9th Circuit Incorporates 2nd Amendment

[virginia mountainman]

Source: 9th Circuit Decision

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited.

Read more: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf

---

This is BIG NEWS..... For the first time ever, a federal court has found that the 2nd amendment is indeed incorporated into the Constitution through the 14th amendment, and it applies to the states.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Does this mean we can carry guns into the courtroom now?

Yay!

How about planes? :evilgrin:

[bossy22]

2. no

[D-Lee]

102. Decision FOUND NO GROUNDS TO CHALLENGE ordinance forbidding gun possession on county property

The post fails to report the result, which found that the county ordinance could not be properly challenged on 2d Amendment grounds.

Read the decision ...

[X_Digger]

107. Agreed, but!!

It does incorporate the second amendment against the states (in this circuit, at least.)

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’
First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although
we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated
against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s
refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.

[jody]

112. Please read the decision below.

"For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’
First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although
we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated
against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s
refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case."

[bemildred]

3. I look forward to finding out what this means. nt

[-..__...]

4. This is excellent news!!!

What makes this particularly welcome news is now there's a split in the circuit courts (2nd ruled that the Heller case does not apply to the states), and this will increase the likelihood that the SCOTUS will hear an incorporation case (bolstered by the Chicago handgun ban).

[Statistical]

59. Good in a roundabout way.

Bad that another court couldn't see the obvious.

The good news is that like you said this means SCOTUS will have to act.
Split precedent is a situation that can't stand.

2nd amendment incorporation is on a fast track to SCOTUS now.

In the Heller decision the judges all but stated their opinion on incorporation.

The decision has already been made we just need to go through the motions.

[NowHearThis]

5. BIG News. GOOD News.

All freedom-loving people should be thankful for this 9th Circuit Decision.

[tridim]

6. Muzzle-loaded flintlocks for all!

[bossy22]

7. don't forget about

revolvers and pistols

[AlbertCat]

91. Perhaps slavery could make a comeback too! And women can lose the vote!

It's 1789, y'all!

[X_Digger]

94. Riiight, because..

People want more gun control..

oh wait..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx

[Caliman73]

368. Amendments to the Constitution recognize and apply rights they don't take them away

We know that you are most likely opposed to firearms in a profoundly emotional way, but don't let that make you sound foolish by contradicting what the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments have done to protect and expand liberties.

[virginia mountainman]

8. Don't forget the quill pens, and hand cranked press.

Can't let the public have assault keyboards you know..

[hack89]

9. Along with quills and manual printing presses

we know that the Bill of Rights can't apply to modern technology like TV, the internet, etc etc

[tridim]

11. I guess you and V.Mountainman got the same talking points.

:rofl:

[ShareTheWoods]

14. As if Muzzle-loaded flintlocks are not a talking point?

ROTFLMOL

[tridim]

52. All my opinions on the issue of guns are my own

But I do know that the founding fathers were referring to state of the art arms of the era when they penned the bill of rights.

[ShareTheWoods]

65. All of my opinions on any and all issues are my own

But I do know that the founding fathers were not referring to computers in the era when they penned the bill of rights.

[tridim]

72. Yes, two people have already used that talking point.

We're talking about the Second Amendment, not the First.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

270. The Muzzle loaded flintlock talking point is used here about 10 times a week.

[virginia mountainman]

16. They come from the US Bill of Rights..

Freedom....

You are the one, using twisted logic, that endangers the rest of the Document...

After all, if the 2nd Amendment ONLY apples to flintlocks...

The 1st ONLY applies to quill pens... Wonder what the bill of rights says about say, the Internet..

You can laugh at it, all you want, but the "flintlock" argument is incredibly dangerous to the bill of rights, as a whole.

It is an argument a Republican would use........

[AlbertCat]

105. Printing presses do not kill people.

I'll bet you a cow and some panniers that the Founding Fathers would not approve of the average citizen owning a machine gun. They had the printing press then, y'know. The printing press today, though very different, does the same thing. A gun back then shot once and then was reloaded. It is very different now and does not do the same thing. Instead of killing one or two people in a minute, it can kill 50. Ignoring this is dangerous. Banning guns is foolish. Some laws concerning proving you are responsible enough to own a gun in this day and age is paramount.

Printing lots of leaflets and distributing them electronically is not dangerous to other citizens....in a physical sense.

"Freedom of speech" is not dependent on the quill, or the printing press. Owning a gun REQUIRES a gun!!!

And the Militia part means nothing? Why is that there? Why is it written first?

Why do gun-nuts pretend to be so dense?

[X_Digger]

113. Err.. Jonestown? Crusades?

More people have been killed by the words in assorted religious tracts than all the guns in the world's history.

[provis99]

125. weren't the people in Jonestown killed by machine guns?

You're not helping yourself.

[X_Digger]

128. No, they 'drank the kool-aid' literally and figuratively. n/t

[backwoodsbob]

325. Jonestown is where the term

drinking the kool-aid came from.

[X_Digger]

330. Yup! n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

139. Why didn't *you* know that some of the Founding Fathers owned their own artillery?

And one of them, John Hancock, owned and fought his own warships?

Granted, he was the Bill Gates of colonial America, but by *your* standards we should be able
to buy shares in a destroyer!

[TheWraith]

364. Actually, the courts have long explained that the "militia" preface DOES mean nothing.

What it's there for is to explain why the right needs to be protected, not to limit it's protection.

[X_Digger]

365. For example..

"Pizza being necessary for a late night study session, the right of the people to keep and bear tomatoes and cheese shall not be infringed."

[TheWraith]

366. Something like that. :D

[Caliman73]

372. It is safe to make a bet that cannot be proven or disproven

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows what the founders would think about the transformations in our society regarding the applications of the Bill of Rights. Some of the founders thought that the citizenry was supreme, others thought controls were needed for fear of the mob. They were diverse figures who did not agree with each other as evidenced by their own writings. You are infusing your own prejudices into what you might want them to say.

There are conditions on all of the rights we practice. Speech can and has motivated people to commit horrendous acts of violence. It can be very dangerous which is why there are certain limits on the practice. Firearms have also been misused and caused harm which is why there are laws against the misuse and limits on the practice of the right to keep and bear arms.

The militia is every able bodied citizen (because of our history of sexism, only men) who must at a time of crisis, be available to come to the defense of the state and nation. But the right of the People to keep and bear arms is what is not to be infringed. In every other amendment "the people" means individual people. Why would "the people" not mean individuals in the 2nd.

Finally, calling people "gun nuts" shows your own bias and irrational attitudes.

[DrCory]

427. Who Is Dense? Or Pretending to be Such?

Ha! You just made a bet on a position you cannot prove. Unless you can provide some evidence that any Founder specifically mentions prohibitions on "machine guns", you best have the cow and panniers ready. If the other fellow doesn't take them, I'll happily accept!

As the Founders did not have an objection to ordinary folk privately possessing the state-of-the-art small-arms weaponry of their era, why would they not approve the same today? Oh, and spare me the nukes, tanks, etc. strawman argument, just answer the question honestly.

[X_Digger]

431. They approved of civilians having canon

John Hancock (big signature guy) was a privateer with a fleet of ships armed with cannon. I don't doubt they'd be fine with machine guns.

[hack89]

46. No - we know better than to trivialize the Bill of Rights

do you really believe that the 2nd amendment only applies to weapons in use in the 1770's?

[tridim]

56. Of course not.

But I know the founding fathers weren't thinking about blinged-up assault weapons when they wrote the document.

[jody]

115. Please read the Heller decision so you know what the current law of the lands says about arms. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

They were thinking about privately owned, cannon equipped warships

...because John Hancock- (you know him: big signature on the Declaration of Independence, insurance company)
owned several.

If you are going to use an historical analogy, you'd better be sure you really know the history!

Maybe I could throw in with some other historical-minded types and get a fractional ownership share of
a PBR replica. A couple of nice green Tier IV compliant diesels in lieu of the original engines, and
a single 25mm Bushmster cannon to replace the twin MA2 mount forward.

Ought to make for some interesting conversation down at the local marina...

[hack89]

279. They were thinking about the standard military small arm of the day

now we have a somewhat restricted version of that in that real military assault rifles are not sold to civilians in America.

[DrCory]

426. You Can Read The Minds of the Dead?

"But I know the founding fathers weren't thinking about blinged-up assault weapons when they wrote the document."

How do you know this? Can you provide evidence of any of the Founders mentioning "blinged-up assault weapons"?

In addition, if they had no issue with citizens possessing state-of-the-art firearms which existed at that time, what makes you think they would regarding assault weapons. Were common folk restricted by law to matchlocks, a decidedly inferior weapon compared to the firelock? Were breech loaders banned?

[-..__...]

23. Will you settle for no nukes?

Sounds like at least one of the justices might have taken a cue from the anti-gun crowd here (except that no "penises" nor any other phallic comparisons were made)...

Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protec-
tion against both external threat and internal tyranny, the rec-
ognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment,
and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the
states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of
weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of
the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could
sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right
to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home
for self-defense

[Lautremont]

162. The question is, will you - that is, lovers of weapons - settle for no nukes?

Why are they not arms in the eyes of the Second Amendment? Surely not simply because they didn't exist when it was written. So there's a line somewhere, and it seems to me it would have to be an arbitrary one. People who truly believe their home arsenal is meant to defend against "external threats and internal tyranny" could, it seems to me, reasonably argue they'll need something more powerful than their pop guns to do it. Because they will.

So where is the line drawn, and why do you, as a gun lover, stand for it being drawn so arbitrarily, and for that matter at all?

[-..__...]

283. Let them argue all they want...

because realistically, no one or no pro-RKBA organization that I know of is seriously claiming that individuals have a Constitutional right to own or posses nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. And even if there were, there isn't a court in the land (now or in the future), that would uphold that definition.

The whole possession of WMDs as a Constitutional right argument is a disingenuous smokescreen and is about as valid as the fundies proclaiming that gay marriage will lead to cohabitation and fornication with animals.

Gun controllers want to define where a "reasonable" line is drawn, and yet even in this very thread (as well as many others), they proclaim that the 2nd only protects the right to own firearms that were in existence at the time the 2nd amendment was authored.

Does that sound "reasonable" or realistic to you?

[Lautremont]

287. I'm just curious about where the line is drawn from the gun enthusiast side

and why it's drawn there in particular as opposed to somewhere else, and why that line isn't as arbitrary as one drawn by the gun controller side.

[X_Digger]

290. For those in liberal gun states..

..they're happy to leave it where the line is because any motion of the line is likely to result in a loss somewhere else.

Why are they okay with the line being where it is? For me, it's because the rules we have now aren't onerous for the activities and firearms I have or plan to have. My privacy isn't invaded to any great degree, nor am I placed on some 'watch list' for my purchases. The government stays out of my business as long as I commit no crime.

The majority of gun owners are fine with the regulations we have- NICS checks on purchases made from a federal firearms dealer, no waiting periods in most states, no 'limits' on the number of firearms in a certain timeframe. No registry of gun owners (officially), no ammunition tracking, reloaders can make their own ammunition, no limits on magazine size.

If one wants to have a fully automatic machinegun, grenades, even a fully functioning tank- one can do so. It'll cost a huge chunk of money, FBI background check, random BATFE searches, fingerprinting, local LEO sign-off..

The last major 'win' for the pro-gun group was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which also had some poison pills. The ultimate aim of recent action re Heller & Nordyke are more about codifying the line nationally and removing state and local regulations that move the line from one place to another.

[Lautremont]

295. These background checks and random searches sound quite creepy to me

and definitely flies in the face of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Why do you stand for it? I realize you're worried that agitating for further freedoms might result in some loss of firearm freedom elsewhere, but, frankly, that seems a little selfish to me. Maybe not selfish, but definitely self-directed, while meanwhile those who might be enthusiastic about collecting larger-gauge, faster action devices are left out in the cold, or in a creepy dystopian world of excessive regulation.

Forgive me, but it seems to me you're playing a game of political convenience, which also seems counter to the spirit of fighting for second amendment rights. Your willingness to fight for the amendment ends where your particular hobby ends. No wonder gun rights are in constant danger.

[X_Digger]

297. No right is completely unregulated

Even the most diehard gun supporter wouldn't advocate the freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater without consequences. Nor would the most ardent voter registration advocate say that you should be able to walk up to a poll and say 'I live here, let me vote' without some kind of ID. The line is drawn in most cases at what becomes onerous, or limiting to the right. If a particular law or ordinance has the effect of limiting the right without a commensurate expectation of public good- out it goes.

A good example is the '94 Assault Weapons Ban. All rifles (not just scary looking ones) are used in less than 3% of crimes, yet they were banned. After the ban expired, there wasn't a rash of assault weapon crimes- latest DoJ figures hold steady at <3% (the same as they were during the ban.) That's one reason the vote was 90-8 to let it die.

Regarding automatic weapons, grenades, tank guns, etc- there is a path to legal ownership that comes with added responsibility / oversight. Due to the indiscriminate nature of these weapons in usage, I feel that justified (though I would like to see the registry opened up again.) I can see your point, and there is a bit of political convenience. I'm also in favor of open carry of firearms, but I realize that the hissy fit that would ensue isn't worth the benefit- maybe if a large portion of the gun owners in open carry states did it, and not just a few.

[Lautremont]

303. A few more questions

(and thanks for indulging my curiosity, by the way):

What do you mean by the "indiscriminate nature" of automatic weapons etc.? My thought is that, at rest, these items are hunks of metal like any gun - there's nothing particularly indiscriminate about them. All guns are serious things (that's my opinion only - not intended as an indictment or insult), and their potential danger doesn't seem to me tied in with their size or speed, but rather by their use. Why penalize people because of what they're particularly interested in?

Setting aside the movie theater scenario for a moment - I agree gun supporters wouldn't advocate for that freedom, but that seems beside the point - I think the real die-hards would advocate for virtually limitless gun rights. If you take it as a given both that (pardon the cliché) guns don't kill people, people do; and that gun freedoms are enshrined to every citizen by the constitution, then you would not be against extending these freedoms to even felons who have paid their debt to socity and the psychologically unbalanced, as they are citizens too. There is nothing in the second amendment about restricting the right to bear arms in this way.

I understand what you mean about hissy fits, I think. But why do you suppose the public has such fits? Is it a lack of education? Should firearm education be made a part of a basic education perhaps - range time instead of gym class, say, and both field and written tests that must be passed before graduation is allowed? Just blue-skying here, but there must be some reason people get (ha ha) up in arms about guns, and it's probably because they need a lesson to be taught.

I'm not American, and from my perspective not only the right but the need and the desire to bear arms is a very American trait - I can't figure the resistance to gun rights you regularly encounter in the public sentiment. It seems rather un-American when you get down to it.

[X_Digger]

310. A few responses..

(and thanks for indulging my curiosity, by the way):

No problem! I'll break up my responses point by point.

What do you mean by the "indiscriminate nature" of automatic weapons etc.? My thought is that, at rest, these items are hunks of metal like any gun - there's nothing particularly indiscriminate about them. All guns are serious things (that's my opinion only - not intended as an indictment or insult), and their potential danger doesn't seem to me tied in with their size or speed, but rather by their use. Why penalize people because of what they're particularly interested in?

Having fired a legal full auto weapon at a shooting event, I can safely say that you know where the first round is going to go, but the ones after that? Only a general area. A 'cone' of fire would be more accurate.

Setting aside the movie theater scenario for a moment - I agree gun supporters wouldn't advocate for that freedom, but that seems beside the point - I think the real die-hards would advocate for virtually limitless gun rights. If you take it as a given both that (pardon the cliché) guns don't kill people, people do; and that gun freedoms are enshrined to every citizen by the constitution, then you would not be against extending these freedoms to even felons who have paid their debt to socity and the psychologically unbalanced, as they are citizens too. There is nothing in the second amendment about restricting the right to bear arms in this way.

I don't know of any group of folks who advocate that position (zero regulation). It might be the logical extension of the of quoted mantra, but I see those kind of statements more as an emotional response to the 'OMG, teh gunz!' rhetoric than a serious position. (Well, sorta.. there are multiple ways to interpret that statement- 'fix social injustice and the things that make people criminals' or 'don't blame the tool, blame the tool user'.) Just as inflammatory, just as specious when subjected to rational examination (after all, few if any gun control advocates would take guns away from cops as well as everyone else.)

I understand what you mean about hissy fits, I think. But why do you suppose the public has such fits? Is it a lack of education? Should firearm education be made a part of a basic education perhaps - range time instead of gym class, say, and both field and written tests that must be passed before graduation is allowed? Just blue-skying here, but there must be some reason people get (ha ha) up in arms about guns, and it's probably because they need a lesson to be taught.

I do think that education is required. I grew up with guns. At an early age, I was taught not to touch a gun on fear of having by backside swatted. Later on, when I was able to comprehend the consequences of my actions, I was taught safe use of a firearm. I learned with a bb gun when I was 8 or 9, then I got a 22lr rifle when I was 11 or 12. For many, I think it's a fear of the unknown. Some are afraid that a gun will just jump up and shoot someone (honest to goodness, I had a co-worker, bless her heart, who seemed horrified that I had guns in the house, and was afraid that one day, one of them might just 'go off'.) Others only have exposure to what they see on television- folks firing handguns from fifty feet while running and hitting what they aim at (while never needing to change a magazine), or fully automatic assault rifles that fire tracer ammunition and seem to have a magazine based on the TARDIS from Dr. Who (bigger in the inside than outside).

