- ‹ previous
- 5488 of 8922
- next ›
D.C.'s Gun Ban Could Be Headed to the Supreme Court, Gun Laws Beware
Last month, I interviewed Robert Levy, the Cato Institute senior fellow and constitutional lawyer, who successfully used a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment to overturn the D.C. gun ban in March. When the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Levy's case, Parker v. District of Columbia, it dissolved the strictest gun regulations on the books in any state and marked the first time this interpretation of the Second Amendment has been used to successfully overturn a state's gun law. When Levy and I spoke about his victory, he mentioned the likelihood that Parker would go before the Supreme Court. Today, that likelihood just got greater. The D.C. federal appeals court denied D.C.'s request for a second ruling before the entire court. (Originally, the case was heard before a three-judge panel.) So, Levy is likely off to the Supreme Court. Gun laws beware! If Parker is upheld in the Supreme Court, the ruling will jeopardize state gun laws across the nation, making them vulnerable to more legal challenges.
Poor NRA gunloons.These loons have so much guns and ammo on the brain that the lead content in their heads is dragging them down so far they'll soon need a new planet with less gravity to keep their faces out of the dirt.
So here they are, people who have very low self esteem and want more than anything else to be respected. To gain that respect, they yammer out some of the most inane conspiracy crap you ever want to hear. Adults whose favorite game is dressing up like the soldiers they never were and playing with assault rifles on weekends. Though it sounds ludicrous, this form of self-help actually works. They do gain respect, respect of thousands of other morons whose favorite pastime is dressing up like the soldiers they never were and playing with assault rifles on weekends. There are millions of them.
What comes next? That noisy desperation many suffer to the meaninglessness of it all; that having peaked at the starting gate and seeing it now as only a downhill roll, they join a militia. It's the first step in the 12 Step Militia program, "My name is Bubba, and I'm a moron."
In just one year the NRA spent $50 million to tell kids that playing with guns is a more important constitutional right than the freedom of speech or voting.
Bash the NRA all you want, but tread lightly when bashing gun ownership. As a liberal gun owner, I caution my liberal brothers and sisters to not lump all gun owners into the same basket as those joining militias. Gun owners are all over the political spectrum. All you will do is drive people that normally identify themselves as liberals or moderates into the welcoming arms of right. Is that what you want?
blue is right. Gun ownership crosses the political boundaries. It's time for liberals to come up with a coherent gun policy. The NRA has a coherent policy, to sell as many guns as possible, to anyone, and to oppose all regulation. But the anti-gun (more properly the gun-regulation) movement is neither coherent nor credible. Anti-gun positions are mere posturing since the Democrats won't touch gun legislation with a barge-pole. The Repubs use guns as a wedge issue, and very succesfully. Liberal parties could flip the wedge if they developed a reasonable, palatible regime of regulation in exchange for expanded gun rights for enthusiasts. As it is now, being an airline passenger is more tightly regulated than being a gun owner. Many earnest gun-rights-supporters see that as a true anomoly.
I work at night and I pack a small 25 cal.pistol(pearl handle) in my purse. Only had to use it once. Honey, we women who work at night need protection. It doesn't matter what they say in DC, we will take care of ourselves, like we always have done.
I just want to say having gone to a gun show in Texas a few years ago, I found myself in a room full of the most disgusting people in my experience. It was the closest I had come face to face with the Klan, the Aryan Nations, and most ubiquitous of all, unreconstructed Neo-Confederates. There were so many nitwits in their camo outfits, bandoleers, shaved heads, creepy tattoos and lack of front teeth that it was obvious to me they should have gun shows with dental conventions in the same building at the same time.
The friend who dragged me there was after a Streetsweeper. So off we went through the crowd, many of whom carried assault weapons over their shoulders and handguns in hand with price tags dangling from them, selling to anyone with cash no questions asked. The crowd at the Streetsweeper booth was large, after all, what could be more gunfun than a semi automatic shotgun that fires a dozen 12 gauge shells through a big rolling drum as fast as you can pull the trigger? Big-Big-gun-gun fun-fun!
