Justices take on potentially landmark gun rights cases

2009-09-30 13:41:33

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5873

Setting the stage for a dramatic battle over gun rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted an appeal challenging the ability of state and local governments to enforce strict limits on handguns and other weapons.

The high court returned from its summer recess, meeting in private to consider thousands of pending appeals that have piled up the past three months.

The Second Amendment case from Chicago was the most anticipated of the petitions, and oral arguments will be held sometime early next year. Nine other cases were also accepted for review.

At issue is whether the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question has remained unanswered for decades, and gives the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow individuals expanded weapon ownership rights.

The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs.

The justices last year affirmed an individual right to possess handguns, tossing out restrictive laws in Washington.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/30/sco … index.html
So what do you think is going to end up happening from this? Should we all stock up on AR-15's in the mean time just encase?

2009-09-30 13:43:57

#2

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6855|Mountains of NC

We will just have to wait and see what happens

_{and a side note - I do have a AR for sale}

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2009-09-30 13:47:41

#3

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7002|US

In the near term, only those states with very restrictive laws would be forced to change. States with less-restrictive laws probably wouldn't suddenly become rabidly anti gun-rights.

I think Gura has a pretty good case for incorporation, and many believe the case is well tailored to focus on the issue of incorporation (Gura's focus in the Heller case probably determined the 5th swing vote). Even with Sotomayor's on the bench, the balance since the Heller case probably hasn't changed much.

Really, selective incorporation of the BoR was a mistake. The logical arguments for incorporation are pretty strong. Hopefully, the justices will agree.

_______
What kind?

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-09-30 13:48:07)

2009-09-30 13:48:03

#4

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5645|London, England

Those damn community activists from Chicago... They need to pick a political sphere and stick to it

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-01 03:57:05

#5

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

The text of the 2nd Amendment doesn't differentiate between state and federal. In fact, only "state" is mentioned.

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[4] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[5]
“ 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. ”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[6]
“ 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. ”

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

from our friends at wikipedia

Based on precedent--very recent precedent (Heller)--it would seem they would go the "thou shalt not infringe the right" route here. But the nuance of Heller's case being in DC (a Federal area) instead of a State/local area might make a difference. I wouldn't expect it to, but it might.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-10-01 05:26:18

#6

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

The only thing I would say is:
Its about time te NRA came up with some positive and workable suggestions on reducing the level of gun crime in the US.
It seems to be mostly illegally held guns, go to it.

Fuck Israel

2009-10-01 05:32:15

#7

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
The only thing I would say is:
Its about time te NRA came up with some positive and workable suggestions on reducing the level of gun crime in the US.
It seems to be mostly illegally held guns, go to it.

What, pray tell, does the NRA have to do with solving a law enforcement problem?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-10-01 05:34:39

#8

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
What, pray tell, does the NRA have to do with solving a law enforcement problem?

By increasing the easy availability of legally held firearms the illegal pool naturally increases too.
All we hear from the NRA is reasons to increase the legal pool, without acknowledgment of the above or suggestions on how to deal with it.

Fuck Israel

2009-10-01 06:55:11

#9

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5645|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
What, pray tell, does the NRA have to do with solving a law enforcement problem?
By increasing the easy availability of legally held firearms the illegal pool naturally increases too.
All we hear from the NRA is reasons to increase the legal pool, without acknowledgment of the above or suggestions on how to deal with it.

Shrug. Nothing you really can do. Even in countries where weapons are banned if a criminal wants one badly enough he will find one. The only thing you can do to hopefully curtail the crime rate is to make gun crime punishments stiffer and ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE SENTENCE. That last one is the big one. Sentencing a guy to 10 years and letting him out in two kind of sends the wrong message imo.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-01 07:07:15

#10

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7002|US

There are many factors influencing crime. The availability of firearms really has a fairly insignificant effect. For example, http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

Now, reducing violent crime by enforcing current laws and stiff sentences seems to work decently well (perhaps because repeat offenders aren't on the street while serving their sentences...) Look up "Project Exile" for an interesting case study.