Funny aside, both the NRA and the Brady organization provide education for kids that recommend a "don't touch" approach for youngsters. Brady's efforts are applauded, NRAs are vilified as endorsing the gun culture and trying to indoctrinate youth.

We've talked in the gungeon about mandatory high school training. If I recall, there were some pretty heated debates, but the consensus was that it's not a bad idea (unless you see it as the NRAs action above.) When guns become dangerous tools to be respected, not feared, you remove some of the fascination that reckless kids and teens would have with them.

I'm not American, and from my perspective not only the right but the need and the desire to bear arms is a very American trait - I can't figure the resistance to gun rights you regularly encounter in the public sentiment. It seems rather un-American when you get down to it.

Depending on one's interpretation of the second amendment, the case _could_ be made that citizens should have access to appropriate firepower to counter federal oppression. Thing is, as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, a determined group of individuals with small arms and improvised weaponry can stymie a much larger force. This is especially true in an urban setting where the chance of collateral damage precludes heavy arms.

From the Nordyke decision:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

This statement is a validation of many of the things that gun rights supporters have been saying for 40 years. I think it and your statement echo each other very well.

[Lautremont]

315. Thanks again for your responses.

Just to fully disclose, I don't care for guns much myself, though I admit they're fun to shoot. As a non-American I'm not going to opine about whether or not you should all be able to carry guns around, but as I said, a holster on every hip would seem very in keeping with your national character, and to feel otherwise seems counter to it.

I'd love to be able to snap my fingers and disappear every gun in the world just to see what that world would be like; but of course it's impossible, at least by the magical means I describe. If it were to happen gradually in some real-world way, I would much prefer it to arise out of some advanced Star Trekian leap forward in human development than the harsh dictatorial rulings gun owners fear.

Again, I appreciate your considered point of view.

[X_Digger]

321. Happy to help! n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

421. Felons aren't allowed to vote in some states.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

420. It seems unreasonable to you to randomly search when someone wants to own a tank?

MMMkay.

David

[happyslug]

419. You are missing one point of the Second, that it does NOT take rights from anyone

Including the right NOT to be harmed by someone's action. Gunpowder, at the time of the bill of Rights was passed, if exploded, subject the owner to strict liability for the explosion (i.e. the owner of the powder had to pay for any harm even of it was shown the cause of the explosion was outside his control). This was the law before the Second was passed, and stayed the law AFTER it was passed (and stayed the same in those states that had similar articles in the State's bill of rights).

Furthermore, the Second did NOT change the law as to a shooter's responsibility for any bullets he or she fires. You are still liable for such bullets, you can NOT cite the Second for permitting you to shoot in such a way that someone gets hurt. You MUST know where the bullet is going (This most ranges have very high backstops or other ways to make sure the bullets, if they miss the target, lands someplace safe).

Thus no problem owning a Rifle, Pistol or even a cannon. Without Ammunition these weapons can do not harm. The real issue is ammunition and the rule before the Second was adopted and after the Second was adopted was ammunition had to be carefully stored.

The same rule comes into play with nuclear weapons, if under the Second people can own them, such ownership does NOT eliminate that such weapons cause no harm to anyone as stored and as used in training. When it came to large amounts of Gunpowder in colonial days, people followed strict rules on how such powder was stored. The reason for this was simple, the Court held people strictly liable if such gunpowder exploded and cause harm to people. Small amounts of powder could be stored in a home, but any large amount had to be stored in its own locked building away from anything else. If you take this rule to Nuclear weapons, you MUST consider not only the effect of it blowing up, but the affect on people passing by of the radiation from the Nuclear material. Just because you have the "Right" to own a Nuclear Device, does NOT give you the right to harm you neighbors by its radiation (Just like in colonial days owners of Gunpowder were held liable for explosions dispute the Right to Bare arms that impede the right to own gunpowder).

Thus under the Second the law that require an owner to make the weapon "Safe". This generally required such gunpowder to be stored in an isolated storage area, where it can be held securely. The cost of such a shortage device would be in the Millions if applied to Nuclear weapons (as are the Storage areas of such weapons in the US Arsenal).

My point is, while you can argue that the Second Amendment permits people to own Nuclear devices, the Second does NOT eliminate the duty of a weapon owner to make sure such weapon does NOT cause problems for his or her fellow citizens. A rifle in the Attic is rarely a problem, A cannon in someone's Garage is rarely a problem. The problem is in the Ammunition and the tendency for such ammo to go "Boom". The Second Amendment has NEVER been ruled to change the Strict Liability rule that applies to ANY inherently dangerous item (Be it Gunpowder or Nuclear Material). That rule includes with it the right of the State to make such such harm is minimized (Thus it is legal for the state to say Gunpowder over a set weight must be stored in a locked secured warehouse away from other people). The same rule applies to Nuclear weapons, the state, even if the Second applies to Nuclear Weapons, can require any owner to secure such weapon in a way to minimize harm, which can include the obligation to store it away from any urban setting.

I go into the above for I am sick of people bring up the possibility of Nuclear Weapons. From a practical point of view of the Militia such weapons are almost useless. Owning a Nuclear weapon without a delivery device (i.e. a bomber or Missile) makes the weapon useless (Especially if you are fighting for your home, the last thing you want is to blow up your home town with a nuclear weapon). I always joked that if a person has the lose cash to buy a nuclear device (They are NOT cheap to make), store it in a safe and secure location, have a delivery device etc., the extra cost of getting a private bill through the Congress to own such a weapon would be minor in comparison and as such if you can afford the above, getting permission from Congress to own one is a minor cost even if all other weapons are banned.

Now storing a Nuclear device is expensive for it must be stored in a safe and secure location. this is unlike a Rifle with 1000 rounds of Ammunition, which can be stored almost anywhere and pose no threat to any innocent passer by. The main reason for this is that modern Ammunition can be stored almost any where. For example if your house burns up and has ammunition in it, the chances of any of the rounds doing any damage is slim (Modern Gunpowder burns not explodes like old fashioned Black Powder and thus when caught in a fire rarely fire the bullet more then a centimeter for modern powder o build up pressure MUST burn in a confided place, and that does NOT exist in a box of Bullets, but does exist inside the chamber of a Rifle). Thus it is rare for modern ammunition to go "Boom" in a way that causes harm, unless inside the chamber of a Gun. This is UNLIKE Nuclear material, that do to its radioactivity can harm someone who lives next door (And I will NOT go into the possibility of accidental discharge if NOT carefully secured).

Thus, reasonable regulations as to Nuclear Weapons will include careful and secure storage of the weapon AND its delivery device. The cost to do so for Nuclear weapons is extremely high and thus make it almost impossible for anyone to own a Nuclear Device AND meet any reasonable safety rules.

Thus the Second is subject to rules of Reasonableness that includes the requirement that the weapon, when used properly, does NOT cause other people harm as it is stored or used in training (Combat is a different situation).

[patriotvoice]

10. Awesome! Step #1: Individual Rights (Heller). Step #2: Incorporation (Nordyke). Step #3...

defining "sensitive places" in a reasonable way. IMO, first thing: state and national parks are not sensitive places! It's really frustrating to be perfectly legal on the highway, then turn on to the Blue Ridge Parkway and be in violation of Federal and state law.

On edit:
I meant state AND national parks. Spelling.

[imdjh]

22. Don't forget driving through the parking lot of the USPO to mail a letter in the outside box

[tomm2thumbs]

12. Wow, I also hereby announce that 'Liberty' and 'Pursuit of Happiness' are in there too. Duh

[Codeine]

122. Pssst! Wrong document.

;)

[msongs]

13. you only have a right to a gun if you're in the militia per 2nd amendment nt

[Abq_Sarah]

15. Are we just making it up as we go along now?

The 2nd amendment says no such thing and it's time we stopped this kind of blatant revisionism.

[brentspeak]

266. 2nd Amendment:

"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."

Which means: "A militia shall not be infringed, because a) militias are necessary for a free state's security; and b) the People have a right to keep and bear arms".

Nothing revisionist about the OP. The 2nd Amendment says what it says, and nothing more.

[Bob2bob]

292. The People.

This is what it surely doesn't mean.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of individuals to own guns unconnected to that Militia, for self-defence, shall not be infringed."
----------
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.

PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in iis collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467.
---------
Only one of those has the right to bear arms for State security.

"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."

[Euromutt]

418. You mean "the people" does not mean people?

Let's take a look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law <...> abridging <...> the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, according to your interpretation, this really means the state has the right to peaceably assemble? How does a state "peaceably assemble"?

Then we have the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated <...>

So only the state has the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures... from whom, exactly? And how is the state embodied in that it would be possible to search and seize the state's person?

And then there's the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So powers not delegated to the federal government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the state"? Doesn't that seem a little redundant?

And then, of course, according to Article I, Section 2,

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states <...>

So that means "the states of the several states," does it? You don't get to vote for your Congressional representative, but instead have that person appointed for you by the state government?

Might I suggest that your citation of Bouvier's is incorrect in this context, and that "the people" does indeed mean individual citizens?

[whopis01]

338. Right - but the other poster was claiming that it meant only a militia could have arms. n/t

[bossy22]

17. you got to give me some of those drugs you are taking

i want to live in a fantasy world too!!!!

[imdjh]

19. s e e m y o t h e r p o s t n/t

[bossy22]

20. kinda like

there is no constitutional right to an abortion

[L0oniX]

25. Yuh ...sure.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson

[-..__...]

27. Seems like you have a lot of catching up to do.

Here... let me give you a little nudge in the right direction...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_v_Heller

[boilinmad]

289. GUNS..

...FUCKING SUCK.

[Hoopla Phil]

319. ACTUALLY, I THINK THEY WOULD BLOW - technically speaking of course.

[Iktomiwicasa]

33. Hint hint

the *militia* as per the framers of the constitution is NOT the National Guard. Rather, it is *all* able bodied men of service age.

[NutmegYankee]

And since then, with the equalization of genders by law, women too!

[S_B_Jackson]

98. Correct! And by the same token....

with the adoption of laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of (old) age, the effective limit is all adults under the age of 70 who are not otherwise prohibited (read felons or those with adjudicated mental defect). :D

[Statistical]

62. Proof the antis has completely lost it (which means good things) n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

271. Another person who hasn't read the Heller decision.

[slackmaster]

284. You're wrong, but it doesn't matter because the militia is pretty much everyone

:hi:

[alarimer]

294. And those militias are "well-regulated"

Somehow the gun nuts always forget that part.

There are way too many paranoid freaks in this country.

[X_Digger]

298. I am well-regulated.

I am very competent with my firearms.

(You do know that's what it was referring to, right?)

[Hoopla Phil]

320. Um, "well regulated" referrers to the type and training in arms. Oops?

[Hoopla Phil]

318. Please see the definition of Militia. Look in the Heller decision. . .

[imdjh]

18. I used to be OK with new guns laws

I know some folks would like to think that I now oppose gun restrictions because I got mugged (happened years before I changed my mind) a couple of times, or because of some new fear having to do with crime patterns, or simply irrational fear, but it doesn't. I simply had misread the amendment. Someone explained the wording to me, and I changed my mind. Truth be told, my opposition prior to that had more to do with the fact that I simply didn't care, didn't imagine myself to ever be a gun owner, and bought into the whole "you're more likely to get killed" bullshit.

So I really don't understand why the 9th Circuit or any other court has to S P E L L I T O U T in large letters on junior ruled paper for these states and municipal governments. Actually perhaps they should:

I t i s a f u c k i n g c i v i l r i g h t g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e U S C o n s t i t u t i o n.

[Tejas]

21. Makes you wonder about Feinstein's vendetta, eh? nt

[imdjh]

24. Is that what she carries in her holster? n/t

[depakid]

26. Rights under the constitution are subject to limitations and regulation under state and federal law

Some more than others, depending on the context.

This is something that absolutists often find out to their dismay. And then their knickers get all in a twist becuase their hadn't realized the way constitutional jurisprudence works.

Gun folks will end up just as dismayed. Maybe more, if one day the 5-4 decision in Heller is replaced by the reasoning of the more sensible minority opinion.

[bossy22]

28. sensible?

so the second amendment was designed for this

if you join the national guard, and they dont give you a gun you can sue them????

i doubt it....read what Akhil Amar has to say

[imdjh]

32. Rights under the constitution are subject to -constitutional- limitations

Some more than others, depending on the context.

So, if you would be so kind, give me some examples of what you consider to be constitutionally permitted restrictions in the context of the known restriction on other liberties.

[boppers]

64. Permitted restrictions on:

Speech: Signage ordinances, broadcasting permits
Assembly: Parade permits, occupancy limits, zoning ordinances
Religion: polygamy laws, zoning ordinances
...

Rights are not absolute, they are modified by the interests of the people, and the state. The right to bear arms is no different from other rights, in that the intent is not an unfettered right.

[imdjh]

83. I was hoping for equations

shouting fire = waiving a gun at a crowd

something like that.

What gun restrictions do you consider to be in keeping with the known constitutional restrictions on other civil rights?

[depakid]

100. Sure- pick any constitutional right

The 1st Amendment has the strongest proscription of any: "Congress shall make no law..." yet freedon of speech is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions (along with a host of other regulations).

Establishment of religion is subject to the Lemon Test.

Gun control is the same way. Nothing at all to prevent Australian style gun regulations from being nacted in the US, provided that people are finally des up with the mass shootings levls of senseless violence.

[X_Digger]

104. Heller prevents it.

Heller sets a new 'test' of whether a particular piece of gun legislation is constitutional.

It's not the only test, by any means- due process, equal protection, first amendment (targeting 'speech' via exercising second amendment.)

Read the decision linked above- Nordyke brought up many of the possible 'tests' for whether a law is unconstitutional.

[depakid]

127. Heller doesn't set out any standard of review!

and by the way, if you read the case you see that each the Nordyke's claims failed on the grounds they asserted. In other words- the county's regulatory position prevailed.

The Nordyke's now have leave to amend- so they get another bite at the apple- which chances are, will fail as well.

[bossy22]

130. im not arguing the specifics in nordyke

nor the standard of review...im arguing your claim that australian gun laws would be found constitutional in the US. Some may, but remember that the australian law says that firearm ownership for self-defense is not allowed, but heller EXPLICITLY SAID THAT THE D.C. GOVERNMENT MUST ALLOW OWNERSHIP FOR SELF DEFENSE. we can then say that a law that says firearm ownership is not allowed for self defense is unconstitutional

i doubt that a ban on pump action shotguns would withstand a constitutional defense (btw pump action shotguns are probably the second most widely held firearm by US civilians for home defense)

[depakid]

148. A ban on pump action shotguns would be just fine if crafted properly

As would limitations on magaine capacity, or mandatory safety courses, periodic licensing requirements, taxation, or whole host of other deals.

A restriction on ownership of pump actions shotguns would be no different really than already existing regulations on short shotguns or fully automatic weapons.

[bossy22]

149. a ban is a ban

its a prohibition on ownership- it doesnt matter how its crafted, if its prohibited form ownership, than its unconstitutional

Heller case determined that weapons that are afforded protection under the second amendment are those that are in common possession and used for lawful purposes

handguns and PUMP ACTION shotguns fit this defintion

you would have to craft a pretty good argument that some how a pump action shotgun is an "unusual dangerous weapon that is the weapon of the criminal and not the citizen"

ohh and D.C. tried that "crafted properly" argument- they stated that there was no ban on handguns, just a prohibition on registration of new handguns- the court didnt buy it

[X_Digger]

132. Heller offers criteria in striking down..

DC's handgun ban that will be used by other courts.

Nordyke's original claim is irrelevant to the part that matters. In this circuit, the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states.

Individuals have standing on the grounds of 2nd amendment claims against draconian state legislation.

Next stop? Prolly en banc review, then SCOTUS.

[depakid]

142. No, it doesn't

It simply struck down what 5 members of the courty considered an overly broad DC statute- and also noted that like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

And your use of the word "draconian" is just laughable- and further belies some sort of obsession or fetishism.

As to your prediction of the course of the case- you must not follow appellate law very much.

[bossy22]

144. yes it does

it may not be a strict guideline, but it does give some indication on what would be considered constitutional

a ban on handguns for self defense would be unconstitutional

[depakid]

150. Go back and read the case

About all that it notes is that a rational relationship test would likely not be sufficient. And that will likely impact the next stage of the Nordyke litigation.

And as I stated, the Nordyke's will probably lose, because the county can show more than a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.

[bossy22]

154. they did lose

and im not here to argue the merits of their case. Personally i dont see how a gun show ban on public property infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. but that is just my opinion.

But its a false dichotomy to say that since a ban on gun shows on public property is consitutional that a ban on pump action shotguns is then constitutional

[X_Digger]

155. The actual Nordyke decision doesn't mean squat..

It was never about taking Nordyke to the SCOTUS- if it does, that's merely a bonus. It was about incorporation.

Set the domino's up, then knock them down..

Heller - individual ownership - check

Heller + Nordyke - incorporation, leaves individuals standing to claim 2nd amendment infringement - check

Heller + Nordyke + {Nordyke | other case } - en banc review - pending

Heller + Nordyke + {Nordyke | other case } appeals - SCOTUS - pending

[depakid]

160. You ignorance on how litigatgion works is astounding

But keep on fist pumping and looking foolish to people who do know- seems to be the way it works with some types.

[X_Digger]

161. Grapes especially sour today? n/t

[depakid]

165. Nothing sour about it- some of us just know how the law works

whereas others have some bizarre and dysfunctional agenda that they'll holler about all day long.

[bossy22]

so explain

how does the law work in this case?

[Abq_Sarah]

260. In states covered by the 9th circuit

Heller is the law. It will be up to the states now to show they have a compelling reason to restrict, limit or prohibit ownership and then it will go back to court.

[X_Digger]

183. You don't think Gura et al coordinated these cases?

You're woefully naieve if you don't think these are part of a larger agenda.

It's been 125 odd years since the last substantial (Miller was a puff case w/o half the counsel) 2nd amendment case.

[depakid]

195. No more than in any other litigation where there's an unsettled body of law

[bossy22]

201. maybe

but that doesn't mean there weren't planned with a specific agenda in mind

[depakid]

218. This case was filed long before Scalia got his hands on the Heller case

[X_Digger]

221. No, but the amicus briefs from Gura & addtl filings were added later. n/t

[bossy22]

226. yes....and it was settled before too

it was just rejuvenated by "new evidence" (the heller decision)

before heller the case was essentially dead but when heller was decided, it gave the nordykes a new angle which to bring up the case again ( i believe this was jokingly called Nordyke III)

[bossy22]

164. it seems that you are the one that is ignorant

you seem to fail to realize that the main goal of the nordyke case was not to legalize gun shows on public property, but to incorporate the second amendment, by means of bringing this case to the court

using this precedent they will attempt to challenge other gun control regulation

[depakid]

173. It's litigation -there wasn't any agenda one way or another

The Nordykes get leave to amend to state another claim in light of Heller and the 9th Circuit's interpetation of how it applied to the case hand.

One which they will probably lose.

[bossy22]

181. or another option

they may not appeal at all, having accomplished what they truly wanted to accomplish. the Nordyke case- the case banning gun shows- was a means to an end

there is an agenda, the agenda is to get the 2a incorporated

look at it this way, when Dick Heller (the plaintiff in D.C. V Heller) first went to register his handgun back in 2004...was he really going there truly wanting to register his handgun, or was he there to get denied and have standing to sue?

and even if the nordykes really wanted to overturn the gun show ban, and it was found constitutional (the ban) doesnt mean everything restriction will be found constitutional

hell, just take a look at current federal court cases involving the gun regulations in the adam walsh act

[depakid]

188. It was a pissing match between the county and the plaintiff's just like thousands of other cases

(including Heller, btw).

[bossy22]

196. it was a pissing match with an agenda

it wasnt the first time (ohh and heller was also another one of those pissing matches with an agenda....so was Roe V wade)

[X_Digger]

216. Dream on..

The legal team behind these cases _looked_ for specific cases with the fewest distracting issues.

[depakid]

229. Nordyke certainly wasn't the best case they could have chose under those criteria!

:rofl:

[bossy22]

231. but

it worked!!!!!!

thats like saying that your championship win is some how inherently less meaningful since you won it in 7 games instead of 4

a win is a win is a win

[depakid]

237. It's hardly a "win," more like a logical conclusion that would have come about in some litigation

sooner or later.

Does nothing to invalidate responsible gun control legislation that will arise down the line.

[bossy22]

239. atleast we both agree

that incorporation was something that was bound to happen

"Does nothing to invalidate responsible gun control legislation that will arise down the line. "
depends on the meaning of "responsible".

[X_Digger]

253. Glad you agree incorporation is logical ;)

That was the intent among those following the case.

[jeepnstein]

359. Now we get to argue...

over the definition of "reasonable". More fun.

Some would say reasonable is severe limits on the type and number of arms citizens are permitted to keep. Others would say the 2nd Amendment bars any restriction. The rest of us mere mortals are somewhere in the middle trying to avoid the ridiculous extremes on both sides.

I'm thinking the NFA is reasonable and safe from repeal. The GCA of '68 will probably pass the reasonable test as well. Regulating open and concealed carry in public places is going to be OK. Laws which prevent felons from possessing arms will be safe. Placing burdensome technological demands on manufacturers and licensing schemes on citizens probably won't fly. Outright bans probably aren't happening any time soon. That's where I see the issue in the next few years.

[bossy22]

123. you are wrong

australian law says that self-defense is not a legitimate reason to get a firearms license...the supreme court determined that you cannot prohibit firearm ownership for self defense

i dont see how you can enact a law which violates this decision

[depakid]

136. Yes, Australians don't permit the cowardice rationale (and good on the Aussies)

Because, basically- they aren't a cowardly people so afraid of their own shadows that they'd want to endanger themselves and others through needlessly keeping firearms around, much less promote the proliferation of high capacity handgums or assault weapons.

But all of the other practical restictions would fall well within constitutional parameters.

As I'm sure sooner or later the gun oibsessives will find out for themselves.

[bossy22]

141. explain how a ban

on pump action shotguns used by a large percentage of the gun owning population- would be constitutional

[depakid]

151. Same way any other regulation comes into being and is implemented

people will be grandfathered in- perhaps various levels of governments will make efforts to get certain weapons off of the streets- and no new ones will be sold to the general public.

[bossy22]

156. ummm....fail

D.C. tried that argument with their handgun ban.

they didnt really ban handguns, they just banned registration of handguns past a certain date....what did the supreme court say...well that it was functionally no different than a total prohibition on handgun ownership- and the law was struck down

so a law banning pump action shotguns based on the likes of a prohibition on new registration would also be constitutional

try again

[depakid]

163. Sorry- but you will lose that argument

just as you'd lose an argument as to barrel length- or to high capacity magazines- or fully automatic weapons.

[bossy22]

168. false dichotomy

those are different issues- just because one regulation is permissible....doesnt mean all regulations are permissible

just cause the constitution allows you to ban machine guns, doesn't mean you can ban handguns

and i'm willing to give you the chance to explain how i would lose an argument against a ban on pump action shotguns- and only pump action shotguns (dont start talking about machine guns and nuclear war heads because those are not equal)

[depakid]

184. There's no dichotomy there!

It's simply a range of things that can rationally be regulated. You can regulate the barrel length- and you can regulate the rate of fire.

And that's assuming that Heller remains good law over the next decade. I can easily see that revisited- and at least substantially narrowed over the next decade, depending on how high the level of violence gets.

[bossy22]

192. no

"It's simply a range of things that can rationally be regulated. You can regulate the barrel length- and you can regulate the rate of fire."

its not simply a range...because as you define it that range is all encompassing. you can regulate barrel length, you can regulate rate of fire, but that doesnt mean you can ban handguns

"And that's assuming that Heller remains good law over the next decade. I can easily see that revisited- and at least substantially narrowed over the next decade, depending on how high the level of violence gets."
i think you'd be hard pressed to find legal scholars that think heller would be overturned. Generally courts dont like to flip flop when it comes to precedent (it destroys court credibility and confuses the shit out of the lower courts). Heller was the final battle in a trend that started back in the 1980's with sanford levinson's article called the embarrassing second amendment. The second amendment was re-looked at and strong arguments came about supporting the individual rights view (read the works of Akhil Amar on this issue)

[depakid]

208. "Generally courts dont like to flip flop"

Read Lawrence v. Texas.

Generally, what happens is that further cases down the line narrow the decisions to make them less onerous or destructive to indiduals or governmetal interests- but not always.

Gun proliferation and levels of violence are a serious problem in America- and as they get worse (especially as we see more law enforcement and public officials as tragets) courts will over time, respond accordingly.

[bossy22]

217. there is no doubt going to be further cases

defining the boundary of the second amendment and the Heller precedent.

G"un proliferation and levels of violence are a serious problem in America- and as they get worse (especially as we see more law enforcement and public officials as tragets) courts will over time, respond accordingly."

but they may not be getting worse and worse...the last month was especially bad but overall gun violence isn't spiraling out of control...nor is there anything saying that gun violence could go down in the coming years

your argument in this case is hitched upon a belief that gun violence will continue to get worse...and in fact there is not guarantee of that

[X_Digger]

219. "and as they get worse"?

We're back to 1965 levels of violence. For the first time since Gallup started measuring it, <50% want _more_ gun control.

[depakid]

224. Maybe Texans think that way - but not most of the nation

It'll be interesting to see properly phrased questions from a credible outfit like Pew after the violence of these past several months.

And yep- as time goes on- it'll get worse alright. Americans aren't going to adapt so very well as gas prices rise back to $5, $7 and $10 per gallon.

There's nothing at all in the cards that would make anyone expect to see any longer term trend toward anything other than more mass shootings and senseless family violence.

That's the legacy that gun proliferaters have left themselves- and condemned their children to.

[bossy22]

228. you got to take off the blinders man

lets see some positive signs

when the economy starts to recover crime with decrease

ohh and high gas prices dont seem to have any relationship with mass shootings

"Americans aren't going to adapt so very well as gas prices rise back to $5, $7 and $10 per gallon."
btw there is no guarantee of that

sorry to bust your bubble Nostradamus

[depakid]

232. "there is no guarantee of that"

That's a geophysical and economic reality. Nothing is more guaranteed in the next decade.

And as I alluded- Americans of all people are in very poor position to adapt- which coupled with the nuimber of firearms and the attitudes toward using them to solve problems- it's not going to be a pretty sight.

[bossy22]

233. i can think of things that are more garunteed

like the existence of the sun...

you're entire post is speculation...nothing is guaranteed,

im not going to argue it...its hard to argue with someone that thinks they can predict the future with almost 100% accuracy...its kinda like arguing with someone who think he is god...sometimes its better just to walk away

[depakid]

240. Science isn't speculation

Neither are the laws of thermodynamics.

That's why my rig's going to be running on LPG (which the US didn't have the foresight to set up the infrastructure for). Once the world economy starts to pick up- that ole demand cirve is going to shift back over "to the right" (until another set of demand destruction sets in).

[bossy22]

244. demand and supply curves

oversimplify a complex system

the oil prices of 2008 were the cause of a bubble, not true supply and demand

but science also isnt always a sure predictor of the future (though i do think science is very credible)

[depakid]

246. The world's at best on a supply plateau

and will begin running down the depletion curve in fairly short order- hence, economic disruptions caused by volatile petrol prices- big peaks and troughs- with the moving average headed inexorably higher.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

422. So self defense is cowardly?

[DrCory]

428. Only If Practiced With A Firearm

Otherwise, it's heroic.

[dixiegrrrrl]

For the record, the judges were Carter,Reagan and Clinton appointees.

[villager]

29. Great way to celebrate the Columbine anniversary!

Let's make even easier to stock up on, than they were before!

[-..__...]

31. Columbine...

the gun grabbers Chappaquiddick and Clintons penis.

[villager]

34. In the proliferator world view, guns played no role in Columbine, and the fact they've become easier

..to obtain since will play no role -- in their limited, object-fetishizing world view -- in the next one.

Oh: And thanks for the usual pro-proliferator note of empathy for that particular anniversary...

And double oh: Only you and your ilk would minimize Columbine to the level of a blow job, or a single car wreck.

[bossy22]

36. and 9/11

was a horrible tragedy, but im not pushing the patriot act...

to say that we believe guns played no role in columbine makes you look childish and silly. Ofcourse they did, like prohibition on inter agency communication and and a lack of internal intelligence played a role in 9/11, but im not supporting every damn warrantless wiretap or citizen spying legislation that comes through.

if you want me to say columbine was a horrible tragedy- yes it was, but if you want me to say as a result of it we should accept draconian gun laws, then i say no

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

423. Never miss an opportunity to turn someone's tragedy into your personal political soapbox.

[RC]

30. How come nobody mentioned the militia that is the same sentence as

the god given right to arm everyone from birth onward?

[bossy22]

35. who said that?

and it is mentioned....why dont you read the decision

[villager]

37. How come nobody thinks "well regulated" means anything should be regulated?

:shrug:

[imdjh]

40. Well regulated refers to the militia

The rest of the amendment says that you, and I, and Joe, and Shirley, have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Note that it doesn't say guns, it says arms. So playing stupid little DC games like laws which say, "OK you can keep and bear them, but they have to be disassembled and unloaded and completely useless" doesn't wash. Arms, bearing arms which are ready to use should you choose to use them to defend yourself, someone else, or your property.

[villager]

43. yes, but you say "militia" refers to each citizen's right to arm themselve to the gills

so if the citizens are the militia, and the militia is to "well-regulated..."

[imdjh]

47. no requirement to be or be in the militia

[villager]

50. ah, so then those outside the militia don't need guns, right?

n/t

[imdjh]

61. bye- bye

[villager]

68. figured you'd grow tired of your own circles...

n/t

[tridim]

69. Well done!

:)

[NutmegYankee]

75. Based on the 6 or so other DUers who have addressed your claim...

If there is a circle, you're in the middle of it.

[raimius]

425. The 2nd Amendment

The 2nd protects a right not necessarily connected with militia service. Read the Heller decision.

[NutmegYankee]

53. well-regulated means well trained, as in understands and can use arms.

Citizens of the US needed to be familiar with firearms in case they were needed to defend their country when called up by congress. This is opposite to the serfs and peasants of other European nations that did not have regular access to firearms. In addition, militia provided their own weapons, versus getting them from the government.

[villager]

73. so there's a constitutional mandate for all gun owners to take training, then?

That's what you seem to be saying -- since we're going by the "original intent" (as delineated by Scalia, for the time being...)

So we can stop ignoring the "well-regulated" part then -- since that is in the Constitution, in black and white? (or perhaps brown and parchment?)

[NutmegYankee]

80. There was no formal government training. You learned firearms as part of growing up.

Father teaches son and so on. And you would learn from hunting, which was a nice treat for Americans, since Europe restricted hunting to the nobility only and punished poaching by the peasants with death. You seem to forget that government was pretty weak and broke in colonial times.

[villager]

81. ah, so there's a historical context in which to interpret that amendment, then?

n/t

[NutmegYankee]

87. Duh. The constitution was written 221 years ago.

However, the rights remain intact, and we look back at the founders intent when dealing with law. Obviously, the founders did not intend to ban guns from common citizens. That firearms have evolved since then doesn't change that fact, especially since the 18th century was a century of many weapons advances, and they knew that firearms would continue to improve.

[villager]

90. Ah, so there're only the historical contexts that *you approve of*?

n/t

[NutmegYankee]

108. What?

If that was intended as a zing, it failed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

430. Don't worry once you get the best of her she'll put you on ignore.

[whopis01]

339. No, not at all.

The constitution claims a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say that a well regulated militia is necessary and the well regulated militia's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[X_Digger]

92. Well regulated like your colon, not your bank. n/t

[bossy22]

41. because thats not what it means

well-regulated meant basically well equipped

how come nobody thinks when its "raining cats and dogs" that domesticated animals are falling from the sky?

[hack89]

48. Well regulated means well equipped and trained

context is everything.

[Statistical]

169. hint: "well regulated" never has and never will mean regulation.

well regulated would be more correctly written as "well trained & equipped" in modern English.

As in the right of people to keep and use firearms shall not be infringed in order to ensure a "well trained & equipped" militia.

[brentspeak]

265. The 2nd amendment says "well regulated"

not "well trained and equipped". If we're going to pick-and-choose brand-new meanings for words and expressions used in the Constitution, then everything in the document would have to be reinterpreted entirely.

[Abq_Sarah]

274. Regulated

Meant "to put or maintain in order". Did you not read Heller?

Please, do not tell me you think the 2nd amendment is the only amendment in the bill of rights that grants the states power (to form a militia). Please, tell me you don't believe that.

[hack89]

280. Language changes in 200 years perhaps?

context is everything and in this case the context is common usage in the 1770's.

[Statistical]

332. It is revisionists who want to change the meaning of words.

What matter is the use of the language at the time it was framed.

At the time the constitution was written a "regulated" unit would be what we considered a "disciplined unit" today. Well trained, good equipment, good morale, tactically proficent etc....

No other historical document from that time period uses the term regulation as it is used today; to mean govt control or enforcement of entities.

Language does change over time. The content that matters is the context at the time the Constitution was written.

In Heller the court was presented w/ historical documents, letters from various parties, newspaper articles, constitutions from other states, as well as diary entries, drafts and other informal documents.

There is NO HISTORICAL documents to support the idea that the founders meaning was regulation = govt restriction. The revisionist "collective right" nonsense theory has been thoroughly debunked.

If you have an open mind (and want to educate yourself rather than cling to a "faith" in collective right theory) I would recommend 'The founder's second ammendment'.

I challenge you to read it and after reading it honestly say you believe the 2nd is not an individual right unconnected to military service.

[Bob2bob]

363. COLLECTIVE RIGHTS

Massachusetts Declaration of the Rights.

"The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled."

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; Therefore the people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it."
-------------------------------
Are those individual rights? Collective rights are EVERYWHERE, so don't believe the gun-industry's big lie.

[Bob2bob]

367. THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

LUTHER MARTIN: "By the next paragraph, Congress is to have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States... For this extraordinary provision, by which the militia, the only defence and protection which the STATE can have for the security of THEIR RIGHTS against arbitrary encroachments of the general government, is taken entirely out of the power of their respective States, and placed under the power of Congress... because the proposed system, taking away from the STATES the RIGHT of organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia, the first attempt made by a State to put the militia in a situation to counteract the arbitrary measures of the general government, would be construed into an act of rebellion, or treason; and Congress would instantly march their troops into the State."

GEORGE MASON: "The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless — by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them.. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use... I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power."

JOSEPH STORY: "..Suppose, then, that congress should refuse to provide for arming or organizing them, the result would be, that the states would be utterly without the means of defence.. It is difficult fully to comprehend the influence of such objections, urged with much apparent sincerity and earnestness at such an eventful period. The answers then given seem to have been in their structure and reasoning satisfactory and conclusive. But the amendments proposed to the constitution (some of which have been since adopted) show, that the objections were extensively felt, and sedulously cherished. The power of congress over the militia (it was urged) was limited, and concurrent with that of the states.. If congress did not choose to arm, organize, or discipline the militia, there would be an inherent right in the states to do it. All, that the constitution intended, was, to give a power to congress to ensure uniformity, and thereby efficiency. But, if congress refused, or neglected to perform the duty, the states had a perfect concurrent right, and might act upon it to the utmost extent of sovereignty."

GEORGE TUCKER: "Congress has, moreover, power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress C. U. S. Art. 1, Sec. 8. The objects of this clause of the constitution, although founded upon the principle of our (Virginia) state bill of rights, Art. 8, declaring, "that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state," were thought to be dangerous to the state governments. The convention of Virginia, therefore, proposed the following amendment to the constitution; "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same." A further amendment proposed, was, "that the militia should not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service, in time of war, rebellion, or invasion" .... A provision manifestly implied in the words of the constitution. As to the former of these amendments, all room for doubt, or uneasiness upon the subject, seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments to the constitution (The Second Amendment), since ratified, viz. "That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and hear arms, shall not be infringed." To which we may add, that the power of arming the militia, not being prohibited to the states, respectively, by the constitution, is, consequently, reserved to them, concurrently with the federal government."

[X_Digger]

369. Wassamatter?

Sad that nobody's responded to your tripe?

Read the Heller decision for historical context that pokes holes in your limited quotes:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

In discussing the second amendment, George Tucker wrote:

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. "

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason

[Bob2bob]

373. State Security.

The Second Amendment says nothing about "self-defence." It does, however, refer to "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

Read this. Are they discussing owning a gun for "self defence"? Are they discussing anything other than military service, like the ownership of guns? They're CLEARLY discussing military service in a well regulated militia
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html

[X_Digger]

374. If it was a given, why discuss it?

You've read Heller, and Nordyke, yes?

How do you respond to the commentary there?

I can pull all kinds of quotes out of context, or find other quotes by the same authors you listed that support the position of an individual right.

The point is, if arms for self-defense were assumed, a given, then you wouldn't expect a lot of debate on the issue. In a new country, without an established constabulary, attacks by native americans, attacks by wildlife- can you honestly sit there and say that they didn't want men to have arms to defend themselves and their families?

Seriously?

"OMG, the constitution doesn't mention water, therefore we don't have an individual right to water!" (nevermind that it's assumed).

[Bob2bob]

385. The Check

X_Digger wrote:
"The point is, if arms for self-defense were assumed, a given, then you wouldn't expect a lot of debate on the issue."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was NO debate on the issue of personal gun ownership, because The Second Amendment isn't about gun ownership.
The States were concerned that they were giving up their right to arm, organize, and discipline their militia forces to Congress without checks. They thought, that because Congress had the sole power to arm, organize, and discipline the militia in Article 1, Section 8, that they could destroy the militia by FAILING to arm, organize, and discipline them. They thought, that if THEY kept their militia armed, organized, and disciplined if Congress neglected to, it could be construed into an act of rebellion. An unorganized, undisciplined bunch of individuals with different arms isn't what they had in mind as a check.

[X_Digger]

386. "The Second Amendment isn't about gun ownership" ???

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Again, I ask.. have you read Heller? You can spew blather til you're blue in the face, but unless you can refute the findings presented there (and Nordyke), you're merely farting in a tornado.

[jmg257]

387. That is mostly correct, of course with much more emphasis on "arms".

Most 'founders' knew the intention of the militia clause A1,S8,C16 was for congress to be responsible for coming up with general guidelines, not the actual arming (the people themselves), organizing & disciplining (via the Militia Act & Von Stuben's Blue Book).

"Mr Rufus King of Mass. said the committee had intended for the term 'organizing' to refer to 'proportioning the officers & men', the term "arming" to 'specify the kind, size and caliber of arms', and the term 'disciplining' to "prescribe the manual exercie evoltions &c"
Constitutional Convention 1787


Trying to convince the people, anti-federalists, state conventions, etc. was another matter, as it wasn't quite so clear.

'Well regulated' would cover a well trained/disciplined, & well armed, militia, the rest of the 2nd takes care of explicitly securing to the people the right to arms. A primary reason being so both govts would have effective militias. Other reasons being personal defense, and all other lawful uses.


"Mr Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment (which became the 2nd) "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms". He observed...it would lead to a violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms..." (A1,S8,C16)

[Bob2bob]

389. Keep and bear Arms

jmg257 wrote:
"..the rest of the 2nd takes care of explicitly securing to the people the right to arms..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The people" being a collective body, not individual persons.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people..

PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in it's collective and political capacity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jmg257 wrote:
"..Other reasons being personal defense, and all other lawful uses.."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THOSE reasons are just plucked out of the air after brushing aside the stated purpose in the first clause, as though the first clause relates to a separate matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
jmg257 wrote:
"Mr Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment (which became the 2nd) "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms". He observed...it would lead to a violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms..." (A1,S8,C16)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there any reason to think that he was referring to personally owning arms, considering that he says "the people" keeping arms and not "persons"?
How would a clause allowing individuals to opt-out of military service violate a personal right to own a gun?

[jmg257]

395. Scott's quote was showing the right to arms had already been secured for the people/militia.

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,(declarative clause)...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.(restrictive clause)"


Seems "the people" included "persons"...especially when it came to individual rights like privacy, arms, other rights etc.

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


We ARE the people. We certainly have the PERSONAL right to be secure from illegal search & seizure, the personal & collective right to assemble, and we individually and collectively retain all other rights, whether they were enumerated or not.


"the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. "After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people." Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of, individual rights. Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people."
Sam Cummins 1999

Luckily, the right to arms was enumerated. We the people have it - individually and collectively.
And when it is incorporated completely, even the states will not be able to infringe on those rights, just as it was intended.

[Bob2bob]

408. Collective right in 1st Amendment.

This is the original draft showing an intent by the Framers to secure a collective right.

"The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances."

Here's the final article. Notice, that when it comes to assembling to petition the government, they don't just continue with "...,or the right to peaceably assemble etc." They intentionally protect a collective right here by saying "...; or the right of the people etc."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[Bob2bob]

409. 10th Amendment- "the people."

10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
==========
Bouvier's Law Dictionary

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
10. "Secures the rights to the states, or to the people the rights they have not granted."
==========
Gun-industry propagandists will tell you that "the people" in The Tenth Amendment must mean "individuals." This would only be true if the powers/rights "granted" to the U.S. were granted by the people in their individual capacity. In reality, they were granted by the people in their COLLECTIVE capacity, so, the powers/rights "reserved" are reserved to "the people" in their COLLECTIVE capacity.

[Bob2bob]

410. 9th Amendment- "the people."

9th Amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
=====================================
Bouvier's Law Dictionary

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

9. "Secures to the people the rights retained by them."
============================================
Does that mean, that individuals retain the personal rights they, as individuals, didn't grant to Congress? Clearly, "the people" here is a collective body.

[Bob2bob]

411. 4th Amendment- "the people."

4th Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.."

Why didn't they simply say "The right of persons to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects.."? Because they INTENDED the holder of this right to be the collective body mentioned right after "the right of..."
===============================================
UNITED STATES V. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

"The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.."

"the people.. contrasts with "person"..."
============================================
There is NO personal right protected by The Second Amendment.

[Bob2bob]

412. UNITED STATES V. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

UNITED STATES V. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

"The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person".."



"The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people."
================================================
I had to laugh at this:
"REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which.. SCALIA.. joined." Is it him?

[Bob2bob]

413. Re-post

A line didn't appear
UNITED STATES V. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

"The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person".."

wherever you see "the people" below, it means collectively, as a community. <--

"The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people."
================================================
I had to laugh at this:
"REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which.. SCALIA.. joined." Is it him?

[Euromutt]

424. Meaning what, exactly?

Are you suggesting that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, etc. against unreasonable search and seizure applies not to individuals, but only to the people collectively? In other words, it's only unconstitutional if the NSA tries to tap everybody's phones; if they tap just one person's phone without a warrant, there's no problem?

Or that the people have a right to assemble peaceably only if everybody takes part? That certainly opens the possibility of denying some demonstration permits: "sorry, there's not enough of you to be 'the people' so we don't have to permit you to assemble peaceably." Does that also mean that citizens can only petition the government for a redress of grievances if the grievance applies to everyone? If it's just you, or just a few of you, you're SOL, huh?

This is a ludicrous notion, obviously. Calling these rights "collective" makes the concept of "collective rights" (insofar as such a thing exists in the first place, as opposed to having been invented to try to explain that "the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed" doesn't mean what it says) indistinguishable from "individual rights," in that such rights are held by each individual member of a collective. The fact is, as a member of "the people," I have the right to not have my individual person, dwelling, and personal possessions searched except on probable cause or with a warrant, as does every other individual member of the people.

Certainly the term "the people" contrasts with ("no" or "any") "person" or "the accused," in that "the people" is used in a context of generally applicable circumstances, whereas the latter terms are used in situations applicable only to specific people at specific times, e.g. an individual cannot demand a trial by jury and legal counsel (per Amendment VI) unless and until that individual is the accused in a criminal prosecution.

Why didn't they simply say "The right of persons to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects.."?Let me reverse that question and ask: why does the Fifth Amendment not say "No people shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury <...> nor shall any people be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb <...>"? Because, in the English language, as in other Indo-European languages, any variation on "nobody," "no-one," "nothing" etc. commonly uses a singular form; we don't usually say "no people know," for example, but rather, "no-one knows."

[Bob2bob]

394. Planet Scalia

Scalia & Co:
"..a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause."
===============================
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.

PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in iis collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467.
==============================
"Operative clause":
"..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[X_Digger]

397. Try this one on for size..

"Pizza being necessary for late night study sessions, the right of the people to keep and bear tomatoes, shall not be infringed."

Are tomatoes _only_ associated with late night study sessions? Would you assert that only the states can have tomatoes?

[beevul]

414. Free-press clause of the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution...

An oldie but a goodie:

“The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject.”


Sometimes, the verbal and linguistic gymnastics that these antis have to employ is downright entertaining.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x143390

[jmg257]

399. Planet USA.

US Congress 1789, US People 1791

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.


US Congress 2005

2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.


US Supreme Court 2008

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


Welcome to our world. Where even your individual right to keep and bear arms is secured, whether you choose to enjoy it or not.

[jmg257]

378. "last munday a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected

personal liberty"

William Grayson to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789

[jmg257]

379. "The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be

inherent in the People.

Fisher Ames to George R. Minor, June 12, 1789

[Bob2bob]

401. Fisher Ames

"Madison has inserted in his amendments the increase of representatives, each State having two at least. The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people."
------------------------------------------
When dealing with conscience, it is declared that Congress shall pass no law abridging that freedom. You can't seriously link THAT freadom with the other two mentioned. It isn't an individual right to change government. Individuals get to vote, but if only a quarter of those individuals vote for no change, THE PEOPLE as a body will change the government.

[jmg257]

380. "There appears to be a disposition in our house to agree to some, which will more effectually secure

private rights"

William L. Smith to Edward Rutledge, August 9, 1789

[Bob2bob]

396. Some private rights

jmg257 wrote:

"There appears to be a disposition in our house to agree to some, which will more effectually secure private rights"
William L. Smith to Edward Rutledge, August 9, 1789
--------------------------------------------------------------
"SOME" will more effectually secure private rights.

[Bob2bob]

370. "..rights of the people, and of every citizen.."

XXIX. "It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. It is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of THE PEOPLE, and of every CITIZEN, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well; and that they should have honorable salaries ascertained and established by standing laws."

[X_Digger]

371. PA Constitution, section 21

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. "

See, I can do it too!

[Bob2bob]

375. COLLECTIVE RIGHTS ARE EVERYWHERE

Have you proven that collective rights don't exist by posting an individual right?

"They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their COLLECTIVE RIGHTS. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the RIGHTS of its citizens AND THE PEOPLE within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose."
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

According to that:
"Individual rights" = "citizens"
"Collective rights" = "the people"

Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.

PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in iis collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467.
---------
Only one of those has the right to bear arms for State security. Which one?

"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."

[X_Digger]

376. Post more quotes..

Maybe the 3rd ream will convince the SCOTUS that they were wrong in Heller.

I've never asserted that collective rights don't exist. Have fun with that straw man.

The issue at hand is whether or not the 2nd refers to an individual right.

The commentary in Heller and Nordyke is rather compelling.

[Bob2bob]

377. Jefferson Letter.

To Dr. Joseph Priestley. Washington, June 19, 1802

"I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand."
http://history.liberatedtext.org/confounders/tj_bergh/v10/18020619priestly.html
----------------------
"..the substitution of militia for a standing army.."
How can anyone squeeze a right to own a gun unrelated to a militia out of that? It's a militia amendment. I wonder if Jefferson thought the first clause was irrelevant?

[X_Digger]

381. Read Heller yet?

Blather some more.. until you can address the points made there, you're leaking hot air.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

"We established however some, although not all its important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

[Bob2bob]

382. Perspective

Someone posted this:
"We established however some, although not all its important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"
---------------------------
Here it is condensed with added emphasis:
"The constitutions of most of our STATES assert, that ALL POWER is inherent in THE PEOPLE; ..that it is THEIR right and duty to be at all times armed;"
-------------------------
Most State constitutions assert, that the body with all power has the right and duty to be at all times armed.

[X_Digger]

383. Nice "condensation"

.. leave out things like voting and juries that require INDIVIDUALS.

I see you're still dodging the central point.

[jmg257]

384. You think Adams, Jefferson, Lee, Sherman, Gerry, Burr, et. al. gave up their private right to arms?

Doesn't seem such a group of men would do such a thing, or really expect SO many other members of Congress, federal & state govt officers, employees, clerks, etc. etc. to do the same.
:shrug:


Militia Act 1792

"That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty"

And so, according to your theory, have no secured right to bear arms???

I'm thinking...not likely.

[Bob2bob]

390. There is no "private" right to arms in the 2nd Amendment

jmg257 wrote:

Militia Act 1792

"That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty"

And so, according to your theory, have no secured right to bear arms???

I'm thinking...not likely.
-----------------------------------------
The right to bear arms isn't their personal right.

[jmg257]

392. The right existed, collectively AND individually. And those rights were secured in the 2nd.

Explicitly. For the people for militia duty, for the people for their private, personal enjoyment.

The militia phrase certainly says one reason why it must be so, but it does not further impact the actual right being secured.

[jmg257]

400. On edit...other then saying why we the people have the right

to keep and bear assault weapons, select-fire rifles, pistols, etc. And why that right too is secured.

We shouldn't underestimate the militia phrase, it IS important, but our rights to arms are not solely dependent on it.

[Bob2bob]

403. Plucked out of the air.

"..for their private, personal enjoyment."
----------------------------------------
The stated purpose is State security. You're trying to wish into this amendment what you'd LIKE to be there.

[jmg257]

388. Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a

well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
June 6, 1789

Madison's version. Obvious emphasis on the right of the people (note semi-colon, as used to seperate different clauses in the constitution). Also observance of how a well armed & well trained militia is better than, say, a standing army ("..the substitution of militia for a standing army..")


How can anyone not see that the right of the people to arms exists, and that although it is related to the militia, it does not do so exclusively?

[Bob2bob]

391. BEAR ARMS

jmg257 wrote:
How can anyone not see that the right of the people to arms exists, and that although it is related to the militia, it does not do so exclusively?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it ain't there, it can't be seen without wearing gun-industry glasses.
The question is, how can anyone read this without seeing the military meaning of "bear Arms"?


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

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.

[jmg257]

393. Oh, we see it, the militia meaning. And we know how important that is.

We ALL just know it is not exclusive. Us being the people who have and enjoy the private rights to arms. And the congress, USSC & federal courts etc.

The 'militia meaning' is why we have the right to assault weapons, selective fire rifles, etc. 'All the terrible implements of war are ours by birthright', thanks to the militia clauses/phrase.

The 2nd recognizes how important that is, and also secures that right in an explicitly personal manner.


The individual right to arms, recognized in the 2nd, and codified in law by Congress...Again.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."


And by the US Supreme Court. Again.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Decided June 26, 2008

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
...

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."


Deal with it. The 2nd secures an individual right. Just as intended, just as we have explained. (NO NRA necessary!)

[jmg257]

398. Madison's intention was to place the amendment with clauses securing other individual rights.

"Madison envisioned a personal right to bear arms, rather than merely a right for the states to organize militias, is evident from his desired placement of the right in the Constitution. Madison's original plan was to designate the amendments as inserts between specific sections of the existing Constitution, rather than as separate amendments added to the end of the document. Madison did not designate the right to keep and bear arms as a limitation of the militia clause of Section 8 of Article I. Rather, he placed it as part of a group of provisions (with freedom of speech and the press) to be inserted in "Article 1st, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4." Such a designation would have placed this right immediately following the few individual rights protected in the original constitution, dealing with the suspension of bills of attainder, habeas corpus, and ex post facto laws. Thus...

