Lawyer wants to "Control guns for the common good" ...

[spin]

Control guns for the 'common good'
COMMUNITY VIEW • By MICHAEL P. KELLY • January 2, 2011


***snip***

When we expand civil causes of action to one class, the rest have to pay for it. And when we expand privileges to a few, the non-privileged have to live with the consequences.

Those who advocate the deregulation of handguns enjoy a benefit enjoyed by a few at the expense of the majority and to the detriment of the common good.

In 2010, McDonald v. City of Chicago held, for the first time in American history, that states and local governments cannot abridge the Second Amendment right of an individual to bear arms, specifically, handguns for the purpose of self-defense.

***snip***

Urban citizens, such as myself and a four-out-of-nine Supreme Court minority, arguing that Americans in high-crime areas should be able to democratically request gun control legislation as a logical means to prevent being murdered, have been thrown into full retreat.

Municipal attempts to curb gun violence by limiting access to guns, successful throughout Western Europe, appear to be over.

In this time of New Year's reflection, I pose an honest question to my friends who heralded McDonald as a victory for the American way:

How do you feel about all those newly deregulated handguns being turned on our law enforcement officers? Because that is what the Second Amendment is actually for.

***snip***

Do you, as an American citizen in 2011, support the right to gun down police officers violating someone's Constitutional rights by, say, kicking in the door of the wrong house in a nighttime SWAT raid?

***snip***

It is time to think of the common good. It is time to amend the Second Amendment to make its application crystal clear and sensible.

Michael P. Kelly is a lawyer in Wilmington.
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110102/OPINION08/101020301/1004/OPINION/Control+guns+for+the++common+good+

[slackmaster]

1. Mr. Kelly is free to ban firearms from his own home and place of business

Otherwise, he can kiss my ass.

[jody]

2. Control for the 'common good' versus natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable individual rights.

As Dubya said, "it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator".

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. "support the right to gun down police officers violating someone's Constitutional rights"...

Do you, as an American citizen in 2011, support the right to gun down police officers violating someone's Constitutional rights by, say, kicking in the door of the wrong house in a nighttime SWAT raid?"

Yes, I do. Homeowners have the right to defend themselves in thier homes from forcible entry and unwarranted deadly threats. Ultimately, each case is unique and requires scrutiny. When the police fuck up and BREAK INTO THE WRONG HOUSE with weapons drawn... they'd better be prepared for the consequences. The police should have no right to act with impunity while breaking the law.

I would suggest either eliminating the use of "no-knock" warrants or painstaking due dilligence to confirm the proper target of an investigation. Such a policy changes would protect both peoples' civil rights and the safety of officers. Or you could just propose the disarming of little people so jack-boot authorities can operate with reckless abandon. :eyes:

[spin]

4. The question should be, "Do you support police officers violating someone's Constitutional rights"..

and the correct answer is "NO!"

edited for typo

[MicaelS]

6. You goddamn bet your ass I do!!

I agree, put an end to No-Knock warrants, and you won't have to worry about cops getting killed for violating people's rights.

[lawodevolution]

38. I go even further, disband and eliminate SWAT teams

The potential harmful or misuse of SWAT teams to take away our rights is more significant than the need to nab idiots who lock themselves in their homes, and as far as I'm concerned any idiot locking himself in his house is putting himself in is how jail. I think authorities should only have the right to get people by either knocking and having them voluntarily turn themselves in or in the street or place of work but the government should not conduct home invasions.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. That reasoning is exactly the kind of reasoning which afflicts hoplophobes and anti-2A

Potential misuse/abuse of SWAT teams?!? BAN THEM!!

No, the problem in the ilelgal and controversial USE of swat teams. I think they are a valuable tool. Some situations absolutely warrant the use of specialized advanced tactics and gear. Unfortunately, kicking in some potsmoker's door is not one of those situations.

I think SWAT and warrant delivery protocal needs drastically revised for the protection of police and the safeguarding of civil rights. This alone would help clean up alot of SWAT mishaps and abuses and restore them to an effective law enforcement tool.

[-..__...]