My pal, a wannabe bounty hunter who looked the part, had no trouble finding full automatic switch kits, and even someone selling silencers. There was also more hate Clinton, Schumer, Brady and Liberals bumper stickers than at a GOP convention. More than anything, these shows are meeting places for the most violent contingent of the extreme Right-wing and gang culture in this country.
To be fair, I must say that most of the big busy booths were run by sporting goods manufacturers and their local distributors. They make enough money day to day selling their guns and ammo that they could easily stop pandering to these Right-wing extremists and pull out of gun shows all together.
Bibbenr, we are known by the company we keep. I don't associate with people who want Streetsweepers to feel important. A real Bounty Hunter would just get a 9mmm Glock that is more than sufficent for that job. A good Bounty Hunter uses his brain so he will never incur the legal liability of using a gun. It is true about gun shows that it does attract some people like Bubba who want a Streetsweeper to feel important, but there are also serious sportsmen there. Some people drive big pick up trucks to feel important, but they are killing us with the green house gases.
We're going in the wrong direction. We need much, much tougher gun laws.
Hey Bigbenr, you should relax. Maybe you shouldn't go to anymore gun shows if you can't handle the heat. (Your friend seems like a real charmer looking for shotguns designed to "sweep the street".) Sure, they're are some sickos at those things, but there are plenty of law-abidding citizens there too. (I'd venture to say you would say your friend is in the latter?)
Plus, I bet some of those freakos are the same ones that tourch animal labs, bomb ski lodges that might be displacing rare owls, or put spikes in trees for loggers. The right wing doesn't have the market cornered on sickos.
Do you honestly believe that the NRA is a source for honest information? Do you understand that the NRA is the most powerful extremist conservative political lobby in America?
So what options are possible? After decades in this debate I can see only one answer, one that is the most reasonable to all concerned: Licensing all firearms purchased and possessed. Of course the NRA extremists will scream bloody murder and perhaps blow up a building or go on a shooting rampage, but it is a workable solution. Though it is somewhat of a cop-out for gun control advocates by not actually addressing the violence, it does at least give the rest of us a modicum of security knowing that it will help law enforcement better find whatever armed criminals or terrorists need rounding up. Registration does not butt heads with the 2nd Amendment for the regulated phrase, it takes no one's gun away, and it is fully in tune with the NRA constantly tossing out their argument about Switzerland where everyone has a gun. Guns are not only registered there, but the owners are members of the Swiss militia reserve. Also keep in mind that the NRA clamors loudly for concealed carry laws which all require registration. A nominal registration fee could be used for gun safety classes and to victims of gun violence. There really is nothing wrong with this idea at all other than having to deal with the NRA who has bought off most of congress. But perhaps this idea has common ground enough to take them on. The people vs. the NRA in a winner-take-all cage match.
And one more control. No sales of guns from gunshows. A 13 year old with a FU tattoo on his forehead can buy a case of UZIs at a gunshow.
I understand that all of the conservatives believe that the Supreme Court is on their side in this but I suggest you take another look. You now have a moajority of five 'strict constructionist' jurors on the Supreme Court. Every one of them may adhere to the 'for the Militia only' interpretation. It is going to be interesting to see how this truly plays out (and to think a liberal brought the case forward).
As a 'liberal' and a gun owner I believe the writing is on the wall for this to turn to what the neo-cons need to get their agenda through. They need a compliant and UNARMED populace. They now have a Supreme Court that will give them what they want. And to think you REALLY believe the Republicans are on your side. They are systematically taking away right after right by way of this President's unprecedented signing statements and tacking on laws in the middle of the night.
Now, they are putting in place their private army - 'Blackwater' - to do their bidding. If you consider how easy it was for the Nazi party to rise to power over a relatively short period of time by getting people to agree to have their own rights taken away, then you just might begin to understand how the neo-cons are going to accomplish their feat.
Brand me a conspiracy theorist if you need to but I suggest you start reading a little history and start looking at how they have been changing the laws you think they protect. Those nasty liberal 'intellectuals' can tell you exactly where this can end up. Maybe you better learn a little more. I know I have and I am VERY WARY of these guys that just want to PROTECT US.
I will keep learning, keep my own guns and protect myself thank you very much. Something tells me I have to in order to make sure my grandchildren have the same freedom I have enjoyed.
A number of liberal..., yes I said Liberal law scholars have been coming to the conclusion that the second amendment, like all the rest of the first 9 amendments of the bill of rights, actually protects the rights of the individual.
It's not an assignment of a particular power to government, which would be entirely out of place.
Here's an excerpt from one of those liberal law scholars:
Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
"My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise," Professor Tribe said. "I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control."
The first two editions of Professor Tribe's influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.
Here's the thought provoking article it came from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/us/07firearms.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
PoliticalCritic wrote:
"We're going in the wrong direction. We need much, much tougher gun laws."
PoliticalCritic, over the course of my lifetime (which goes back into the 1950s), Americans have gone from a situation where anyone over 18 could walk into the local hardware store and buy just about any firearm they wanted, short of one that was fully automatic.
No government paperwork.
No license required for it.
Or, you could do it by mail-order.
It was considered to be an American's Right.
Today, we have over 25,000 Federal, State and Local laws providing hoops that must be jumped through by law-abiding Americans who wish to own a firearm.
So, do you think violent crime has been reduced accordingly as a result of the exponential growth of "gun control" laws?
Is there something that makes you believe that we're going to suddenly start to experience positive results if we'll just keep doing more and more of what's, up to now, been a miserable failure at it's stated purpose?
Nice gvc! I pose a similar question to you. What makes you believe that you are suddenly going to convince people who've avoided common sense and facts and favor blaming an inanimate object?
Sorry bigbenr, but the people and the NRA seem to be in agreement that more laws will do nothing to prevent violence. Gun control is a political hot potato that the Dems would be best to avoid...
Buddy Hinton raped me. Hinton had a gun and he raped me. I remember only bits and pieces of the attack. He didn't stop and although I said "no" many times and tried to fight him, he raped me. I don't remember how he got my shorts off, and my gun belt but sometimes understanding the person I was before I was raped is a very difficult task for me. Im a shadowy figure, transformed not only by time, but by the scarring of rape. And then he raped me again. I didn't scream, I was so used to it and I feel like I've got a good future ahead of me. I try to look forward, not back at what Buddy Hinton the moderator Sturmgewehr.com has done teh me.
Doug, if you had a nice pearl handle pistol in your purse, may be it would not have happened. I speak from experience.
Having a gun is like a security blanket. If the bad guys get the drop on you having it is worthless. Its presence may even be provocative and life threatening. However, if you walk with a little more swagger and are alert for potential problems, you can deter potential aggressors. It is great for retaliation, if you can find the bad guys quickly enough after the crime is committed. THAT is a gun nut's wet dream: drill a low life scumbag with bullets after he/she has robbed you of possessions, dignity and presence of mind.
We must not forget the great psychological benefits from having a gun. In some cultures the rifle can represent a phallic symbol. We must not deprive a person of their right to a pursuit of happiness. Take some gun classes and learn how to be like a law enforcement type. Apparently Latasha has learned hers on the street. I do not recommend street walking as a healthy classroom environment.
Fascinating to discover how well so many hoplophobes are able to see what goes on inside the heads of 80 million American firearms owners...
Here's something that may give a clue as to what goes on inside the heads of criminals, when they weigh their odds against an armed population, vs. one that prohibits their potential victims from effective defense:
"Violent crime is 81 percent higher in states that do not have concealed-carry laws than in those that do. Robbery is 105 percent higher and murder is 86 percent higher where law-abiding citizens are denied the right to carry concealed guns. Moreover, the FBI's annual crime figures for all 3,054 counties over a recent 15-year period show that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also had the largest drops in violent crimes."
Source: Investor's Business Daily editorial, May 8, 1998, p. A-32
Security blanket?
Maybe.
But if it is, it would seem to be one that keeps people safe and warm.
As Keith Olbermann frequently points out, the full text of the 2nd amendment has been conveniently truncated by the NRA to give those unwilling to actually read the Constitution an impression that the Founding Fathers created that amendment for the sole purpose of putting a gun into every empty hand. The right is for citizens to bear arms - as members of a well-trained militia. Militiae earned a bad name back in the 1990's (an example - Tim McVeigh and company) and the formation of such would be heavily discouraged by the department of Homeland Security these days.
Tim McVeigh used a bomb made from material that he bought(with the help of the Iraqi and the knowledge of the FBI) at the hardware store and it killed a lot more people(than the FBI thought) than any gun could. Let's get real. It is character that counts. America has turned their back on God and the judgement of God is upon us.
Keith Olbermann..., huh?
Well, the guys mentioned below aren't TV talking heads.
They're experts in the use of the English language, and they have a different view of what it means.
["In 1991, author J. Neil Schulman submitted the text of the Second Amendment to A. C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District and a former senior editor for Houghton Mifflin, and Roy Copperud, now deceased, the author of several well-regarded usage books and a member of the American Heritage Dictionary usage panel. Brocki and Copperud told Schulman that the right recognized in the amendment is unconditional and unrestricted as to who possesses it.
Asked if the amendment could be interpreted to mean that only the militia had the right, Brocki replied, "No, I can't see that." According to Copperud, "The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people." As to the relation of the militia to the people, Schulman paraphrased Brocki as saying, "The sentence means that the people are the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned."]
Sources:
http://www.largo.org/literary.html
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3230
If the founding fathers intended to limit the right to arms to members of militia organizations, why wouldn't they be explicit about it? Something on the order of: "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."? (They said: "the right of the PEOPLE...")
Why would they stick that very-limited "right" in the midst of an enumeration of Individual Rights, considered as held by all? Rights that, in every other case, are undisputedly held by "the people"?
And why would "the people" in every other usage within the document mean "The People", but not in this one lone case?
Would YOU argue that the statement:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
limits the right to keep and read books to only those actively participating in schooling?
Do you think Olbermann would?
Is Keith Olbermann better able to deconstruct a sentence than Brocki and Copperud, do you suppose?
Do his credentials as a TV talking head trump those of a member of the American Heritage Dictionary usage panel, and a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin, would you say?
I suppose Brocki & Copperud are among those Olbermann accuses of being unwilling to actually read the text of the Constitution for themselves..., therefore: NRA stooges.
To clarify this for everyone who has that knee-jerk, bash-the-NRA reaction to any story like this one: NRA actually tried to derail this man's suit. The point was made in the original article linked to in the first line of the article above.
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2007/02/robert_levy-3.html
I can well imagine NRA trembling at the thought of not having their big recruiting and donation "whip", (government will take your guns if you don't sign up and send $495 to us today!!)
That tool would shrivel considerably should the 2nd Amendment be determined to be an individual right, like the rest of the Bill of Rights is understood to be.
Remember, the Bill of Rights is about LIMITS on government powers over The People.
What is truly remarkable to me is that for all of the worthless ranting about gun-owner stereotypes the simple fact remains: In areas with lower per-capita gun ownership, crime is higher than in areas with higher per-capita gun ownership.
It has always interested me that when it comes to guns, the same people who campaign for social justice sound just like the ignorant, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic people they claim to be against.
JKW wrote: "..when it comes to guns, the same people who campaign for social justice sound just like the ignorant, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic people they claim to be against."
Oh crap!
They were hoping you wouldn't notice that!