Madison aligned the right to bear arms along with the other individual rights of freedom of religion and the press, rather than with congressional power to regulate the militia. This suggested placement of the Second Amendment reflected recognition of an individual right, rather than a right dependent upon the existence of the militia.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Sam R Cummins 1999

[Bob2bob]

404. The individual right of conscience.

jmg257 wrote:
"Thus.. Madison aligned the right to bear arms along with the other individual rights of freedom of religion.." "in 'Article 1, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's wrong to determine the nature of this right by where it was intended to be placed at one point. For a start, it's not going to be placed with the powers of Congress when it's a limitation, is it?


Madison:
"Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of CONSCIENCE <--- be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.."

"..The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person RELIGIOSLY SCRUPULOUS <--- of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

[jmg257]

406. 'Person religiously scupulous', right in with the individual right to arms!! Perfect! Thanks! nt

[Bob2bob]

407. "Persons"

jmg257 wrote:
"'Person religiously scupulous', right in with the individual right to arms!!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It says nothing about an "individual" right to arms. You have to pluck that out of thin air.

When it came to individuals that didn't want render military service because of their conscience, they used the word "persons." Why wouldn't they have used the same term if the right to bear arms was a personal right?

[whopis01]

340. But it may be you who are putting brand-new meanings to the words.

The meanings of words change over time. In the OED, a secondary definition of "regulated" is provided as such:

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare

along with the accompanying quotation:
"1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side."

So, in 1690, it was possible for regulated to mean properly disciplined when referring to troops. Is that what was meant when the constitution was written? I don't know, but to imply that this is simply a "brand-new meaning" picked for this word is patently false.

[Abq_Sarah]

39. Because firearm ownership

Is not restricted to the members of a militia?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Because it's an independent clause.

English, people.

It's not that hard.

[jody]

38. Fantastic, next SCOTUS. LOSERS: gun-grabbers who want to disarm victims, WINNERS: gun-nuts who want

to disarm criminals.

[provis99]

131. how can you justify keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

They have just as much constitutional right to bear arms as law-abiding citizens.

[jody]

134. Please read Heller and see what SCOTUS says about criminals RKBA. n/t

[X_Digger]

133. Next step: prolly en banc review..

..since you have two circuits in opposition.

[jody]

42. After reading posts from those who oppose RKBA, I wonder after over eight years of posting on DU why

there are so many DUers who are completely ignorant of the RKBA issue.

[villager]

45. Jody, does disagreeing with you and the pro-gun folks mean others are "ignorant?"

Can't anyone on the pro gun side realize -- or dare concede -- that many of us have absolutely valid reasons to want fewer guns in our communities, and to make access to them *at least as difficult* as access to getting a car?

It's this kind of absolutist language that makes the pro-proliferation personality seem -- how to say this? -- less than trustworthy.

[virginia mountainman]

49. For the sake of discussion (I'm being nice)

That me and you live in different states...

If you come to my house, with a tow truck, I can sell you ANY car I have, and you would be totally legal in taking it home,and doing what ever with it..

If I sold you a handgun, ANY handgun even a little .22 ...When you cross the state line going home, we BOTH just committed a FEDERAL CRIME, with the potential to serve many years at Leavenworth.

[villager]

54. And I have to register than car, yes? And get a driver's license to operate it, right?

We are talking about the same kind of car operation, I believe?

In which case, then yes -- let's make gun sales like car sales!

[bossy22]

60. ok

so no license to buy, no registration for keeping on private property

"And I have to register than car, yes? And get a driver's license to operate it, right?"

only on public roads

[boppers]

71. Treat them like cars?

Permit required for the gun if carrying a gun on public lands.
Licensing required for operators, which tests their knowledge and skill.
Liability insurance required for all guns/operators.
Regular inspections of the equipment to validate regulatory compliance.
Penalties and seizure if used while under the influence.

Huh. Think the NRA would go for it?

[bossy22]

76. all that stuff

only applies to vehicles operating on public property...not on private property

you are not licensed to own a car, you are licensed to drive a car on public roads

you're car isnt inspected to see if it is safe, it is inspected to see if it meets the requirements to be driven on a PUBLIC ROAD if its intended purpose is to be driven on a PUBLIC ROAD

[boppers]

126. I wasn't aware that we had bullets...

...that only stayed on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Do they self destruct when exiting the property, or something like that? How do they handle PUBLIC AIRSPACE, do they detonate if they fly higher than 30 ft?

:evilgrin:

[bossy22]

147. well

we do have bullets that stay on private property, just look at shooting ranges...

that argument is equal to the argument that we should register all cars because even if it is going to be used only on private property, there is a chance it may roll onto a public road

[boppers]

193. ..I'm not seeing the problem there.

I'm also not aware, offhand, that there were guns that were never taken onto public property. I suppose a manufacturer could build on site, and never ship anywhere, but I'm pretty sure most firearms do, indeed, wind up on public property numerous times in their lifespan.

[bossy22]

222. you are right

in some respect...yes most guns end up being on public property in some way...but that doesnt mean they should be licensed just because they happened to be located on public property...cars are the same way

cars that are used only on private property have to be transported from a dealer (on a public road) to the private property....but if they are not licensed and registered they are transported on a truck

the same with guns in this respect...if you transport your firearm locked and in the trunk from the dealer to your property, you shouldnt need a license...since its not being used on public property...if you want to carry it outside your property (using it on public property) you are almost always required to have a license

[Abq_Sarah]

67. Why is it so difficult for some of you to understand

Firearm ownership isn't a right granted by the government, it is a right protected by the government and as such, is not subject to the same kind of regulations as car ownership?

[villager]

77. why on earth can't it be subject to regulations, if you can still own one?

Gun lobbyists are insisting that this is the *one* amendment that *cannot be interpreted* at all, in any way, in any changing context, now or forevermore....

[Abq_Sarah]

111. It is subject to regulation

In case you hadn't noticed. What you can't do is make someone get permission from the government in order to exercise that right. Can you imagine requiring a permit and government permission to exercise free speech or belong to a religion?

[Dr Fate]

153. Actually, you do have to have permits for many free speech demonstrations.

So yes, for better or for worse, I can imagine it.

[X_Digger]

159. You don't have to have a permit to stand on a soap box..

..it's when there's a demonstration that's likely to block traffic, require additional security, etc that you have to get a permit.

[Dr Fate]

167. No doubt. And yet, permits are required for certain expression.

Interesting that instances of exercising the 1st might block traffic or require additional security.

I could imagine instances of exercising the 2nd that might do the same! LOL!

Porno as a form of expression is regulated pretty closely too, for that matter.

[virginia mountainman]

70. Villager, MANY times I and many others...

You don't need to register a vehicle to legally drive it on the road.... I post again

http://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/farm_unregistered.asp

And I would welcome gun laws, their where like our car laws..

Be carefull what you wish for, you just might get it..

Imagine that....No federal registration, no waiting periods, simple tests, that everyone can pass, my Virginia CCW Permit, being honored in all 50 states,without question, no need to license if kept on PRIVATE property.... Can't be taken away, for MINOR law violations, and even if you loose it, you can get it back, or another one like it...


Not a bad start at all!! GREAT IDEA VILLAGER!!

[villager]

79. In Virginia, you can drive unregistered cars around? Uninsured unregistered cars?

I'll suggest then you rent a car when you come to California, my tenacious firearm-wielding fellow DUer!

[bossy22]

95. on your own property you can

same with new york

[virginia mountainman]

157. Did you read the infomation from the DMV website??? The link was provided.

[villager]

293. Why is it so hard just to answer a question? It's probably a matter of "yes" or "no," right?

:shrug:

[X_Digger]

300. Yes

A farm vehicle doesn't have to be registered, tagged, or insured to drive on private property and limited public roads.

[villager]

301. Ah -- so when it's *taken out in public* it needs to be registered, traceable, insured, etc.?

Well, then, I'm liking Virginia Mountainman's analogy more and more!

(of course, you just mentioned farm vehicles -- but one assumes, not passenger vehicles, etc.?)

[X_Digger]

302. Even some public roads..

Farm vehicles can actually travel from and to farm business on public roads without.

Other non-farm? Private property only.

Just like you can carry a gun in your car, house, etc without registration, etc- but if you want to carry it concealed in public, you have to be registered in all but two states.

[villager]

306. thanks for the elucidation, X-Digger!

n/t

[virginia mountainman]

264. BTW, Insurance is OPTIONAL in VA....

You pay the UMV fee, once a year, and your good to go!!!

And because it is optional, it helps keep insurance rates down...I pay $220 every 6 months, for 3 cars, one with full coverage, two with comprehensive, and liability.

[S_B_Jackson]

106. No, you do not have to register that car, nor get a driver's license to operate it.

ONLY if you wish to drive that vehicle on a PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE do you need to do either. But to apply your logic, then if we apply it to firearms then no one should be required to register a weapon UNLESS they wish to carry in public, right?

Funny, that's exactly the scheme envisaged under almost all state's CCW laws.

[hollowdweller]

180. How would registration prevent most of the shootings we have had lately?

Face it. While registering guns may prevent a few criminals from getting guns most of the people who have done really bad things with them lately have bought them legally.

Banning big clips and semi automatics may make it slightly easier for people got get away but it won't prevent gun violence.

The only true way to cut back on gun crime is to register them all and then at the next problem use the registration list to confiscate them just like they have done in other countries that banned guns.

But people aren't for that.

I think the area most people could agree on is to tighten up the NICS to prevent crazy people from getting guns, but not much beyond that is popular enough to pass any legislature.

[spin]

417. The reason gun owners oppose registration..

is obvious. In fact you said it:

The only true way to cut back on gun crime is to register them all and then at the next problem use the registration list to confiscate them just like they have done in other countries that banned guns.

Of course, only registered firearms would be confiscated. Criminals don't bother to register their firearms. They really don't pay attention to laws. That's why they are criminals.

So gun registration and confiscation (if possible) would only increase gun crime as the honest citizens who do follow the law to the letter would be disarmed. Criminals could rob, rape and pillage without fear of being shot by an honest citizen.

But I believe you understand that.

I agree with you that we need to tighten up the NICS to stop those with severe mental issues from legally purchasing firearms.

I would also add that we could open up the NICS background check to private owners so that private sales between individuals would also involve a background check.

And while it would be expensive and piss off the ACLU, we need to start enforcing existing law and start taking illegal firearms from criminals. Any future draconian gun laws should concentrate on the illegal carry of weapons and the illegal misuse of these weapons.

Honest sane citizens are not the problem.

[Euromutt]

429. Criminals registering their guns? See U.S. v. Haynes (1968)

Miles Haynes was convicted of possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Haynes appealed, arguing that since he had a felony conviction, and it was therefore illegal for him to possess any firearm, to require him to register a firearm would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court agreed.

So basically, anyone who cannot legally possess a firearm (e.g. ex-felons) cannot be prosecuted for failing to register it.

[jody]

51. Please read posts to this thread and the pathetic arguments that show ignorance of the issue.

If they aren't obvious to you, then you have a personal problem.

My assertion has nothing to do with whether you and I have different opinions on RKBA but I do expect people to stick to facts.

For a start, anyone who wants to discuss RKBA might read Heller to find out what the current law of the land is on the Second Amendment.

[villager]

55. I have a "personal problem?"

Ach. there goes that beer.

Here come the insults.

Sad, really.

[jody]

63. No insult, the posts clearly show the authors know nothing about Heller. I don't for one second

believe you don't spot them for what they are, statements by someone who is ignorant of the 2nd.

Are you trying to defend such worthless posts?

[villager]

66. We're not talking about Heller -- we're talking about a decision by an increasingly conservative

9th Circuit (as per yesterday's LA Times profile of that particular bench), that will allow guns to further proliferate -- on this, the 10th anniversary of Columbine.

I know pro-gun people love Scalia's Heller ruling (which even concedes reasonable regulation of guns in communities), but many of us don't.

and it's not indicative of a "personal problem," which is kind of a grade school way of "arguing" an issue, doncha think?

[jody]

84. You've got to be kidding, we're talking about Heller and whether it applies to states under the 14th

[villager]

93. Well, I don't know what the lawsuit against Alameda Co. was based on,

but I suppose it could've been initiated after Heller -- but I haven't read any details.

We're talking about the application of the 2nd to the 14th, though, in any case....

And again, disagreement with you Jody is not indicative of a "personal problem" -- which you seem to have a hard time acknowledging -- but rather, instead: Disagreement with you (on this hot button issue).

Disagreement is indicative of disagreement. In this context, nothing more.

[jody]

99. If "don't know what the lawsuit against Alameda Co. was based on", how can you make intelligent

comments about the 9th's decision?

[villager]

103. For Crissakes, Jody! It was somebody suing because of a local gun control provision

in Alameda county!

Heller or not, the decision was to apply the 2nd Amendment through the 14th, making it hard for localities to "well regulate" firearms, so that rural areas and urban areas with street crime, must be subject - evidently - to precisely the same regulations....

some of us have views on those outcomes different than yours.

This sub-thread is absurd, and I'm off to the grocery store...

[jody]

109. In #93 you didn't know what the case was about and in #103 you're an expert! ROFLMAO n/t

[villager]

117. you're being kind of a major butthead now -- in that earlier thread, I said specifically

I didn't know if the case was specifically based on Heller! "LOL!"

[jody]

120. Sorry, you said "I don't know what the lawsuit against Alameda Co. was based on" yet the

first paragraph said;
"Russell and Sallie Nordyke operate a business that promotes
gun shows throughout California. A typical gun show
involves the display and sale of thousands of firearms, generally
ranging from pistols to rifles. Since 1991, they have publicized
numerous shows across the state, including at the
public fairgrounds in Alameda County. Before the County
passed the law at issue in this appeal, the Alameda gun shows
routinely drew about 4,000 people. The parties agree that
nothing violent or illegal happened at those events."

Wouldn't an intelligent person who read the 9th's decision have known that?

[villager]

213. I guess I'm just not intelligent, Jody. You win. Congratulations on a splendid, thoughtful victory.

enjoy.

[X_Digger]

101. Gura et al were involved w/ Nordyke, which was amended post-heller. n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

121. When it comes to the US Constitution

There should be no disagreement on respecting it when it comes to this site.


It would be just as offensive if you suggested we must be licensed and tested before we are allowed to post political opinions on the internet.

[jody]

97. After posting #84, I quickly scanned NORDYKE and found numerous references to Heller suggesting

the authors of the 9th's opinion recognized, not surprisingly, that it must be consistent with Heller.

[X_Digger]

116. Even better..

..they added substantial research not found in Heller.

It's a treasure trove of historical context for why the second was a pre-existing right not strictly associated with service in the militia.

Quotes to rebut MONTHS of ignorant posts :)

[jody]

119. "Quotes to rebut MONTHS of ignorant posts" and it's in Feinstein's home turf, California. n/t

[imdjh]

58. utterly pointless

..........

[villager]

74. okay, well, since you've already won in advance....

...I guess we don't need to do it!

[Tejas]

82. Same old deceptive rhetoric

"Can't anyone on the pro gun side realize -- or dare concede -- that many of us have absolutely valid reasons to want fewer guns in our communities"

How about fewer criminals?
Maybe make them serve their full terms?

What a concept huh?


Oh wait, would a concept like that fall into your "absolutist" category?

[villager]

86. as one of the main pro-gun insulters on this board, Tejas, I'm not surprised

you'd view a request to steer away from such insults as "deceptive."

[Tejas]

227. Your reputation of childish taunts in the Gungeon precede you,

even here, and as usual you segway with non-answers.



So, doing something constructive about criminals is.......oh wait, I already asked, never mind.

[villager]

308. he said, childishly taunting?

A little projection there, what?

But I knew you couldn't wean yourself from the insults...

In fact, time for the ignore list!

[Tejas]

334. more taunts/insults - nt

[ShareTheWoods]

85. Blind Faith

Sometimes party and principle diverge and sometimes they converge.

[jody]

89. So, do you support the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right of citizens to keep and bear

arms for defense of self?

[ShareTheWoods]

110. I do

And I exercise it when it is needed.

[jody]

114. Then you're aligned with the majority of Democrats and DUers.

:hi:

[Earth_First]

57. Great. Now can someone post this over at FR...

because the "Obama is going to take our guns away" tribe has been over the top with this.

I work with one.

[Tejas]

78. Try reading the statements on the website of the Whitehouse itself,

your coworker probably has.


from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[jody]

88. Kick & Recommended because of its historic significance. n/t

[ohio2007]

96. If only the government had guns.........where would the guns be pointed ?

[X_Digger]

118. k&r

[nichomachus]

124. Gun ownership sure helped the Iraqis

Iraq had a higher prevalence of private gun ownership than even the NRA could dream of.

It sure didn't help them get Saddam out of power and it sure didn't help them when George W. Bush decided to Shock&Awe them into submission.

And, all the popguns in the family closets in the US aren't going to do any good either if the government decides to turn on you.

In fact, the only thing that helped the Iraqis fight back against the tyranny of the US government were IEDs and RPGs. Does the 2nd Amendment allow you to own those? Not really. So all this talk about gun ownership preparing us to defend ourselves is just poppycock -- and worse than that, it's a giant pacifier for the right-wingers to suck on as the government takes their rights away.

And for the record, the Revolutionary War was not won by citizen soldiers with their muskets. They all ran away and went back to their farms and businesses. It was won by the regular army

[X_Digger]

135. If the 2nd were strictly about the militia, you'd have a point..

.. but since it isn't (read this decision as well as Heller for TONS of historical context) then you don't.

[jody]

137. The 2nd is primarily about defense of self and secondarily about defense of state. n/t

[24601]

129. I support our President's Constitutional Analysis

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5NxL

"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

He recognized owners, hunters and sportsmen as opposed to owning for hunting and sport only. As a constitutional lawyer, he recognizes that the right to arms, like the right to speak, worship and assemble is not predicated on any NEED to own arms, speak, worship or assemble. It is instead rooted on our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The line is drawn as we draw them with the other rights, when speech, worship or pursuit present a clear and present danger (as opposed to a possible danger) to others. Thus, law abiding speakers, worshipers (watch them snakes Bud!), happiness pursuers and firearms owners should have nothing to fear in the form of a just government trying to take these right away.

On the other hand, yell fire when there is none, worship so that your child dies, achieve happiness driving 90MPH drunk or use a firearm for crime, and not only your right but your freedom, or even life, is subject to forfeit.

Loaded pickup truck carry might work in coyote country but not in Chicago. Home ownership of non-automatic weapons for the law-abiding competent adult is the fundamental right of a free people.

[ShareTheWoods]

138. but not in Chicago???

Why? Is Chicago not part of America?

[Dr Fate]

145. Community standards might be one argument?

Community standards provide exceptions to the 1st Amendment freedom of expression, for instance.

I'm glad the courts incorporated the right- I'm guessing we will see many more rulings now.

[24601]

146. If I implied the right to own in your home didn't apply in

Chicago, then it was unintentional and I apologize. I was referring to "loaded pickup truck carry" not being appropriate in Chicago.

Law-abiding home ownership of non-automatics for competent adults should be what's a universal right. It's what goes on in the public square where the state should be able to gain a compelling interest to act based on local circumstances.

[Abq_Sarah]

262. In terms of self defense

You are more at risk from a criminal in the public square than you are in your own home. Since the state is under no obligation to provide personal protection for me in public, they should not be able to prohibit me from protecting myself.

[Kablooie]

140. Are hand grenades and rocket launchers considered "bearing arms" ?

[bossy22]

143. no

they are considered ordinance

[Kablooie]

152. But isn't the 2nd amendment an ordinance itself?

And does that ordinance preclude other kinds of ordinance?

[bossy22]

158. i hope you are joking

[Kablooie]

275. I hope I am too. If I'm not I need professional help.

Even if I AM joking I probably need professional help.

What kind of help I'm not sure but as long as it's professional
I'm sure it will be adequate.

[slackmaster]

286. The dictionary is your friend

ordnance
One entry found.

Main Entry: ord·nance
Pronunciation: \ˈȯrd-nən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ordinaunce, from Anglo-French ordenance disposition, preparation, military provisions — more at ordinance
Date: 14th century
1 a: military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment b: a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance
2: cannon, artillery

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordnance

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

355. What are the definitions for that? And isn`t the correct spelling "ordnance?" -nt

[struggle4progress]

166. Man shot, killed in Humboldt Park

April 19, 2009 8:15 PM | 29 Comments

A 43-year-old man was shot and killed this afternoon as he was driving in the Humboldt Park neighborhood on Chicago's West Side.

The gunfire broke out as Jaime Rivera, of Cicero, was driving east in the 3300 block of West Division Street around 2:45 p.m., according to police.

Rivera's assailant was driving in the other direction when he stopped, got out of his vehicle and opened fire, hitting Rivera several times. He continued eastbound in his vehicle and struck several parked cars, before hitting a light pole, according to a police account.

Rivera, of the 1200 block of South 61st Court in the west suburb, was rushed to Mt. Sinai Hospital, but died there a short time later ...

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/shot-humboldt-park-division.html

[jody]

285. struggle4progress who will protect you if you're the victim of one of the criminal attacks you post?

[struggle4progress]

313. Are you asking a coherent question, jody? I'd guess you have not read the posts to see

the variety of deaths represented: categories such as accidents, lovers' quarrels, random shootings, victims killed with their own guns, and more -- all are represented in this sample

There might be a very limited number of situations in which a gun makes one safer; there are many situations in which a gun does not make one safer

[jody]

314. I asked a coherent question, do you have a coherent answer? n/t

[struggle4progress]

317. You posted in response to a story about a man shot while driving his car, which contained

no information on motive nor even on the geometry of the shooting

Given the context, I can't really make any sense of your question: I think your intent is rhetorical, and that you mean to suggest that the driver would have survived had he been armed -- but if that is your intent, I could only say that I do not actually know whether the driver was armed or not, or whether he was even aware of the threat until the shooting actually began

I suppose I could examine all manner of possible meanings of your question: Are you asking how someone could protect himself against someone who decided to randomly shoot at his car as he drove along? Are you asking how one reduces the possibility of random shootings into cars?

Such events occur regularly:

Fairfax Girl Visiting Out-of-State Killed in Car in Random Shooting
Article from: The Washington Post
Article date: March 30, 1997
Copyright 1997 The Washington Post
A 17-year-old Fairfax County girl visiting friends in Washington State was shot and killed early yesterday in what authorities described as a random shooting. Anne Harris, of the 3000 block of Batter Sea Lane near Mount Vernon, was riding in the back seat of a car with three teenage friends when she was hit by a bullet fired from a second vehicle ... http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-709682.html

Teens Arrested in Durham Bus Shooting
A woman was injured when someone fired several shots into a DATA bus in downtown Durham Wednesday night.(WRAL-TV5 News)
Posted: Jan 23, 2001
DURHAM — ... Several shots were fired into a Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) bus located in downtown Durham around 8 p.m. One of the bullets hit a female passenger in the lower back. Police say there were more than a dozen people on board at the time of the shooting ... http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/143074/

Man sitting in parked car dies after apparently 'random shooting'
BY LISA O'NEILL HILL
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
RIVERSIDE
A 23-year-old man was shot and killed Thursday night while sitting in a parked car with another man and a 3-year-old boy, police said ... Published 5/26/2001 ... http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/2001/05/26/990847241.html

Published: Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Police: Shooting may have been random
By HAROLD GWIN
VINDICATOR EDUCATION WRITER
YOUNGSTOWN — Police are trying to determine whether a city man shot and killed on Shehy Street was an intended target or the victim of a random shooting. Justin Fields, 21, of East Warren Avenue, was hit twice in the head by bullets fired at a car being driven by his cousin, Aundrey Fields, 22, of Steubenville, on Shehy Street around 2 a.m. Monday ... http://www4.vindy.com/content/local_regional/304877967202413.php

Man sought in police shooting served time for firing into school bus.
Article from: The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC)
Article date: October 2, 2007 | Copyright information
COPYRIGHT 2007 The Herald-Sun
Byline: Brianne Dopart
Oct. 2--DURHAM -- The man Durham police say was involved in shooting one of their own once served prison time for shooting into an occupied school bus and should be considered dangerous ... http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-169378678.html

Durham pair face 75 more charges in crime spree
Posted: Jun. 26, 2008
Updated: Jun. 26, 2008
Durham, N.C. — Durham police added to the charges against two men who said their string of robberies and shootings around Durham was prompted by boredom ... Charges also were pending against the pair in connection with shooting at a Durham Area Transit Authority bus on March 6 near Northgate Mall, Lopez said. More than a dozen people were on the bus at the time, but no injuries were reported ... http://www.ncwanted.com/ncwanted_home/story/3112439/

Victim Recovers From Random Shooting
POSTED: 11:24 pm MDT March 17, 2009
UPDATED: 4:26 am MDT March 18, 2009
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A man is shot while driving down Montgomery Boulevard. in Albuquerque. It happened in early Tuesday morning. Steven Draper's car and a street sweeper behind him were both shot at. Only the street sweeper's radiator was hit. It was much worse for Draper. He said some shined a flashlight into his car, then two bullets hit. One of the bullets went through his back windshield. The other one hit the side of his car, piercing his upper back ... http://www.koat.com/news/18955228/detail.html

Motorist shot nine times and survives
10:27 PM CDT on Saturday, April 18, 2009
By CRAIG CIVALE / WFAA-TV
... Rodriguez' family says the 27-year-old is conscious and talking, despite having being shot nine times early Saturday while driving home with a friend ... Rodriguez and his friend were coming home from a club when someone reportedly pulled alongside them and opened fire. Nearly every round struck Rodriguez. His family said he was shot four times in the legs; he was also hit in his left arm, shoulder, back and neck ... Police believe the shooting was random ... http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/localnews/news8/stories/wfaa090418_lj_civale.ea612d98.html

[jody]

322. My post # 285 asked about "one of the criminal attacks you post" referring to all the posts you

made in this thread.

If that wasn't clear, I hope it is now and I repeat, "285. struggle4progress who will protect you if you're the victim of one of the criminal attacks you post?"

IMO the answers will include:

a. I'll submit to the criminal.
b. I hope someone other citizen protects me.
c. I hope police come protect me.
d. I'll arm myself so that I can exercise my right to defend self.

[struggle4progress]

324. None of the answers, that you consider acceptable, seem to offer much help in a case like that

of a random shooting into one's car as one drives along

[jody]

327. If you don't like those answers, what would you do? n/t

[struggle4progress]

329. You're seriously asking me what I will do if someone shoots randomly into my car as I drive along?

Perhaps you think I'm a some sort of idiot. You're just an anonymous poster on the internet: I don't know anything about you. How do I know you're not a bored moron daydreaming about shooting someone at random for entertainment value, as in one of the incidents I linked earlier in this little sub-thread? And even if you're not, how do I know my comments won't be read by some bored moron daydreaming about shooting someone at random for entertainment value? No thanks.

[jody]

331. Why are you having so much trouble understanding a simple question, "who will protect you if you're

the victim"?

I repeat"who"?

[struggle4progress]

333. This is pointless. Anyone interested in this "discussion" should read the entire subthread.

:hi:

[jody]

335. Obviously you are not going to answer the question and I'll never know what were your intentions in

posting so many incidents involving firearms in a thread that announced a decision that incorporated the Second Amendment in the Fourteenth Amendment.

I truly wanted to see how you made the connection between your several posts and the OP but you choose to keep that secret.

Have a great day. :hi:

[struggle4progress]

336. #255:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3840513&mesg_id=3841202

[jody]

337. That fails to explain "what were your intentions in posting so many incidents involving firearms in

a thread that announced a decision that incorporated the Second Amendment in the Fourteenth Amendment."

The OP issue was incorporation and not crime or accidents. :shrug:

I accept your unwillingness to answer that question and "who would protect you".

Peace! :hi:

[struggle4progress]

170. Student shot, killed after apparent robbery

04/18/2009 01:57 PM
Student shot, killed after apparent robbery
By: News 14 Carolina Web Staff


GREENVILLE, N.C. – Police say an 18-year-old high school football player at J.H. Rose has been shot and killed after a robbery. Police say Kenneth Sprouse shot Tony Turnage after he and a number of other Rose students robbed Sprouse at his apartment.

Early Friday morning, investigators say Turnage and two other teens stole money, drugs and a computer from Sprouse’s apartment on East 10th Street while two other students waited outside. Police say Sprouse fired a shotgun at them as they were leaving, hitting Turnage in the back.

Turnage was left outside the emergency room at Pitt Memorial Hospital, where he later died. Sprouse now faces murder charges ...

http://www.news14.com/content/local_news/coastal/608003/student-shot--killed-after-apparent-robbery/Default.aspx

[EndElectoral]

171. So was slavery

[X_Digger]

189. Slavery was what? n/t

[struggle4progress]

172. Redflex Shooting Suspect In Custody

... A contract employee, who was shot multiple times while inside a photo-radar van in north Phoenix, has died. It happened at about 8:30 p.m. on the Loop 101 near the 7th Avenue exit. The victim was transported to John C. Lincoln Hospital where he later died ... http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/breaking-redflex-van-driver-shot-killed/

[struggle4progress]

174. Woman Shot, Killed In Upscale Boston Hotel

April 15, 2009 11:38 a.m. EST
Linda Young - AHN Editor

Boston, MA (AHN) - A young woman believed to have been involved in an online escort service was killed in an upscale Boston hotel by an unknown assailant ...

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014795436

[struggle4progress]

175. Man, 24, shot and killed in Montgomery

April 20, 2009

A 24-year-old man was shot and killed Monday afternoon, and Montgomery police are searching for a suspect.

Police responded to the 1800 block of Alexander Street at 4:24 p.m. Monday in response to a shooting, according to a new release from the Montgomery Police Department.

When they arrived, officers found a 24-year-old man who had two gunshot wounds, including one in the back, the release states. The victim was taken to Jackson Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, according to police ... http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20090420/NEWS/90420057

[struggle4progress]

176. Two young men are killed in separate shootings

Homicide detectives yesterday identified two young men who died during the weekend in separate shootings.

Calvin Logan, 23, was fatally shot in the 3500 block of North Smedley Street about 9:40 p.m. Saturday. Logan, of Strawberry Mansion, was shot once in the back. He was pronounced dead at Temple University Hospital.

Quan Harper, 18, of Northwest Philadelphia, died about 3 p.m. Saturday at Albert Einstein Medical Center after being shot multiple times Friday night ...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20090420_Two_young_men_are_killed_in_separate_shootings.html

[struggle4progress]

177. Dallas police say man killed in South Texas killed one Dallas man, maybe more

12:00 AM CDT on Monday, April 20, 2009

By SCOTT GOLDSTEIN / The Dallas Morning News
[e-mail]

Carlos Huerta was gunned down in Dallas in front of numerous witnesses celebrating the New Year in the early-morning hours of Jan. 1, 2008.

It did not take long for Dallas police homicide detectives to identify the man they believed shot the 23-year-old father of three. Within days, authorities issued an arrest warrant for convicted felon Tomas C. Padilla.

"We just couldn't find him," said Detective Dan Lusty, the lead investigator on the case.

Padilla, 32, was never arrested – and he never will be. He was killed in Rio Grande City last month, effectively clearing the first Dallas homicide of 2008 ...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/DN-coldcasehuerta_20met.ART.State.Edition1.4a5564a.html

[struggle4progress]

178. 18-year-old killed another injured after shooting in Central Toledo

Article published April 19, 2009
18-year-old killed another injured after shooting in Central Toledo
BLADE STAFF

An 18-year-old man was shot and killed and another person was wounded late Saturday in a central Toledo neighborhood at Pinewood and Forest Avenues.

Olajuwan Mobley, whose address was not available, was reportedly shot in the head about 11:30 p.m. at 1013 Pinewood. He later died in St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center ...

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090419/NEWS02/904190355/-1/NEWS04

[struggle4progress]

179. Authorities identify victim, gunman in murder-suicide

Updated: 3 mins ago

Friends are shocked that a man allegedly shot and killed his girlfriend outside of a McDonald's restaurant Sunday.

Maple Grove Police say Heather Rose McPherson and Sedric Larkins, both 24, were supposed to meet at McDonald's Sunday afternoon. McPherson was going to end their on-again, off-again relationship.

But Larkins showed up with a shotgun and opened fire outside of McDonald's, hitting McPherson at least twice, police say. She died at the scene.

Larkins fled the scene. Within ten minutes, a Brooklyn Park police officer spotted his speeding vehicle and pulled him over along I-694. By the time officers approached the vehicle, Larkins had shot and killed himself ...

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=633650

[struggle4progress]

182. New Details Why Schmidt Killed Wife

New details are out about why Scott Schmidt killed his wife and shot his mother-in-law ...

http://www.nbc26.com/Global/story.asp?S=10217297

[struggle4progress]

185. Police Identify Man Shot, Killed in Reading

POSTED: 04-17-2009 04:34 AM ET | MODIFIED: 04-17-2009 02:15 PM ET

Police have identified the man who was murdered inside his apartment in Reading this morning. They say Levar Demond Batson, 31, was shot in the head shortly before 3:00. They responded after getting a call from a woman inside the building reporting that shots had been fired on her floor.

http://wfmz.com/view/?id=786648

[struggle4progress]

186. No arrests in fatal shooting at Detroit garage

Associated Press
6:00 PM CDT, April 18, 2009

DETROIT - Police continue searching for three men who drove up to an auto repair shop and opened fire, leaving a 30-year-old man dead and four others wounded ... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-5shot-detroit,0,6580177.story

[Dr Fate]

199. In other words, gun violence is a problem. This is my issue as well.

I support 2nd amendment rights, but my problem is that the majority of the pro-gun politicians & lobby groups are alligned with conservatives who do nothing to reduce gun violence.

Other than building more prisons or arming more people, the discussion is never about WAYS to reduce gun violence.

[struggle4progress]

187. 1 Shot, Killed In Dayton

Posted: 5:35 pm EDT April 16, 2009Updated: 11:22 pm EDT April 16, 2009

DAYTON, Ohio -- A man was shot and killed Thursday evening while playing basketball in College Hill Park on Shaftsbury Road in Dayton ...

http://www.whiotv.com/community/19201261/detail.html

[struggle4progress]

190. Waxahachie man killed in shootout outside Dallas restaurant

A shooting outside a restaurant in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas on Monday left a man dead and three injured. Police said the suspects used AK-47s in the shooting ... http://www.star-telegram.com/189/story/1326563.html

[struggle4progress]

191. Man, 25, killed in South Side shooting

April 19, 2009
FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS

A man was fatally shot early Sunday in the Gresham neighborhood on the South Side.

Police responded to a call of a person shot in the 500 block of West 85th Street about 3:35 a.m., according to police News Affairs Officer Daniel O’Brien, who said upon arrival, police discovered the man on the street being treated by paramedics for a gunshot wound to the chest.

The man, identified as Jason Burk, 25, of 7500 S. South Shore Drive, was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn where he was pronounced dead at 4:12 a.m., a Cook County Medical Examiner’s office spokesman said.

He was shot on the 550 block of West 85th Street, the spokesman said ...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1534042,w-south-side-shooting-death-041909.article

[struggle4progress]

194. Man killed, 7 others shot inside South Side car wash

April 18, 2009
FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS

A shooting inside a car wash in the South Side's Hamilton Park neighborhood left one man dead and seven others wounded early Saturday, police said ...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1532965,w-car-wash-shooting-south-side-041809.article

[struggle4progress]

197. South Miami Commissioner shot, killed by son

osted on Monday, 04.13.09
The Associated Press

MIAMI -- A South Miami city commissioner has died after he was shot by his son.

Miami-Dade police said Jay Beckman was shot on Sunday at his home. Officials said his son, 17-year-old Jason Beckman told detectives that he went to show his father a shotgun he had just assembled but slipped and fell, causing the shotgun to fire ...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/997514.html

[struggle4progress]

198. 2 killed in San Antonio shooting

04/19/2009

Associated Press

Two women were killed and a third was critically wounded at a San Antonio apartment complex, police said.

A male suspect thought to be an ex-boyfriend of one victim was arrested near the scene after the shootings late Saturday night, police said ...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D97LN1R00.html

[struggle4progress]

200. Robbins man shot, killed in Morgan Park

April 15, 2009 1:53 AM | 1 Comment

A 20-year-old Robbins man was shot and killed Tuesday during an apparent drug-related robbery on Chicago's Far South Side, officials said early today ...

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/robbins-man-shot-killed-in-morgan-park.html

[bossy22]

203. stop flooding this

discussion with these events...they have little to do with the discussion at hands (incorporation of the 2A)

[Dr Fate]

I think facts about gun violence are directly connected to private gun ownership.

So I don't see how we can say gun violence should not be part of the discussion.

The fact that it is a right does not make the problem go away.

[bossy22]

220. well

there are right ways of doing it, and there are wrong ways

right way- using one post to talk about multiple incidents

wrong way- they way that it is being done, posting anecdotal events over and over....thats spamming

[Dr Fate]

223. Then again, the multiple posts are effective and illustrate the point.

The point being, we still have a problem with gun violence.

I've noticed recently that no one ever seems to really address that one.

I find the current, up-to-date news on gun violence to be as thought provoking as any other post here, but feel free to alert any rule violations or whatever...

[bossy22]

230. they also are good at disrupting a discussion

there is no doubt that up-to date news on gun violence is important to the gun debate overall, but not the constitutional part...we are discussing incorporation, not the merits of gun policies

[Dr Fate]

235. It raises issues. For instance: Does incorporation mean more- or less- gun violence?

Perhaps it has no effect one way or the other...

I'll let you get back to your above discussions if you wish- but perhaps the ultimate issues are somewhere behind the dicta & legal briefs!

[bossy22]

238. but those issues really have no basis in incorporation

incorporation is solely based in constitutional discussion, not on real world events.

[Dr Fate]

241. So you prefer to discuss the exercise of rights in the abstract, as they appear on paper.

Me too- but I'm also interested in what happens when we actually take on the responsibility of those rights and the real life consequences.

LOL! Apparently you find this sub-thread worth discussing after all! ;)

[bossy22]

242. well im always up for a good discussion

yes, so am i interested, but incorporation is a matter of constitutional procedure...consequences of the right is an appropriate discussion when defining the right, not when defining when it is incorporated

[Dr Fate]

248. The procedure is to incorporate via the 14th- I get it.

Now what?

More gun violence, less or no effect what-so-ever?

More states & municipalities bringing more law suits is my guess...

I hear you, but my over all position in defending the "spam" is: Let's not hide from the facts and the questions on the horizon...

Point taken.

[bossy22]

249. well yes

we will have to study the effects

you are right on that fact

[Dr Fate]

251. Study them and maybe even do something about them!

I'm sure the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby is very concerned and has top men on it right now.

[bossy22]

254. i have recreationally

studied many aspects of the gun debate

well im going to head to bed, have a goodnight and it was a good discussion

[X_Digger]

256. Not their fire to fight..

Compare the two statements below.. why do most here agree with the second but not the first? (I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU, btw.)

The NRA is an advocacy organization for the protection of legal exercise of the second amendment.
It is not the NRAs responsibility to address psychos abusing the second amendment by shooting people.

versus

The ACLU is an advocacy organization for the protection of legal exercise of the first amendment.
It is not the ACLUs responsibility to address pedophiles abusing the first amendment by distributing child pornography.

It's just as wrong headed to blame the NRA for gun violence as it would be to blame the ACLU for child pornography.

[Dr Fate]

261. Not true- I've heard the NRA advocating more prisons and tougher sentencing before.

So you are incorrect to say that the NRA does not attempt to adress the consequences of and solutions to gun violence.

The problem is that their solutions are wrong, very expensive and certainly not progressive. The other problem is that these conservatives also work AGAINST some solutions that might actually work.

If such powerful organizations and a majority of their conservative members were part of the solution and not the problem, then there would be no perceived need for more gun control.

The ACLU does not advocate for distribution or ownership of child porn that I know of, so I dont really get your metaphor.

The NRA and the Gun Industry do adovate for less restricted gun ownership- for better or for worse- and gun ownership is certainly connected to gun violence-as are a lot of other factors.

[X_Digger]

281. I did not say..

.. that they don't try, I said it's actually not their responsibility. No more than it's ACLU's responsibility to fight child porn.

[Dr Fate]

316. I said it: The gun lobby & gun industry does not give a shit about the problem of gun violence.

They are part of the problem for sure, and certainly not part of any viable solution either. In fact, the majority of their members and allies tend to side with those who work AGAINST the solutions.

It is their responsibility to advocate for a safe society where gun ownership is legal- they advocate for the distribution & sale of guns. Surely their goal should be less gun violence, not more.

As I said, your ACLU metaphor fails - the ACLU is not pro-child porn, while the NRA is pro gun ownership.

So apparently there is nothing for you to really disagree with.

[X_Digger]

323. Lol, you missed the point by several continents..

You're comparing gun ownership to a criminal act- that may be your starting point, but it's not mine (nor the vast majority of 80M+ gun owners). You seem to be asserting that gun ownership is akin to criminal misuse of a gun. Two very different things.

I stand by my analogy- it's just as wrongheaded to blame the NRA for gun violence (a misuse of the 2nd amendment) as it is to blame the ACLU for distribution of child pornography (a misuse of 1st amendment).

[Dr Fate]

341. Private Gun ownership is directly connected to gun violence in the USA.

Private gun ownership is 100% connected to gun violence. Unless a person is shot by a cop or a soldier, they are shot with a gun that was in the possession of a private owner.

I'm not comparing gun ownership to a criminal act- I'm pointing out the fact that criminal acts involving gun violence obviously involve people who own guns. No abstract logic games, skewed NRA statistics or half-baked metaphors can refute that.

Even still, private gun ownership is a right.

Even still, gun violence is a problem.

Freedom & rights has always been about how we can we strengthen our rights while eliminating (as much as we can w/o giving up our freedom) the negative effects of abusing that right.

The gun industry & the gun lobby is part of the problem, but not part of the solution.

The gun industry and gun lobby is connected to gun violence.

There is a direct connection between gun violence and the people who used their privately owned guns to commit such violence. I can't believe I have to actually point this out.

Again, the ACLU doesn't advocate ownership, distribution across state lines or sale of the kiddy stuff. The NRA does advocate less regulation as to private gun ownership.

Since kiddy stuff is not protected under the 1st Amendment at all-even in a regulated form, while regulated gun ownership is protected by the 2nd & maybe the 9th- your metaphor is just flat out wrong.

You can stand by your wrong analogy just as you seem to stand by the NRA-but gun violence will still be an issue.

Just b/c the gun absolutists want to wish away the connections b/t the gun lobby & gun violence doesn't mean the rest of us will.

[X_Digger]

343. Gun ownership is related to gun crime..

..the same way having a penis is related to rape.

We should limit penis ownership to solve rape!

"That there, that's an assault penis, there's no reason to have that on our streets! It's only purpose is to rape!"

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Dr Fate]

345. Another "funny"metaphor. What a suprise. I thought only "gun-grabbers" compared guns to a penis.

Now that your ACLU metaphor has been shot down, you come up with a new one that is even more outrageous.

I never said the only purpose of a gun is to commit gun violence-you had to indicate that as my postion so that your metaphor might somehow make sense.

I pointed out the unrefutable fact that where there is gun violence, there is a gun and someone who owns it.

The issue is guns and gun violence- not "penis ownership" and rape.

The fact stands, you can't have gun violence without gun ownership. One is a right, one is a serious problem that many want to ignore.

I realize why you guys use metaphors so much- it keeps you from actually discussing the issue is at hand.

The issue is gun ownership and gun violence, not your cutesy "assualt penis" strawman that serves only to distract from the topic.

In any event- the NRA & gun industry conservatives are just as opposed to programs that would reduce rape as they are opposed to programs that would reduce gun violence- so once again, your strained metaphors fall flat on many levels.

Someday voters are going to demand solutions-and the well-worn metaphors and argument tricks as provided by NRA type literature will not be enough.

[X_Digger]

346. Yes, it was a silly analogy..

But it illustrated my point that ownership != misuse.

"The fact stands, you can't have gun violence without gun ownership."

That is a truism / tautology. If all guns disappeared tomorrow, all gun crime would cease (notice I said gun crime, not crime in general). That's about as realistic as the claims that 50% of suicides wouldn't happen without guns (because 50% of suicides are committed with a gun.)

The NRA is opposed to legislation that unduly burdens lawful ownership and provides no tangible, measurable expectation of decrease in crime committed with guns. (ie, '94 AWB)

The NRA helped draft the states' legislation that served as a template for the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The NRA supported the 1968 Gun Control Act that set up the Federal Firearms Licensing System.
The NRA supported the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act that codified and expanded the 'prohibited person' criteria.
The NRA supported the provisions of the 1994 Brady Bill establishing the National Instant Check System.
The NRA supported the expansion of the NICS in '03 and '07.

[Dr Fate]

347. Yes, your tired, NRA style metaphors were silly-and still are.

Also, I never said that eliminating all guns was my goal. So, again, your analogy only works if you assign positions to my statements that I never took.

Now we are back where we started- the well funded, conservative gun manufacturers and their Republican lobbyists are certainly connected to the problem, but they refuse to be part of the solution.

"no tangible, measurable expectation of decrease in crime committed with guns"

According to you and NRA standards, that is. So says well-paid conservative lobbyists and multi-million dollar corporations who have a record of twisting the facts or being just plain wrong about everything else.

I'm sure the NRA and the gun industry would tell me that there would be MORE, not less instances of gun violence than there is today if all the laws they successfully opposed had been passed.

Their ultimate argument is always: "gun violence still exists, and will exist no matter what you propose. I have statistics right here that prove that anything you might want to try won't work. If guns dont kill you, a bath tub, knife or something else will. Your only hope is to buy a gun yourself."

Soone or later, the public will not be satisfied with that explanation.

[X_Digger]

348. So.. the '94 AWB worked?

Or the waiting period? Or the DC handgun ban? Or the Chicago ban? Or the California AWB?

They actually worked, and it's those damned statisticians to blame?

Pull the other one, it plays 'dixie'.

[Dr Fate]

350. Has anything the NRA proposed reduced gun violence in those places?

Does the NRA have any stats about gun violence going DOWN in DC, California or Chicago when they have won a legislative victory?

So statistics show that gun violence has increased, despite the efforts the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbys in the US? That is not suprising.

I'm sure gun violence has increased year after year- even after passing laws. We agree on that much.

I'm not sure laws cause such an increase- but I am sure that gun ownership is connected to the increase.

I've never said that gun violence was not on the steady increase, despite certain laws or Republican/NRA efforts.

I maintain that these Republican & corporate lobbyists only tell us one side of the story. (Imagine that!)

NRA statistics always tell us that gun violence increases no matter what regulation- but for all I know, there would have been an even sharper increase in gun violence without the laws you mention- I would need a grain of salt as to the NRA/GOP's lopsidded stats & arguments either way.

They make it seem like they only solution is more guns, and I'm not sure the public is going to keep going along with that either.

[X_Digger]

351. Actually..

Gun violence has gone _down_ since the early 90's, along with violent crime in general (either late 80s or early 90s, can't recall offhand.)

Check the DoJ & FBI reports on violence.

(random google result)

[Dr Fate]

352. Good- so maybe some gun control laws are working after all.

I thought you were just saying that laws in CA, etc did no good.

My bad- I assumed you were indicating gun violence was on the increase in CA, etc, despite any regulations- I was taking your word for it.

Maybe other factors are involved in the decrease, besides laws- who knows?

Is that chart for gun violence, or violent crime in general? If accurate, it's informative either way.

Just so you know, I'm for owning guns.

I'm just trying to get some straight up, no smoke, honest arguments and information here- and with all due respect, I rarely get it from either side on this issue..

[X_Digger]

353. Honestly, if you look at a state by state breakdown..

You see more result from economic improvement.. there's a bigger apparent correlation between unemployment / poverty and crime than there is between gun laws and crime (my guess being that criminals will use whatever tool is at hand.)

There was no increase in crime with 'assault weapons' after the ban expired, nor was there a decrease during that period. At the same time, those 'scary looking rifles' that so many pols like to get whipped up about, became more popular and in more homes. If the intent was to decrease ownership of them, it failed. If the intent was to decrease their use in crime, it failed. (Just an example)

I _think_ that graph is violent crime overall, but you can get better stats here- http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm or http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ and http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/

Unfortunately, the FBI / DoJ is always at least 6 months behind, so the recent economic downturn isn't represented in current crime stats.

eta: links

[Dr Fate]

354. HOT DAMN! We sort-of agree on something!!!!

"You see more result from economic improvement.. there's a bigger apparent correlation between unemployment / poverty and crime than there is between gun laws and crime (my guess being that criminals will use whatever tool is at hand.)"

If I heard the gun lobby and the majority of gun advocates adressing this every now and then, instead of shouting down any and every concern I bring up, I might listen to them.

As it is, I still don't see any balance- more guns, less economic improvement is what I'm going to get from the NRA conservatives as a whole.

I'll let you have the last word, if you want to, so that we can end on a good note!!! :)

[X_Digger]

356. We do agree..

Many in the gungeon here at DU repeat the same- addressing the social injustice, poverty, lack of decent safety net, lack of mental health care, ending the stupid war on drugs- the things that cause folks to turn to crime.

50% of the gun owning public is dem / independent (ballpark, I'd have to research for a more accurate number.)

Painting all gun owners with a broad brush (picking some of the most extreme NRA propaganda) is just as bad as painting all of DU with the Peta / Earth First / Weathermen brush.

Thing is, for us gun owners, there's only one national level group advocating for us with any power. Groups like the Gun Owners of America and American Hunters and Shooters Association are just too small or are just as bad.

[Iktomiwicasa]

358. Anything over

5 inches might be considered a destructive device :rofl:

[struggle4progress]

255. From the decision under discussion: "... the language of the statute suggests that gun violence, not

gun culture, motivated its passage. Section 9.12.120(a) recites several statistics about gunshot deaths and injuries in Alameda County and then concludes that “prohibiting the possession of fire-arms on County property will promote the public health and safety by contributing to the reduction of gunshot fatalities
and injuries in the County” ... NORDYKE v. KING at 4502-4503

The issue of gun-violence is not at all irrelevant to this case

[struggle4progress]

225. Discussions should be based on facts. This is the LBN forum. What I have posted is recent news:

it is almost entirely news from the last week. I tried to avoid duplicates. These all came up on the first page of my news search: http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&num=50&q=shot+killed&cf=all

Ideology is tiresome. Instead of babbling abstractly, perhaps we could investigate how guns are actually used

[friendly_iconoclast]

245. What you are doing is effectively a DDoS and against DU rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=102

Observe the following rules when posting in the Latest Breaking News Forum

Thousands of people use the DU Latest Breaking News Forum as their primary source for news. Please do not "dilute" the forum by starting threads that are not news.

Be aware of the following restrictions when posting in Latest Breaking News:

1. Do not post news that is more than 12 hours old.....


If your message is not Latest Breaking News, you should post it in the General Discussion Forum or in one of the other forums.

[Dr Fate]

250. I wonder if that is for starting OPs- not responses that are related to the discussion.

These are factual, recent news stories about private gun ownership.

It is often that people link recent news stories from the past few weeks that pertain to even more recent news.

I've never seen people having a problem with MORE factual information before.

[struggle4progress]

252. The rule you cite discusses "starting threads," not providing additional info within a thread,

as I understand it

[struggle4progress]

215. This is all current news. It seems to me related to the subject at hand.

[Abq_Sarah]

263. No offense intended

But reports of death and injury seem to excite you a bit.

[struggle4progress]

278. Relevance to NORDYKE v. KING is supported by direct quotation from decision in my #255:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3840513&mesg_id=3841202

[struggle4progress]

202. Schnucks security guard is shot, killed by suspected shoplifter

Wednesday, Apr. 15, 2009
Schnucks security guard is shot, killed by suspected shoplifter
BY CAROLYN P. SMITH AND JACQUELINE LEE - News-Democrat

EAST ST. LOUIS -- A grocery store security guard died Tuesday afternoon after a suspected shoplifter grabbed his gun and shot him twice, East St. Louis police said ... http://www.bnd.com/179/story/729900.html

[struggle4progress]

204. Man shot, killed in Rochester

A couple of hours after all the shops at Culver Road and Parsells Avenue had closed and the Boy Scouts at the corner church had gone home, a city man was found shot and killed on that same corner ... http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090415/NEWS01/904150333/1002/NEWS

[struggle4progress]

205. Gun violence claims three men in S.F.

Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, April 20, 2009

(04-20) 15:36 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Three young men killed in San Francisco since Friday apparently were victims of spontaneous gun violence, police said Monday ... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/20/BA5L175HPE.DTL&type=news

[struggle4progress]

206. Woman shot, killed at Phoenix party

by Brandon Donahoo/KTAR (April 12th, 2009 @ 6:29pm)
Policy >>
Comments: 7
Bookmark and Share

PHOENIX - A woman was shot and killed at a party Sunday morning near Piedmont Road and 7th Avenue, according to Phoenix police.

Officers responded to a call around 1:30 a.m. where there had been reports that gun shots had been fired.

Upon arrival, officers found Michelle Dickinson, 18, lying on the ground with an apparent gunshot wound to the chest.

Officers began CPR on Dickinson until firefighters arrived but the she was later pronounced dead at the scene ... http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1120989

[struggle4progress]

207. Children shot, killed in New Orleans

TERRYTOWN, LA (WAFB) - Around 3:43 a.m. Saturday, Jefferson Parish Police Officers responded to reports of multiple gunshot victims at 945 East Montery Court Apartment complex in Terrytown.

When police arrived they found 19 year old Dominique Sterling lying on the floor in the living room suffering from a gunshot wound to the back. She was pronounced dead at the scene.

Sterling's 23 month old son, Robert Claiborne, along with a 6 year old boy named Four Overstreet were also found dead, suffering gun shot wounds to the head ... http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=10167692&nav=0aWU

[struggle4progress]

209. Teen shot, killed near Visitacion Valley

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 | 12:56 PM
Bay City News

SAN FRANCISCO -- A 16-year-old boy was visiting family in San Francisco's Sunnydale public housing projects when he was fatally gunned down Monday night, police said ... http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=6760345

[struggle4progress]

210. Man Shot, Killed in Southwest Baltimore

Reported by: Sherrie Johnson
Last Update: 4/13 2:02 pm

Homicide detectives are investigating the fatal shooting a man in Southwest Baltimore Monday morning.

Officers were called to the 2200-block of Christian Street at 9:11 a.m. When they arrived they found the victim, who is only being identified at this time as an adult white male, suffering from a gunshot wound to the stomach.

The victim was taken to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center where he was pronounced dead a short time later ...

http://www.abc2news.com/news/local/story/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Southwest-Baltimore/zS4cXw29TUacboG4IjuYfg.cspx

[struggle4progress]

211. Police: 11 year old with Pee Dee ties shot, killed

By Tonya Brown
Monday, April 13, 2009 at 7:42 p.m.

Newschannel 15 has learned an 11 year old child with ties to the Pee Dee is dead after authorities say he was killed by a 12 year old relative.

The coroner of Calhoun County says 11-year-old Langley "Jason" Rudisell, the fourth died from a gunshot wound Sunday night ...

http://www.carolinalive.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=286349

[struggle4progress]

212. Man shot, killed in Over-The-Rhine

By Jennifer Baker • [e-mail] • April 13, 2009

OVER-THE-RHINE - A 30-year-old man was fatally shot Sunday night in the 1700 block of Vine Street, Cincinnati police homicide investigators said today.
Advertisement

Joshua Erkins was found shot twice in the head about 10:30 p.m. and taken to University Hospital, police said ... http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090413/NEWS0107/304130012

[struggle4progress]

214. Man shot, killed in attempted robbery

Crime happened on Riley, near 38th &
Emerson

Updated: Sunday, 12 Apr 2009, 8:09 PM EDT
Published : Sunday, 12 Apr 2009, 6:45 AM EDT

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) - Police say someone shot and killed a man in an attempted robbery. It happened around 1:30 Sunday morning on Riley Avenue. That's in a neighborhood near 38th and Emerson on the east side.

Police 43-year old Troy Taylor answered a knock at the door and a man put a gun to his head. Taylor tried to run out the back door and police say that's when the suspect fired.

"The suspect shot the victim in the back as he ran to the back of the house. Right now we have detectives interviewing possible witnesses tot try to get a suspect description at this time," IMPD Sgt. Paul Thompson said ...

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/crime/Man_shot_killed_in_attempted_robbery_20090412

[TankLV]

234. Wow - this sur has brought out all the fucking crazy gun nut jobs again...

very sad, indeed...

[bossy22]

236. how is it sad?

[winyanstaz]

243. The media hides a lot of the self - defense shooting stories

and what is reported shapes a lot of peoples opinions.
I remember just a few months ago..a 12 year old little girl, alone in a farmhouse had the door kicked in by two criminals that had already attacked another home. Luckily she knew how to use a shotgun and saved her own life and who knows how many others?
Here are some other stores, hidden away that no one gets to talk about...but stories that might make you begin to understand. Guns save lives. Cops usually don't show up until AFTER the crime is over.

http://gunowners.org/sk0205.htm

There is NOTHING to stop a killer from kicking your doors down but the fear you MIGHT have a gun.
If you think that is not true..please go post your name and address on craig's list and don't forget to post that you have a nice computer and sound system and lots of valuables, your home alone and vulnerable but you don't have a gun.
I am sure you would be seeing your computer and sound system posted for sale on craig's list real soon. That is if you are still alive to read craig's list.

[Dr Fate]

257. I've got an even better idea- why don't YOU post all that stuff on Craigslist...

...but tell them you don't have a gun.

Then when the stupid criminals show up- you will be waiting on them and you can WASTE them! That would be RAD!

But seriously, can we get real? Who the hell would invite someone to break in their house- gun or no gun?

What about people who have no interest in buying a gun, taking gun safety lessons, and other wise taking part in the gun culture? I guess they just have to wait on you or a cop to protect them.

I'm glad that we have the right to collect guns and use them for home safety- but I dont like the indication that everyone has to do it or they won't be safe- or that more and more guns is the only way to prevent crime or be safe in our society.

All I see is more people getting shot if that is the attitude.

[Doctor_J]

247. Will this bizarre ruling be in jeopardy when Jay Bybee gets impeached?

It figures that a torture lawyer would be in favor of more violence

[struggle4progress]

258. Read the decision. It's not bizarre. The idea that the fourteenth amendment guarantees

bill of rights protection at the state level seems to me established law -- and it has sometimes been the reason your first amendment rights apply locally, even when you are not at a federal facility such as courthouse or post office. The court, with careful legal and historical reasoning, held against the Nordykes: For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’ First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint to add a Second Amendment claim in this case (NORDYKE v. KING at 4508)

[X_Digger]

259. Selective incorporation has always been a mess. n/t

[struggle4progress]

273. You might be right but the decision doesn't look any messier to me than many decisions

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so my opinions carry no professional weight

[msanthrope]

267. I think the 9th delivered an ass-biter to "gun rights."

I don't know if the pro-proliferation posters here have figured this out yet, but incorporation at this point doesn't benefit gun proliferators in any way that I can figure out. In fact, I think it's an ass-biter, courtesy of the 9th.

The incorporation under the 14th undercuts the regulation of the 2nd as a power reserved to the states under the 10th.

Taking protection out of state hands and giving it to the feds? The feds. Tell me again how this is going to benefit individual gunowners, particularly those in pro-gun states?

I wonder if Scalia is regretting the review-standard punt in Heller?

[friendly_iconoclast]

268. Because, if it holds up, it will put the 2A on the same level as the 1A

No more 'collective right' argument.

Of course, it will just mean that future court cases will be argued on whether any certain regulation
meets the standards set in Heller.

Which was widely referred to in Nordyke, for those who have not read it yet.

[msanthrope]

269. To address your points---

What the frak were the standards set in Heller? It's like trying to grip Jello.

The 9th interpreted Heller to uphold the regulation in Nordyke. Which is a brilliant use of Heller. That, coupled with the implied federalization of a local police power could point the way to increased federal regulation.

After all, fundamental rights usually brings federal protection and regulation. What interesting equal protection issues arise....

On edit, to address your 1st/2nd amendment point....I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that you think that the 2nd would be given the same level of federal protection as the 1st.

But that's the 'beauty' of the fraked-up Heller decision. Scalia, et al, did not give a comprehensible review standard. And Nordyke looks to be rational review. Or maybe just a little bit more.

Not strict scrutiny. Not even close. And while you may get a heightened review eventually on posesssion, sale and manufacture won't reach that standard.

No. What the 9th did, brilliantly, was introduce a review standard that took advantage of Scalia's misstep.

[friendly_iconoclast]

272. A lot of big "If"s remain to be seen

*If* Nordyke is upheld by the Supremes. Then:

*If* any particular local or state law jibes with the standards in Heller. And *if* it doesn't:

What will the lower-level Federal courts do for remedy.

This is gonna take quite a while to play out...

[msanthrope]

276. You may have missed my edit....

What is the Heller review standard? A bit more than rational review?

According to Nordyke, it seems to be. And that means you have a fundamental right that is 'protected' by an exceedingly government-friendly standard.

That is a tremendous burden on a plaintiff. It's certainly not going to make future cases easier for the pro-gun plaintiff. It's going to make them much harder.

Further, in claiming a 'fundamental right' you undercut regulation by the states. You invite preemption, and because of intrastate and interstate trade, you open up all sorts of inroads by the feds. Again, this is NOT good for the pro-gun plaintiff.

I think the 9th just gave the roadmap to further federal regulation--under a standard of review that SCOTUS may just have to suck on. Then again, it might be amusing to watch Scalia pull a heightened review standard out of Heller's ass.

[friendly_iconoclast]

277. The standard in Heller was actually rather loose

as in posession of weapons "in common use for lawful purposes" was protected.

And, honestly:

Though I agree with the incorporation, the Nordyke's 2A claim seemed rather bogus re the refusal to rent them the
space. HOWEVER:

If the Supremes uphold the decision, they may, in fact, have standing to get the refusal overturned.

We will see.

[X_Digger]

282. Yes, Heller isn't the total test..

But it does set a high bar.. no ban (either implicit via onerous hoops or explicit) on weapons in common use for legal activities can stand.

I'm sure there'll be more cases that are used to determine the 'reasonable' test parameters.

[msanthrope]

307. No, you are focusing on the particular Heller holding, not the standard

of review that allowed the Nordyke decision.

These are two different things. And, in constitutional law, what will bite you on the ass is NOT the holding---it is the methodology, the standard of review.

Heller, and now Nordyke, do no favors to 2a litigation and plaintiffs. You now have a 'fundamental right' without a standard of review that is heightened so as to truly put the burden on the government.

[X_Digger]

311. But you can't determine a reasonable test..

.. for a right that doesn't exist, or that doesn't apply to the states & local municipalities.

Like I said, it's not the be-all end-all legislation- but it is one domino down.

[jeepnstein]

361. Wow....

That's a great point. They punted on deciding a level of scrutiny with Heller. What the Court is wrestling with is that level of scrutiny that the 2nd deserves. You are quite correct that it could go either way depending on what the Court decides to hear.

Heller opened the door to finally settle this point. It remains to be seen just how much of our rights the government wants us to have. Name your issue, it always boils down to that.

In some of your other postings I see a train of thought that may very well be where we're heading. It's a good thing I have quite a bit of trust in our system's ability to get things close enough to right that it's not worth tearing the nation apart. Given the opportunity, level heads will prevail.

[msanthrope]

305. You are conflating review standard with holding.

The former is about methodology, the latter, result.

My point is that Heller, and now Nordyke allow a methodology for review of gun regulations that is not pro-gun friendly.

[Pullo]

360. If you'd have listened to the oral arguments.......

You'd know it was Roberts who wanted to punt on the review standard in Heller, not Scalia. Roberts felt the standard of review question was unnecessary to decide that particular case. In fact, he seemed to want to go down a different road entirely for the 2A, since it was unencumbered by the rational basis/intermediate scrutiny/strict scrutiny "baggage," as he referred to it.

Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, "compelling interest," "significant interest," "narrowly tailored," none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn't it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can't take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these — how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?

I'm not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don't know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?

Chief Justice Roberts, to General Clement, p. 44

Several justices, both concurring and dissenting, expressed concern over this approach, because it failed to give lower courts any guidance in deciding future 2A cases that would surely arise. Its by no means the first time the Roberts' court has taken such criticism.

[DainBramaged]

288. The gunnies will be stroking their gun barrels tonight..................

[Joanne98]

291. Will the gun nuts stop whining now?

[slackmaster]

296. The whining of the true gun nuts has only just begun

I can't wait to hear their response to this decision. Nothing yet...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

[Tejas]

402. not until I can layaway a Chinese NDM86 at Walmart!

[fascisthunter]

299. what a bunch of BS.... more gun sales

yes, all the rejects who are paranoid to begin with are now being given the right own a weapon to kill.

"Well Regulated Militia"...

No NRA gun-nut rationalizations will ever convince me that that quote means anything else but what it states. We got a lot of wackos in this country. Good luck law enforcement....

more guns, more violence and death.... a self-fulfilling prophecy that the right knows all to well about.

[jody]

304. gun-grabbers want to disarm victims, gun-nuts want to disarm criminals. n/t

[slackmaster]

309. The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant any rights to anyone

They recognize rights that already existed when they were written.

[jody]

312. Agree, SCOTUS discussed "pre-existing right" in Heller and in context it's identical to "natural,

inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights" acknowledged by PA (1776) and VT (1777) in their constitutions.

I quote the following for gun-grabber edification.

SCOTUS said in Heller "We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. . . As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), '{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.'"

[paulsby]

432. i don't need luck

i'm in law enforcement.

most LINE cops (not chiefs and administrators) support CCW.

i've been a cop for 20 yrs, been in shootouts, etc. not once in my career was i shot at by somebody with a CCW, despite the fact that they are VERY common where i live.

not once have i arrested somebody with a legally owned firearm for misusing it, or committing a crime with it.

and the stats, posted in the forum MANY times, show that people with CCW's are amongst the most law abiding demographics.

[Prophet 451]

326. Um, explain please

Somebody take pity on the dumb Brit and explain what this means in practical terms?

[struggle4progress]

328. County regulated gun possession on county property. Couple sued, arguing (at various times)

that the regulation was intended to stop gun shows, abridge their free speech rights, and interfere with their ability to keep and bear arms. Issues included whether the federal constitution applied at the state level and whether the county had the right under the federal constitution to so regulate firearms. The court held that a civil war era amendment should be understood as extending the right to keep and bear arms to the state level: I consider this an unsurprising ruling, but gun-enthusiasts are cheering it as a possible advance in their never-ending battle to eliminate all restrictions on firearms and are sketching legal theories to advance their position in the future. The court, however, essentially held against the plaintiffs on the questions: Whether county regulation of gun possession on county property abridges free speech rights and Whether applicability at the state level of the federal right to keep and bear arms effectively precludes the county from regulating gun possession on county property. In the short term, the gun-enthusiasts lost, but they are imagining arguments they think will produce substantial wins in the future

:shrug:

[JonLP24]

342. The 2nd amendment is sure confusing. Isn't Bear Arms a military term?

You know, Present Arms, Order Arms, Take Arms, Lay down arms, etc. For example you don't bear arms against an animal. For the record I'm not so much against getting rid of all gun rights but I do find the 2nd amendment very confusing.

[Joe Steel]

344. Only in the real world.

The 2nd amendment is sure confusing. Isn't Bear Arms a military term?

You know, Present Arms, Order Arms, Take Arms, Lay down arms, etc. For example you don't bear arms against an animal. For the record I'm not so much against getting rid of all gun rights but I do find the 2nd amendment very confusing.

Only in the real world. In the wacky world of the gun cult it means "I want my gun." Of course, just about anything means "I want my gun" to the gun cult. If someone points to a pile of bullet-riddled children in a pool of blood, the gun cultist says "They didn't have guns. I want my gun."

"Guns. Guns. Guns."

"I must have my guns."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

357. Even the liberal members of the Supreme Court say you are full of shit.

[Joe Steel]

405. Then, they're as stupid as the conservative members.

Obviously, then, the "liberal" members of the Supreme Court are no more intelligent than the conservative members.

[crankmob]

349. Bear Arms..

[jody]

362. Please read D.C. v. Heller in which SCOTUS answers your question, pg. 10 of the opinion.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

[Pullo]

415. **UPDATE** Ninth Circuit Judge Calls for En Banc Review in Nordyke

Wow, neither of the parties associated with the case requested an en banc review, so this seems a bit strange.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_17-2009_05_23.shtml#1242774777

[gorfle]

416. en banc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc

"En banc, in banc, in banco or in bank is a French term (meaning "on a bench") used to refer to the hearing of a legal case where all judges of a court will hear the case (an entire "bench"), rather than a panel of them."

I did not know what "en banc" meant.