39. Amen to that...

which is why I believe the ban on armor piercing handgun ammo should be repealed (like THAT will ever happen).

Americans/citizens, should have the right to be as well armed and equipped as any law enforcement agency or officer.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. I don;t think armor-piercing handgun ammo is particularly simple for the public-at-large.

Think about ammunition one would carry in a concealed carry weapon. Do you really want it to be armor piercing? Does the person two-rooms behind the bad guy you just swiss-cheesed want you to be shooting armor piercing ammo in thier direction? Most indoor pistol ranges will not let you use AP ammo because it destroys backstops.

Bad guys wearing bullet-resistent armor isn't a large enough problem to really warrant the use of AP pistol ammo. IMO, the only place AP handgun ammo really belongs is on the battlefield.

I wouldn't OPPOSE the legalization of AP pistol ammo... but I'm not going to condone the widespread availability either.

[PavePusher]

47. If I'm carrying a 1911, with 2 or 3 extra magazines....

having one loaded with AP wouldn't be a bad idea.

[-..__...]

49. Like any firearm/ammo combo...

it should be tailored to match the situation/scenario/intended use.

AP ammo for a CCW/carry handgun? Probably not. For a nightstand gun, I could see a situation arise (as in the aforementioned wrong house-no knock raid), where it might be beneficial.

As far as over penetration goes, it can apply to certain calibers of non-AP ammo as well... even more so for reloaders who like their ammo on the hot side. B-)

The wisdom or choice of using AP loads should be left to the individual, and they should have that choice available.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

50. My nightstand gun has ammo that can pierce IIIa armor...

Then again, my nightstand gun leans against the nightstand and is packed full of Norinco Steel Core.

[benEzra]

5. This guy writes as if pre-Heller DC and pre-McDonald Chicago were the norm across the nation.

Clue: They weren't. They were extreme aberrations.

[Katya Mullethov]

16. And that is exactly the way one should go about selling things

And that is what he is doing . Even if just a tiny percentage of potential consumers actually buy his bullshit , he might do well . Using the responses to this OP as your initial sample , what do you make as his potential market share ?

[X_Digger]

7. I'm sure the "common good" could be promoted by amending the 4th, 5th, and 8th as well..

I mean, we let murders go because we can't force them to confess, and we have to get a WARRANT for some rapist's semen?

How many murderers, rapists, and pedophiles are walking free today, committing more heinous crimes because of a technicality? How many more people's lives will be ruined by these scum?

Shameful! Amend the 4th, 5th, and 8th right now!

:sarcasm:

[Gman]

8. McDonald v Chicago was just another in a long string of bad decisions

starting with Bush v Gore and including Citizens United, among others. More of the tyranny of the judiciary.

[badtoworse]

9. McDonald and Heller protected EVERYONE'S civil rights

Tyranny represents the direct opposite - taking civil rights away. Your statement is ridiculous.

It's been said on this board innumerable times: If you want to abdicate your right to self defense, you are free to do so. You have no right to make that decision for anyone else.

[Gman]

11. Gun ownership is a privledge, not a right

I stand continually amazed at how people twist the 2nd amendment. What militia? LOL!

[badtoworse]

14. Your post shows gross ignorance

In Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right (i.e. not a privilege). The McDonald decision made Heller binding on the states, meaning that the states cannot implement laws that deny you that right. Sorry, but that's now the law of the land and your opinion is irrelevant.

I'm amazed at how many people who post here refuse to accept that the privilege versus right question has been settled.

[Gman]

35. No, I can read. You obviously read then decide it says something else

not my fault you don't understand or just insist it says something it doesn't.

[Callisto32]

42. You obviously don't know how to read statutes.

See post 41.

[PavePusher]

48. Please, explain what it says, with the historical evidence that supports your assertion. n/t

[PavePusher]

17. Please cite to the "right of the militia".

Then explain how the first clause is restrictive upon the second clause.

We'll wait....

[X_Digger]

19. "..the right of the people.." how twisted is that?

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject.." -- are only sentiments related to freedom protected? (Rhode Island Constitution, Article I, Section 20).

"I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- do stores only sell soda?

"Pizza being necessary for late-night study sessions, people's right to own and use tomatoes isn't to be messed with." -- are tomatoes only for pizza?

[lawodevolution]

44. X_Digger used a few examples here to explain that

a dependent clause does not govern an independent clause under any circumstances. The reason there are some who think the first clause of the 2A can determine if the second clause is valid is because either our failed education system has created enough morons and even morons with PhDs or there are individuals who are willing to mislead and deceive people.

if you say,

"being completely out of money, I will go to the bank"

and then you discover that you have a $20 in your pocket, does the sentence above give you enough information to conclude that the person will be in violation of the statement if they go to the bank?

No. Going to the bank will have no effect on the validity of the entire sentence. There is a good chance they will still go to the bank and being that they stated their intention to go to the bank like this, it sounds like they are going anyway.

If I am completely out of money, I will go to the bank"

Now you can conclude that if the person finds a $20, they will violate their statement above if they go to the bank.

furthermore

When the first dependent clause is an OPINION, it becomes impossible to invalidate that clause ever, which is why the 2As first (dependent) clause cannot ever be invalidated because it is more of an opinion. Perhaps some may think that a well regulated militia is not necessary to a free state but still think the second clause is valid.

[virginia mountainman]

20. LOL this is why we win!!!!!! nt

[SteveM]

23. Please explain "What militia?" Are you suggesting there is not one?

Please note that the Second Amendment clearly states that the People have the right to keep and bear arms; the militia functions referenced in the Second are a re-iteration of Congress' power as outlined in the Articles.

There are numerous references, books, studies which have shown that the Second recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. A study of these threads should provide you ample reading material.

[Gman]

36. Duh! You think there is one?

Duh!

[NewMoonTherian]

40. But then how do you explain...

US Code Title 10 > Subtitle A > Part 1 > Chapter 13 > § 311?

That can be viewed here. It's very short and to-the-point, so please peruse it before responding.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Your interlocutor must be a slow reader.Two weeks later, he still hasn't replied

[PavePusher]

26. By your "reasoning", owning books is a priviledge as well.

Got a licence for those things, or are you a black-marketing subversive criminal?

[east texas lib]

29. Here's a quick refresher...notice the use of the term "rights" throughout...not "privledges"...

The Bill of Rights

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


Amendment I
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.

Amendment II
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.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
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.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

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

Amendment X
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.




And there they are, the Bill of Rights. Written for ALL of us, not just the privledged. A control freak's worst nightmare, not to be confused with the Bill of Privledges, which seems to exist mainly in the minds of people that can't handle the freedom the were given at birth, and so by default wish to restrict the freedom of others.

[beevul]

31. Actually...

Actually its a RIGHT.


A right protected by a restriction upon governmental power:

The second amendment.


Read the preamble.

[Callisto32]

41. I suspect you think the Second is a corporate right? You would be wrong, here is why:

First, a corporation cannot have rights, only powers (edit) and privileges. Rights are reserved to natural persons.

Second:

The Constitution. There are some basic rules of statutory interpretation, and the Constitution is a statute:

You start with the plain language of the statute. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't think you need to have the plain meaning explained to you.

Statutes are interpreted as a whole, and words in statutes are given consistent definitions. Everywhere else in the constitution, the phrase "the people" refers to individual rights. There is no reason to believe, absent clear language to the contrary, that a different definition is used in the Second Amendment than anywhere else. Also, the people cannot mean a corporate right of the state due to the following language: "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."

This language indicates that the people are distinct entities from either the federal or state governments, thus "the people" in the Second Amendment must mean the individual people because of the rule that words in statutes are given consistent meanings throughout.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. "The militia" is the dependent clause.

"right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the INDEPENDENT clause. Please take an English grammar course.

[YllwFvr]

66. every male between 17 and 45 is in the militia

and "the activities protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." -Heller decision

so you have the right to own a gun regardless of whether you are in the militia or not. So no, its not a privilege

[beevul]

67. How do you reconcile that...

How do you reconcile that, with the fact that the second amendment is a restriction on government power, not on peoples rights?

