DC v Heller

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

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

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.

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."

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."

write a law to regulate opinions?

How would you regulate those you offered?

(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.

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

Did not catch that part in the article.

"(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."

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.



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.

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.

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

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.

Holy shit dude, you win the debate.

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?

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.

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

Fucking duh.

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.

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

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.

Or is this simply a drive-by thread?

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

Implied straw men don't burn very well.

They blather on hoping you won't notice.

you forgot the mirror.

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.

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

"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?

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

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.