HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » DC v Heller
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:23 PM

DC v Heller

From the SC decision -

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Pp. 54–56.

39 replies, 2803 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply DC v Heller (Original post)
SecularMotion Jan 2012 OP
hack89 Jan 2012 #1
SecularMotion Jan 2012 #3
S_B_Jackson Jan 2012 #4
hack89 Jan 2012 #5
MicaelS Jan 2012 #6
SecularMotion Jan 2012 #8
rrneck Jan 2012 #13
SecularMotion Jan 2012 #15
rrneck Jan 2012 #29
MicaelS Jan 2012 #14
SecularMotion Jan 2012 #16
Glassunion Jan 2012 #19
SecularMotion Jan 2012 #20
Glassunion Jan 2012 #26
spin Jan 2012 #21
MicaelS Jan 2012 #22
SecularMotion Jan 2012 #32
X_Digger Jan 2012 #33
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #38
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #37
S_B_Jackson Jan 2012 #23
X_Digger Jan 2012 #10
spin Jan 2012 #17
PavePusher Jan 2012 #24
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #36
S_B_Jackson Jan 2012 #2
rl6214 Jan 2012 #11
X_Digger Jan 2012 #7
rl6214 Jan 2012 #9
X_Digger Jan 2012 #12
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #18
gejohnston Jan 2012 #25
X_Digger Jan 2012 #27
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #30
X_Digger Jan 2012 #31
aikoaiko Jan 2012 #28
Remmah2 Jan 2012 #34
ileus Jan 2012 #35
SteveW Jan 2012 #39

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:25 PM

1. Who ever said it wasn't?

we are just asking that gun control be based on facts and not irrational fear. Not too much to ask, is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:28 PM

3. The need to carry a gun in public should also be based on facts and not irrational fears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:33 PM

4. It is up to the state to articulate a compelling state interest in the prohibition of a civil right

It is not incumbent upon the citizenry to have to present any explanation for their free excercise of their civil liberties/rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:37 PM

5. Which can only be determined by each individual and his/her situation

Its called choice - a very progressive value.

Lets look at Constitution rights in general: what is wrong with the notion that if the government wants to restrict a Constitutional right they have the obligation be make their case beyond a reasonable doubt? And that they have to show that their solution will actually fix the problem? And that it is the least restrictive solution to the problem?

My rights are my rights - "because" is a perfectly acceptable answer to why I want to exercise my Constitutional rights. You want to restrict them then do your homework.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:40 PM

6. The RESTRICTION of the right to carry a gun

Should also be based on facts and not irrational fears.

Not because someone does not like "gun culture".

Not because someone feels guns "pollute society".

Not because someone does not like "people who tote guns".

Not because someone believes they "have a right to feel safe by not being around people who have guns."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:43 PM

8. The need to carry a gun

Should also be based on facts and not irrational fears.

Not because someone likes "gun culture".

Not because someone feels guns "create a polite society".

Not because someone likes "people who tote guns".

Not because someone believes they "have a right to feel safe by carrying a gun in public."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:54 PM

13. How would you

write a law to regulate opinions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:57 PM

15. What opinions do you feel need to be regulated by law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:43 PM

29. I didn't offer any.

How would you regulate those you offered?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:55 PM

14. Here's some facts:

(1) 49 of the 50 states have passed some form of Concealed Carry Law, most of them have occurred since Florida started in 1994.

(2) This is the Legislatures, aka the Representatives of the People passing these laws. Not the Courts or some unelected bureaucrats. The People have elected Representatives who pass these laws. That means the majority of The People voting want them. If you can't mobilize people to vote like you want that is YOUR fault.

(3) As many members have repeatedly posted, the rate of commission of crime by CCW is incredibly low.

(4) The predictions of "rivers of blood in the streets by CCW holders", "shootouts over parking places by CCW holders" and "bodies stacked up like cord wood by CCW holders", that opponents of CCW predicted have NOT come to pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:05 PM

16. Argument over parking space leads to shooting in South Park

An argument over a parking spot at a convenience store ended with shots being fired in South Park on Thursday night, according to Beaumont police.

Officers were called to the Khwana Food Mart at 4025 Park St. around 6:10 p.m., where a 29-year-old man said he had been the target of a shooter. The man told police he parked his Cadillac at the store when the driver of a green Chevrolet Suburban became enraged that he had taken the spot.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Argument-over-parking-space-leads-to-shooting-in-2432826.php#ixzz1kOs5XfFt


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:12 PM

19. And this has what to do with CCW?

Did not catch that part in the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:14 PM

20. To dispute this claim

"(4) The predictions of "rivers of blood in the streets", "shootouts over parking places" and bodies stacked up like cord wood" that opponents of CCW predicted have NOT come to pass."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:35 PM

26. Again, please point out where in the article it mentioned that the shooter had a CCW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:19 PM

21. Did the shooter have a carry permit?

While there are times where a person with a carry permit uses his weapon irresponsibly, they are extremely rare.

In the story you linked to it the shooter is referred to as a suspect.


The 29-year-old told police he then circled the block, returning to the store's Nolan Street entrance to try to get a better description of the SUV and its driver. As he passed the store driving south on Park Street, he saw the other driver fire a gun in his direction at least twice, reports said.

After the shots were fired, the man drove away from the store and called police. The suspect is described as a black man about 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighing 200 pounds. He was last seen wearing a white shirt and dark jeans.

The 29-year-old told police a second person in the Suburban appeared to be a black man about 5 feet 8 inches tall and 165 to 170 pounds, seen wearing a red shirt, dark jeans and a red cap.

Read more: http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Argument-over-parking-space-leads-to-shooting-in-2432826.php#ixzz1kOuTEQ54


While it is faintly possible that the shooter did have a carry permit as he hasn't been apprehended, it is far more likely that he was a violent criminal or a person illegally carrying a firearm.

I hope that you are not insinuating that honest citizens who have acquired carry permits are the same as street thugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:19 PM

22. I see nothing to indicate that the shooter had a CCW

Do you have evidence stating they did?

And I edited my other post to make it clear I was speaking about CCW holders. Since the anti-CCW people made it clear they thought any with a CCW would be acting like a yahoo shooting everyone in sight. In other words the old familiar meme by Gun Prohibitionist that every gun owner is a just a criminal in waiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:52 PM

32. Here's one

Willoughby, OH ٠ 09/29/09. Reported concealed carry permit-holder Nathaniel Summers
pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated menacing, discharging firearms in the city and
improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle. Summers reportedly fired nine shots into the
air during an argument in the parking lot of an apartment complex. Summers was sentenced to
60 days in jail and anger management counseling.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:01 PM

33. Now when you find someone who claims that no ccw holder will ever do anything wrong..

you'll have a valid refutation.

Here at DU, I've never heard anyone claim that. What we have stats to back up, however, is that ccw holders are convicted of crimes at rates far lower than the general public.

e.g.-



For 2009, it was 15x less likely for a CHL holder to be convicted of a crime (*any* crime) than the general public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:37 PM

38. Wow, as recent as 2009 huh? And a misdemeanor too?

Holy shit dude, you win the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:36 PM

37. DUDE I found another parking spot shooting, at a Chuck-E-Cheese

https://local.nixle.com/alert/4714542/?sub_id=80899

What do you want to bet, that like your link, the shooter had no concealed pistol license?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:20 PM

23. You're coming at this bass-ackwards

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms as circumscribed by the 2nd Amendment is a civil right of US citizens and is specifically enumerated in the Constitution as protected from infringement. Now as the court says in Heller, no right is unlimited - and the state has the ability to curtail one's rights under defined circumstances and after due process of law.

The 2nd Amendment jurisprudence which will follow the decisions in Heller as well as last summer's decision in McDonald v. Chicago is going to follow the precedents of 1st Amendment Free Speech protections. The ability of the states/counties/municipalities is going to be subject to either Intermediate or Strict Scrutiny standards.

Under an Intermediate Scrutiny Standard, the STATE (not the citizen) must show that the law or policy is addressed to a compelling governmental interest and that the law that compelling interest in a manner that is substantially related to that interest.

Under a Strict Scrutiny Standard, the STATE (again, not the citizen) must show that the law or policy is justified by a compelling governmental interest, the law/policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and the law/policy must ben the LEAST restrictive means for achieving that interest.

Neither the government nor you have met these criteria to justify the controls that you, SecularMotion, believe should be implemented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:44 PM

10. How about.. "the need to protest should also be based on facts".. "the need to pray.."

No, those are rights. You don't have to justify their free exercise, the government has to justify their infringement.

Fucking duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:09 PM

17. Do you have an irrational fear of those citizens who legally carry firearms? ...

If so why?

While those who have carry permits are not angels they have an outstanding record of carrying their firearms in a responsible manner. If any state that passed "shall issue" concealed carry had found that allowing honest people to carry firearms was a real problem, they would have repealed the law. This has never happened!

You have good reason to fear those who carry a firearm illegally and use it for criminal purposes. You have in reality no reason to fear those who are licensed to carry a concealed firearm. You have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning than shot by a citizen with a concealed weapons permit. Of course that assumes that you do not attack him/her with the intention of inflicting serious injury or to murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:21 PM

24. I have the Right to bear arms in public. That is a fact.

 

Others irrational fears about me, as a non-criminal, are irrelevent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:21 PM

36. You don't have to demonstrate need to carry a firearm.

 

The need to carry a gun in public should also be based on facts and not irrational fears.

First of all, you don't have to demonstrate a need to carry a concealed weapon. A desire is sufficient.

Secondly, even if people carry concealed weapons based on irrational fears, so what? People who carry concealed weapons are far less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than any other citizen you are going to meet while out in public.

So even if someone is carrying a concealed firearm out of fear of being attacked by Godzilla, it doesn't really matter - such people are extremely law abiding and very unlikely to commit a crime with their firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:27 PM

2. And your point is?

Or is this simply a drive-by thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to S_B_Jackson (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:45 PM

11. The spam is heavy from this one today

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:42 PM

7. Well?

You need to finish setting up that straw man before you knock it down.

Implied straw men don't burn very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:43 PM

9. The spam is heavy in this one today

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:47 PM

12. If they can't win an argument on its merits..

They blather on hoping you won't notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:11 PM

18. From the horse's mouth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:24 PM

25. what was that about quick drawing in the mirror?

you forgot the mirror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:36 PM

27. Poor ST..

Can't convince anyone you're right, so you're left with insults.

If it weren't so funny watching you flop around, I'd pity you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:43 PM

30. Thanks for the confirmation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:52 PM

31. We didn't need confirmation that you're left with nothing..

Did you actually have something to say on topic, or are you just.. flopping again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:41 PM

28. Is there any place in this country where one can...



"keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"?

Is there anyone demanding it? Are there any bills in place?

If not, what is the point of your post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:33 PM

34. Just when I was wide awake too.

 



ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:48 PM

35. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh scary citizens with firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:28 PM

39. Yep. Who's arguing? The decision was limited to what the Court was presented.

And from the language, "...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
we can conclude that any restrictions would have to pass constitutional muster.

I rather suspect the Supremes will leave such matters of "...firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," etc., to the states.

And the states are now acting accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread