DC law states that people cannot have handguns in their homes. This law was written decades ago. Since then the crime rate in DC has risen dramatically. (These facts from ABC Nightly News tonight.) So I guess the law didn't mean much to the criminals. Go figure.

Not only are handguns banned, but your long guns must be disassembled and trigger-locked. The argument the defenders of the DC ban make is that the amendment is only there to protect the FedGov from disarming a state militia (i.e. National Guard) and that it only protects weapons suitable for militia service. DC argues that handguns are not militia weapons and that the disabling of long guns is legitimate because they can be assembled for milita use and that the second amendment has nothing to do with the right of self defense.

After listening to the oral arguments yesterday I feel pretty good that the court will find for the individual right, and that an outright ban is verboten. However, I fear they may kick the issue of "reasonable" restrictions back down to the lower courts - which means it will be years before unreasonable gun laws get struck down. However, with a probable Obama presidency on the horizon I find this somewhat reassuring.

As to abortion...what? Abortion isn't a right protected by the bill of rights...so it gets kicked back to the states in a states' rights issue. The 14A says that if a right reserved if not protected by the Constitution then it's up to the states. Firearms are directly protected by the bill of rights.

I thought that was what I said. Glad we agree.

[channonc 466]

I think reasonable requirements for safekeeping are not just a necessity for saving lives, but the pocketbook of the gun owner. In today's litigious society, gun owners will be responsible if accidents happen with their guns, but if your gun was in a safe and say one of your children's friends broke into the safe and was later injured by your gun, you could at least have a reasonable defense in court.

Wouldn't it be nice? But if you had a gun in your house and it required a fingerprint scan and passwords out the yazoo and there was an accident, you still would be sued and you would lose. If you don't believe me see dog in fenced in back yard and fenced in pools. It is called juries who decide on sympathy, not logic. We also should litigate based on someone being scared of being sued when they shouldn't be, we should litigate to make sure that doesn't happen.

Unfortunately, there are a lot more anti-gun people than anti-pool or anti-dog. A child drowning in a pool will not get as much of an outcry as a child who is accidentally killed with a gun. Sad, but true.