[PavePusher]

10. So, what does the Second Amendment mean? n/t

[Gman]

12. It means

we should all keep our muskets loaded in case the British invade again. Fortunately, there are other mechanisms now in place like the military and the Guard to do the job and the 2nd is now obsolete.

[spin]

13. The Second Amendment said nothing about muskets ...

being the only technology you can possess.

Using your logic, you should have no rights to free speech on the internet, radio or TV as they didn't exist when the First Amendment was written.

[Gman]

54. I'm sure there's an obscure letter from Jefferson somewhere

that says automatic 150 round clip capable AK-47's are Ok along with those 50mm turret mounted machine guns. Everyone should have at least 4 or 5.

[oneshooter]

55. "50mm turret mounted machine guns" this shows how little you really know. n/t

[guitar man]

57. Lol!!

It's amazing how many people must think that the Founders were somehow "frozen in time" withregard to weapons development and technology. The fact is, they were fully aware when they wrote the 2nd amendment that firearms technology and capability was improving all the time. By the time The Constitution was written , firearms had progressed from the matchlock to the wheel lock, to the flintlock. There were breech loading flintlocks by then and the engineers had more and better stuff on the drawing board just waiting for tooling development etc. So they could produce them.

So yes, when the Founders wrote the document I'm sure they were fully aware that firearm design would continue to advance. However, I don't see a "technology clause" anywhere in the 2nd amendment or the Constitution.

[spin]

56. Just as I'm sure that "Big Ben" Franklin ...

penned an obscure letter that predicted that one day people would be able to print documents in their own homes and compose and print their own newspapers and that information from all over the world would be available instantaneously.

He probably also was able to foresee that if a person wanted to they could download his autobiography free on an electronic reader called the Kindle and be able to start reading it in under a minute.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51f7H1jbq8L._SL500_AA266_PIkin3,BottomRight,-17,34_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin (Author)

Kindle Price: $0.00 includes free wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet

http://www.amazon.com/s/191-4319130-1515117?ie=UTF8&tag=mozilla-20&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=ben%20franklin&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Your argument is cute, but you fail to realize that the strength of the Constitution is its ability to adapt as time causes changes in our society. If you feel that the Second Amendment is outdated, you can attempt to change its wording or perhaps dump it altogether.

If a majority of people agree with you, you should be able to accomplish the change you desire in a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately the majority of people in this country want to keep the right to keep and bear arms.


source: Gallup poll March 27, 2008 http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/public-believes-americans-right-own-guns.aspx

Here's some info on how our Constitution has survived and how it can be changed.

The Living Constitution

How could a 208 year-old document, written for a small agricultural nation of thirteen states endure through the tests of time to apply to today's immense, modern highly industrialized society? This is because of the flexibility with which the Constitution was imbued. The framers knew that they could not possibly plan for every circumstance or situation. As such, they provided various methods by which the Constitution and its laws could be modified as society grew and changed. That is why the United States Constitution is known as a "living constitution," one which can adapt and be flexible as necessary. There are three ways in which the Constitution is a "living" document: the formal amendment process; the informal amendment process; and custom, usage, and tradition. The formal amendment process is how amendments are added to the Constitution. Article V details the two methods to propose an amendment and the two methods to ratify an amendment. This part of the living constitution has been a useful tool by which Congress may enact an amendment. It keeps them honest in that the states must approve of any amendments by a three-fourths vote. Though this is one way in which the Constitution is constantly growing, it has not played a major part in helping to keep the Constitution current.

Informal amendments include all of the following: basic legislation passed by Congress, executive agreements, and court decisions. Congress has the power to pass whatever legislation it can within its restraints. This includes any and all acts such as the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The President can use executive agreements in dealing with foreign affairs and powers. An executive agreement is a contract made by the President with the head of a foreign state. They are not subject to Congress' approval. Throughout the nation's history, court decisions have had a great influence over the emergence of new laws, practices, or interpretations. They have changed the course of key issues and have existed as an important check on the legislative branch by the judicial branch. Informal amendments have played decisive roles in the evolution of the government, even directing which path shall be followed into the awaiting future.

The terms custom, usage, and tradition refer to the ways in which the various parts of the government react to new circumstances. The past customs of previous administrations have limited today's administrations. For example, delivering the State of the Union Address every year at approximately the same time as a televised event is derived from custom. Article II, Section 3 merely states that: "he shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." Nowhere is it mentioned that he must do this at a certain time and in front of lots of cameras. This is a custom. Usage of certain pieces of legislation has also changed the Constitution. For example, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 has never truly been enforced. Parts of it have been used before but no President has ever been strictly held to the resolutions provisions. Tradition is another tool for expanding the Constitution. For example, there is the one involving the relationship between the President and the Senate. When George Washington became President, at first, he asked the Senate for advice in the preparation of some treaties. The Senate basically laughed in his face and no President has ever since asked the Senate for advice with regards to treaties.
http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/constitution/important/living.html

[X_Digger]

58. There doesn't need to be an obscure letter from anyone.

You seem to think that it's up to the government to 'allow' things, as the natural course of authority- that all power resides in the government, and flows down to the people in 'allowed' dribs and drabs.

You couldn't be more wrong. Rights reside in the people, who grant powers to the government to protect their rights. (Hence the ninth and tenth amendments to the constitution, codifying this concept.)

It's up to government to justify any infringement of a right, based the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny.

[badtoworse]

59. ...which under McDonald is "Strict Scrutiny"

As I understand it, that is a pretty high level.

[X_Digger]

60. Not explicitly, but the 'fundamental right' language hints at it. n/t

[badtoworse]

61. Thanks for the clarification

One of the reasons I like this board is the depth of knowledge that resides here

[benEzra]

62. Care to show me the "automatic 150 round clip (sic) capable AK-47's" and "50mm machineguns"

on the U.S. civilian market?

The gun control debate is about preserving the existing right of mentally competent adults with clean records to purchase/own/use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber, plus over-.51 shotguns. All automatic weapons are tightly controlled in this country and have been for nearly eight decades now. Nice try, though.

[shadowrider]

64. My gun store keeps them stocked right next to the plastic guns n/t

[badtoworse]

15. Would you like your 1st Amendment rights interpreted by that standard?

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. The "Second Amendment means muskets" crowd *never* do! n/t

[PavePusher]

18. Cite to evidence, please?

[slackmaster]

22. If it's obsolete you shouldn't have much trouble getting it repealed

Good luck with that.

[SteveM]

24. You may wish to study Laurence Tribe's "turnaround" on the Second...

For many years -- since the late 1960s when I first read his take on the "militia clause" -- Tribe has been the go-to guy for those who argued that the Second Amendment allowed only a "right" insofar as militia status is concerned.

Tribe has changed his tune (1999), and now agrees with most other scholars who see 2A as recognizing an individual right.

BTW, Alan Dershowitz (no friend of 2A) says to beware of those who declare an amendment 'obsolete.' He further adds that if you want to ban an individual right to keep and bear arms, you must first repeal the Second.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Wow, wrong about the Second Amendment AND the militia. You've hit the daily double!

Guess you're not up on the unorganized militia, eh? It exists, and is encoded in Federal Law:

As defined in Title 10, §311, IIRC.

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia."

The exemptions are defined in § 312, and are:

"(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States,
the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on
active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission
of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards
of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant
in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is
exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the
conscientious holding of that belief is established under such
regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person
is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be
noncombatant."

I take it you wouldn't mind if a member of the unorganized militia moves in next door to you with a fully-automatic rifle,

or perhaps a short barrelled shotgun?

[RSillsbee]

30. Then you better get off the internet

and start posting your opinions on parchment w/ quill and ink

[beevul]

32. No.

It means that the government is restricted from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Period.

[derby378]

52. Funny, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to agree with you

Then again, it's all about the greater good...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY

[Gman]

53. Yeah, they rarely do these days

[Spoonman]

21. We need "lawyer control"...... n/t

[Glassunion]

25. Smartest fucking thing I've read all day. +1 to you.

[Callisto32]

43. As a law student...

I think what we need is "idiot lawyers get disbarred."

[shadowrider]

65. Question: If all idiot lawyers got disbarred

Would there be any left?

Hmm. A question worth studying.

[Atypical Liberal]

33. Huge fallacy...

There is a huge fallacy in the guys position.


>Urban citizens, such as myself and a four-out-of-nine Supreme Court minority, arguing that
>Americans in high-crime areas should be able to democratically request gun control legislation
>as a logical means to prevent being murdered, have been thrown into full retreat.

The huge, huge fallacy here is that no laws that could ever be passed will do anything to deter criminals. The criminals have no qualms breaking the law. Most firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive past criminal histories, including, on average 4 felonies. These people are already barred from owning firearms, and yet they still are the people most likely to commit crimes using firearms.

The idea that you can legislate away firearm crime is ridiculous. The only people impacted are the people who choose to obey laws.

>How do you feel about all those newly deregulated handguns being turned on our law
>enforcement officers? Because that is what the Second Amendment is actually for.

Again, the people who are most likely to be turning their firearms on law enforcement officers are probably already legally unable to possess firearms. No additional laws will do anything to stop such people.

>Do you, as an American citizen in 2011, support the right to gun down police officers
>violating someone's Constitutional rights by, say, kicking in the door of the wrong
>house in a nighttime SWAT raid?

If someone kicks the door in of your home and your fire on the people breaking in you should be held completely harmless from fault. Sadly, most of the time such people are just gunned down in the face of overwhelming numbers of paramilitary forces rushing into their home.

I am totally against no-knock police raids. Most of the time the sole justification for such raids is because of the fear that the evidence - drugs - might be flushed down the toilet before they could finish a normal arrest. I'm of the opinion that if it's such a minimal amount that it could be flushed down a toilet it doesn't justify police action anyway.

No one should ever be put in a position where they are legally able to defend their homes with deadly force, and then have to make a judgment about who exactly is breaking into their home in the middle of the night.

Did you know that in some places it is actually illegal to fortify your home with reinforced doors or windows that would prevent police from breaking into your home? That's even more bullshit, if you ask me.

[krispos42]

34. "enjoy a benefit enjoyed by a few at the expense of the majority"

Item 1: So, when is he outlawing marriage "for the common good"?

Item 2: Unlike race, gender, or sexual orientation, you can choose to own a gun and thus enjoy the benefits.

Item 3: Interesting that he notes that owning a handgun is a benefit.

Item 4: Interesting that his response to Item 3 is to deny the benefit to everybody.

Item 5: He fails to note that the right has been recognized for all citizens, regardless of number of guns owned.

Item 6: It's not a privilege that has been expanded; it is the recognition of a right.

Item 7: Expansion of voting rights for women or minorities did not "expand privileges to a few"; it recognized the inherent constitutional right of all citizens to vote.

Item 8: Expansion of voting rights for women and minorities does not make "the non-privileged have to live with the consequences".

Item 9: Expansion of marriage rights for GLBT citizens does not "expand privileges to a few"; it recognized the inherent constitutional right of all citizens to the benefits and obligations of marriage

Item 10: Expansion of marriage rights for GLBT citizens does not make "the non-privileged have to live with the consequences".

[Euromutt]

37. Highly tendentious piece, with a lot of unsupported assumptions

Urban citizens, such as myself and a four-out-of-nine Supreme Court minority, arguing that Americans in high-crime areas should be able to democratically request gun control legislation as a logical means to prevent being murdered, have been thrown into full retreat.

Appending the word "logical" to a claim does not actually make it logical. The notion that prohibiting private citizens from possessing a firearm in their homes is preventative to one's being murdered is not logical, it merely Stands To Reason (see my sig line).

Moreover, "democracy" as we understand the term today means "rule by the many, with protection for the rights of the few"; without that protection, you have what de Tocqueville termed a "tyranny of the majority," or, more bluntly, mob rule. If you want a practical example of this, look no further than California's Prop 8.

Municipal attempts to curb gun violence by limiting access to guns, successful throughout Western Europe, appear to be over.
<...>
The rates of homicides and other violent crimes in Western Europe are a small fraction of what they are here in the United States.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. We've been over this a zillion times in this forum. Rates of violent crime in quite a few western European countries are, in fact, significantly higher that they are in the United States, and nowhere are they "a fraction" of the American rate. Western European countries do have lower homicide rates than the United States, but this was the case even before European countries adopted gun control measures (which were primarily intended to avert possible attempts to overthrow the government by force, as had happened in Russia and Germany, not to reduce violent crime), and the U.S. non-firearm homicide rate is higher than those countries' overall homicide rates are, which logically implies that there are other factors at work than just gun laws. Moreover, it is hard to escape the impression that over the past twenty years or so, gun crime has been on the increase, at least in certain western European countries, unhampered by the stringency of those countries' gun laws.

How do you feel about all those newly deregulated handguns being turned on our law enforcement officers?

Has Mr. Kelly stopped beating his wife?
In other words, this is a complex/loaded question fallacy, as it contains "a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition" (http://fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html). In fact, it contains several, namely that a) all these guns (as opposed to a miniscule fraction) will be used against LEOs; b) that these guns are "deregulated," given that D.C. and Chicago have complied with the Supreme Court's rulings by imposing tortuous licensing processes; and c) that the LEOs in question may be said to be "our law enforcement officers."

Because the practical question Mr. Kelly ends up asking is:

Do you, as an American citizen in 2011, support the right to gun down police officers violating someone's Constitutional rights by, say, kicking in the door of the wrong house in a nighttime SWAT raid?

If the only alternative on offer is to permit SWAT teams to conduct such actions with impunity, then frankly and emphatically yes. The so-called "War on Drugs" has put a massive strain on the relationship between law enforcement and the citizens whom they notionally exist "to protect and serve." In the past thirty years, SWAT teams have proliferated rapidly (even more so post-9/11), but they're mostly used to serve search and arrest warrants, mainly because there's rarely anything else for them to do. As the Baltimore Sun documented last year (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/02/tactical_raids_common_in_area.html), in the second half of 2009, SWAT conducted 806 raids throughout Maryland, an average of 4.5 raids a day, of which "more than 94 percent stemmed from search or arrest warrants." More worryingly, in Prince George's County, over 50% of raids (105 out of 195) involved "crime deemed nonserious felonies and misdemeanors."

We've devolved to a point where government routinely sends teams of heavily armed and armored paramilitary operatives to break down citizens' doors at 5 AM and hold them at gunpoint while their houses are trashed in search of a few grams of marijuana or cocaine, because some scumbag--a paid informant or dealer facing conviction and looking for a reduced sentence--said so. When the government and its agents treat every citizen as a potential enemy belligerent in the "War on Drugs," it becomes rather difficult to think of those agents as "our law enforcement officers."

This simple logic probably explains why law enforcement agencies filed briefs overwhelmingly against the original repeal of the D.C. handgun ban in Heller.

Strictly speaking, no law enforcement agencies filed briefs at all in Heller. The chiefs of three municipal police forces (Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle) did file a brief jointly with the VPC, but as chiefs, not as their respective agencies.
A quick shufti at the list of briefs on SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/) does reveal that a large number of law enforcement professional organizations filed briefs supporting the District, such as:
- the International Association of Chiefs of Police
- Major Cities Chiefs
- the International Brotherhood of Police Officers
- the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
- the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association
- the National Black Police Association
- the National Latino Peace Officers Association
Note that these are mostly organizations of police chiefs, who are known to have quite different views on private firearms ownership than the rank and file. Conspicuously missing from this list the major LEO union, the Fraternal Order of Police.

The FOP (along with several other LE-related professional organizations) filed a brief supporting Mr. Heller.

Read that again. Mr. Kelly wants us to believe that law enforcement personnel are "overwhelmingly against the original repeal of the D.C. handgun ban" when the single largest police union in the country filed a brief in favor of abolishing it.

One of the commenters on delawareonline.com described Kelly as "sincere -- wrong, deluded, misguided, but sincere." I think that's giving him too much credit, given the staggering amount of misleading insinuations and outright lies that he slips into his argument.