2009-10-01 09:23:18

#11

loubot: O' HAL naw!; +470|6865|Columbus, OH

to allow individuals expanded weapon ownership rights

Maybe taking this out of context but it sounds like a prelude to legally carrying concealed firearm law. A Concealed Firearm permit in Chicago would be interesting and after a death of a 16 yr old honor-roll chicago high school student most concern citizens would want a less fire-arm restriction for protection.

2009-10-01 15:38:32

#12

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7002|US

loubot wrote:
to allow individuals expanded weapon ownership rights
Maybe taking this out of context but it sounds like a prelude to legally carrying concealed firearm law. A Concealed Firearm permit in Chicago would be interesting and after a death of a 16 yr old honor-roll chicago high school student most concern citizens would want a less fire-arm restriction for protection.

Huh? I don't understand your last sentence. Do you mean people would be more or less supportive of concealed carry permits?

Frankly, I think Chicago has been so anti-gun for so long that most local residents would be against CCW.
It's still a good idea.

Another case, Palmer v. DC is focusing on the right to bear arms, rather than just keep them. That one might be interesting too.

2009-10-01 22:10:19

#13

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
What, pray tell, does the NRA have to do with solving a law enforcement problem?
By increasing the easy availability of legally held firearms the illegal pool naturally increases too.
All we hear from the NRA is reasons to increase the legal pool, without acknowledgment of the above or suggestions on how to deal with it.
Shrug. Nothing you really can do. Even in countries where weapons are banned if a criminal wants one badly enough he will find one. The only thing you can do to hopefully curtail the crime rate is to make gun crime punishments stiffer and ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE SENTENCE. That last one is the big one. Sentencing a guy to 10 years and letting him out in two kind of sends the wrong message imo.

Where are guns banned?
Seriously, which country has a ban on guns?

2009-10-01 22:28:02

#14

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6888|132 and Bush

East Timor

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-10-01 22:49:51

#15

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

An true epitome of a development.

2009-10-02 04:00:59

#16

loubot: O' HAL naw!; +470|6865|Columbus, OH

RAIMIUS wrote:
loubot wrote:
to allow individuals expanded weapon ownership rights
Maybe taking this out of context but it sounds like a prelude to legally carrying concealed firearm law. A Concealed Firearm permit in Chicago would be interesting and after a death of a 16 yr old honor-roll chicago high school student most concern citizens would want a less fire-arm restriction for protection.
Huh? I don't understand your last sentence. Do you mean people would be more or less supportive of concealed carry permits?

In the full article it is explained legally purchasing a fire arm (hand gun) is difficult in Chicago, thus making it difficult for citizens to better protect themselves and their home.

Article: The community activist in the Chicago case, Otis McDonald lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago. He says his work helping improve his community has subjected him to violent threats from drug dealers and other criminals. But his application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation.

He was among several citizens who appealed the ordinance. A three-judge federal appeals court in Chicago -- composed of Republican appointees -- ruled in June for the city, concluding the Constitution and past high court precedent was vague on state versus individual fundamental powers.

What was I trying to say is: First the people want is less restriction on legally purchasing a fire-arm. Second, possibly, allowing a Concealed Carrying Permit law to pass.

Last edited by loubot (2009-10-02 04:01:15)

2009-10-02 04:36:01

#17

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
What, pray tell, does the NRA have to do with solving a law enforcement problem?
By increasing the easy availability of legally held firearms the illegal pool naturally increases too.
All we hear from the NRA is reasons to increase the legal pool, without acknowledgment of the above or suggestions on how to deal with it.

That argument is what is known as a non sequitur.

Increasing the legal availability of something legal does not increase the availability of something illegal that is of a similar nature. If anything, the opposite is the case.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-10-02 06:08:55

#18

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5645|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:
Where are guns banned?
Seriously, which country has a ban on guns?

Japan and the UK have severely restrictive firearms laws, no?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-02 06:11:39

#19

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6440|what

JohnG@lt wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
Where are guns banned?
Seriously, which country has a ban on guns?
Japan and the UK have severely restrictive firearms laws, no?

=/= a ban.

2009-10-02 06:21:20

#20

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5645|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
Where are guns banned?
Seriously, which country has a ban on guns?
Japan and the UK have severely restrictive firearms laws, no?
=/= a ban.

Shrug. Making something extremely difficult to purchase and own is essentially the same as banning it. The difference is that a complete ban would have people protesting and rioting whereas with restrictions, even severe ones, people still think they have the option. It's a big difference psychologically.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-02 06:28:02

#21

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

Increasing the legal availability of something legal does not increase the availability of something illegal that is of a similar nature. If anything, the opposite is the case.

There is always some leakage of legally held guns to criminals via theft.

Japan and the UK have severely restrictive firearms laws, no?

Handguns are essentially banned in the UK - except Northern Ireland.

Fuck Israel

2009-10-02 06:30:41

#22

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

Japan and the UK have severely restrictive firearms laws, no?
=/= a ban.
Shrug. Making something extremely difficult to purchase and own is essentially the same as banning it. The difference is that a complete ban would have people protesting and rioting whereas with restrictions, even severe ones, people still think they have the option. It's a big difference psychologically.

No I wouldn't say so at all. I'm not totally sure of the exact laws in those countries, but I hear Australia's aren't too different and here you just need to get some training, tick some boxes and have the right equipment, not too dissimilar to buying and using a car. And that hasn't stopped anyone before.

2009-10-02 06:41:24

#23

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

Depends.

In the UK you need a good reason, doctor's reference, character reference, gun safe inspected beforehand, spot checks whenever they feel like it - repeat every three years (at least it was three years last I heard.)
The police approve in advance each gun before you buy it, the dealer notifies the police once you have done so.
Every box of ammunition you buy is recorded on your license.

In Aus you also need a good reason, references, approved training, six month wait for your first handgun, another six months for your second.
Rifles and shotguns a little bit easier, you need a good reason and attend usually a one day course.
Police approve each and every gun including the serial number before you take possession, when you have bought it you take it to the police to be checked over.

In all cases you need a clean record before you start.
If you're accused of a moderately serious crime - eg drink-driving - you lose your license.
If you have a gun stolen you can expect to lose your license permanently also.

Very different from buying or using a car.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-02 06:43:45)

Fuck Israel

2009-10-02 06:48:11

#24

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5645|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends.

In the UK you need a good reason, doctor's reference, character reference, gun safe inspected beforehand, spot checks whenever they feel like it - repeat every three years (at least it was three years last I heard.)
The police approve in advance each gun before you buy it, the dealer notifies the police once you have done so.
Every box of ammunition you buy is recorded on your license.

In Aus you also need a good reason, references, approved training, six month wait for your first handgun, another six months for your second.
Rifles and shotguns a little bit easier, you need a good reason and attend usually a one day course.
Police approve each and every gun including the serial number before you take possession, when you have bought it you take it to the police to be checked over.

In all cases you need a clean record before you start.
If you're accused of a moderately serious crime - eg drink-driving - you lose your license.
If you have a gun stolen you can expect to lose your license permanently also.

Very different from buying or using a car.

The difference between that, and an outright ban, is infintesimal. It's designed to piss you off so much and give you so many headaches that you wouldn't want to own a gun in the first place. But, if you really really really wanted one you could get one so in that regard it stops people bitching about loss of freedoms.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-10-02 06:49:02)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-02 06:53:08

#25

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6962|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends.

In the UK you need a good reason, doctor's reference, character reference, gun safe inspected beforehand, spot checks whenever they feel like it - repeat every three years (at least it was three years last I heard.)
The police approve in advance each gun before you buy it, the dealer notifies the police once you have done so.
Every box of ammunition you buy is recorded on your license.

In Aus you also need a good reason, references, approved training, six month wait for your first handgun, another six months for your second.
Rifles and shotguns a little bit easier, you need a good reason and attend usually a one day course.
Police approve each and every gun including the serial number before you take possession, when you have bought it you take it to the police to be checked over.

In all cases you need a clean record before you start.
If you're accused of a moderately serious crime - eg drink-driving - you lose your license.
If you have a gun stolen you can expect to lose your license permanently also.

Very different from buying or using a car.
The difference between that, and an outright ban, is infintesimal. It's designed to piss you off so much and give you so many headaches that you wouldn't want to own a gun in the first place. But, if you really really really wanted one you could get one so in that regard it stops people bitching about loss of freedoms.

It's not that hard to get a gun here.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

BF2S Forums Justices take on potentially landmark gun rights cases

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

loubot wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

loubot wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer