Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Justices Rule That 2nd Amendment Also Governs State and Local Gun Laws

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
BridgeTheGap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 09:44 AM
Original message
Justices Rule That 2nd Amendment Also Governs State and Local Gun Laws
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/28/us/AP-US-Sup...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Walk away Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. Republican ruled court shoves guns down the throats of cities that don't want them.
I am so glad my nieces speak several European languages and plan to go to college over seas. Hopefully they will stay in civilization because this country is on a practical, moral and ethical downward spiral that it won't soon recover from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yeah cities should have the power to violate Constitutional rights.
Edited on Mon Jun-28-10 10:22 AM by Statistical
I mean If Atlanta wants slavery, if San Francisco wants to deny the vote to Jews, or if New York wasn't a state religion well they should be able to do that. The constitution only applies to federal govt and the 14th amendment was never ratified.

The 14th amendment IS the will of the people and it COMPELS the federal govt to enforce Constitutional rights against the states & localities.

Don't like it then repeal either the 2nd amendment and/or the 14th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Oh goody, another states rights fan.
You might want to plan on joining the nieces overseas. But be careful, not every country has habeas corpus or the equivalent of the 5th amendment either. In several Euro countries you can be held at the discretion of the police for an indefinite period without being charged. In others you have no right to legal counsel. But have fun anyway.

But that "states rights over riding constitutional rights" kind of thinking became passe with your hero George Wallace. Are you a big fan of states rights to ban on abortions too?

You really don't sound terribly progressive.

Or is this just "different" because it involves guns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Yeah, those Civil Rights are so last century...
or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. So, you prefer downtown Chicago to Montpelier or Minneapolis/St. Paul?
Okay...

BTW, Chicago already has lots and lots of guns; they're just limited to criminals, politicians, and cronies of the Mayor. Nonviolent homeowners unwilling to violate the law are the only people excluded from ownership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Yeah, rights and choices suck, huh?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Were you opposed to Lawrence v. Texas, as well?
The majority in Texas certainly wanted the anti-sodomy laws to stay in place.

"... this country is on a practical, moral and ethical downward spiral that it won't soon recover from."

That sounds like something a nutbar Christian Reconstructionist might say. I'm sure that's entirely coincidental...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. "Cities" don't have a say in the matter
The choice to own a gun or not is left to each individual, which is how it should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. Have you thought of joining your nieces? You should. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travis Coates Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. The criminal element of Chicago seems to have no problem getting guns
Funny that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. Are you aware that Europe has much higher violent crime rates...
...than does the U.S.? In Europe she won't be allowed to defend herself from criminals. It isn't really civilized to have high violent crime rates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
67. Just like it shoved Civil Rights down the throats of cities that don't want them.
Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights. The States should not have the right to abrogate them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bold Lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. I cannot find a scrutiny level in the ruling. Is there one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pullo Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Its not in there, but you can forget about a rational basis standard
The court has now ruled twice that the 2A is a fundamental right, and we know Heller explicitly ruled out rational basis review for 2A cases.

So strict and intermediate scrutiny are both open for the court in future cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bold Lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. In reading it seems to set the groundwork for Strict scrutiny without saying it. This part . . .
. . .is telling

Municipal rspondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has dis-puted public safety implications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pullo Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Interesting
I agree most of the majority would like strict scrutiny. However, Roberts is known, and often criticized for, leading the court to issue fairly narrow decisions, which are not very useful as guide post for lower courts when addressing similar issues. So its very much in character for him to kick that can down the road and leave a mess for the rest of the judicial system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. Strict scrutiny I guess
Heller rejected interest-balancing, and this applies it to the states.

If I remember my levels, it goes interest-balancing, then strict scrutiny, right? I could be missing one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
49. intermediate scrutiny.
however I think strict scrutiny will prevail.

The words "fundamental right" or "fundamental" are used 27 times in the decision.

Historically strict scrutiny has been linked to language like "fundamental right". I doubt the court in unaware of this or that language is a coincidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
9. We'll get a more liberal Supreme Court pretty soon.
And change all of the douchebag decisions the cocksucking rightwingers on that Court are making now.

I guarantee it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. they said the same thing about Roe V Wade
guess what? its still there

SCOTUS doesnt like reversing themselves on major hot button issues in such short time. the court generally also doesnt like going against strong public opinion; and if such opinion is wrong they will most likely try to recluse themselves from the issue (refusing the hear it) by letting be handled by the circuit system
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
30. Did you get your J.D. degree out of a box of Corn Flakes?
Did you have to send in at least 3 boxtops to get it?

The reason Roe v Wade is still the law of the land is because the majority of people in this country want Roe v Wade to be the law of the land.

I'm not talking about the 30% of the morons in this country who voted for McCain/Palin and Bush/Cheney.

I'm talking about the other 70%.
The ones with brains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #30
44. Over 70% of the U.S. electorate views the 2ndA as protecting an individual right.
Chicago's handgun ban that was struck down was an extreme aberration compared to the nation at large. Even the state of California, which is itself extreme compared to the nation at large (arguably the most restrictive state in the nation), consigns Chicago-style handgun bans to the looney bin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
58. What did I say about a 5-4 Supreme Court?
It can become a 5-4 Supreme Court that leans the other way.

Polls or no polls.

Since you don't live in the 3rd largest city in the United States, it doesn't matter to you.
But, they have a different opinion where they live and work every fracking day of their life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. I don't. You don't. But Otis McDonald does...
and now he has the right to choose to lawfully own a gun, as long as he does so responsibly.

If the city of Chicago (or Atlanta, or Salt Lake City) wanted to ban abortion after the first trimester, would you be OK with that under the "they have a different opinion where they live and work every fracking day of their life" premise too? Or do you believe, as expressed in Roe v. Wade, that the implied right to privacy inherent in the subtext of the 4th Amendment applies to states and cities via the 14th Amendment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. And that's why the NRA shoehorned their way into this case, huh?
Because ol' Otis didn't even want them to be a part of his lawsuit.

Just one conservative judge away from being a totally different 5-4 Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
51. "The other 70%".
Edited on Tue Jun-29-10 12:33 PM by Statistical
Kinda like this





Pretty easy to see which side of the issue is the 70% super majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
34. Unfortunately, so is "Slaughterhouse"
I mean, sheez, a Supreme Court ruling that in effect states that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't mean the one thing it very obviously does mean. And that abomination has been allowed to stand for some 140 years by now, mostly due to the SCOTUS' reluctance to overturn its predecessor's rulings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. So choices and rights are "douchebag decisions" to you?
Huh, you sure you're on the right site?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
32. So what is the 9th amendment?
Do you want to play Constitutional law games with me?
This isn't about the Constitution, now is it?

No, it's about what the people of this country want.
And politics will determine who picks the next Supreme Court Justice, too.
Here's a hint, he just nominated Kagan.

New York has how many people living in the tri-state area of NYC?
And you think they should treat guns there the same way they treat guns in Wyoming, huh?

Sorry, states have a right to restrict guns farther than the federal laws.

Been here for 7 years, so, yeah baby, I'm on the right site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. So if I live in the tri-state area of NYC, I should have fewer rights ...
than I do if I live in Tampa, Florida?

Floridians are first class citizens, while New Yorkers are second class?

I should have the right and the means to defend myself and my family while you are forbidden?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Speaking of which,
did you hear about the 2 cops in Tampa who were shot to death while stopping a car for a traffic violation? The cops were ARMED. Why didn't they defend themselves with their guns?????? Hmmmm?

Florida does have very LENIENT gun laws in comparison to NY. Yet, Orlando has the 5th highest crime rate in the country. How can that be possible, if it so EASY for the general public to own, AND CARRY, guns in Florida?

Answers??????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. 24% own guns in Florida
versus 18% gun ownership in NY. How can they possible when it is so much EASIER to own gun in Florida than NY?

Apparently, making gun ownership easier DOESN'T mean the average citizen takes advantage of it???????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Much depends on where you live ...
In the rural area of Florida where I now live, firearms are very common as hunting is a big sport. In Tampa, where I lived before I retired, many of my co-workers owned firearms but a higher percentage did not.

But Florida does have a lot of people with concealed weapon permits. According to the monthly summary report at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
there are 729,103 currently valid licenses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Comparing the violence level of different areas or cities ...
can be like comparing apples and oranges.

Many factors contribute to the crime rate.



Orlandos Crime Wave


25 Feb 2009 by Mr. Roach

I grew up in Orlando, Florida. Once upon a time, it was a reasonably safe city, a tourist mecca, and a land of relatively cheap houses and good schools. It was anchored by certain conservative, southern traditions, not least strong support for law enforcement by the populace, expectations and models of decency that cut across racial lines, and tough juries on criminal cases. Newcomerssuch as my familyoften were fleeing from frustration with corrupt, ill-managed, high tax, and high crime northern cities. They often embraced the local values, especially the freewheeling capitalism and law and order ethos of the New South.

About ten years ago, or so, things began to change, as did Orlandos populace. Poverty became more disbursed. The city suffered as various anchors like NASA, the Navy Base, and the construction industry declined or disappeared. Fragile, poor neighborhoods like Parramore became further corroded by high rates of illegitimacy and crime. Large numbers of poor, low skill immigrants arrived, spawned by family reunification provisions of the immigration laws, low housing costs, and flight from Cuban-dominated Miami (particularly in the case of Puerto Ricans and Haitians). While many of these newcomers work hard and abide by our laws, a good many of their under-supervised kids do not. The mostly black and Hispanic gang culture that has blighted Southern California began to appear with the newcomers. The poor of all races (and their problematic kids) became dispersed among hitherto orderly neighborhoods through the social engineering of Section 8 housing vouchers. Areas of the city formerly middle or working class quickly became suburban ghettos: white picket fences coupled with daylight murders.

One striking thing about Orlandos rising crime is how brazen the criminal class has become, raping and murdering as an afterthought. While Florida has some tough mandatory sentencing laws, too often they are not enforced, are undermined by a perverse code of silence, and in any case do little to affect violent juveniles. The murder rate shot up from 45 in 2001 to 123 in 2008. Like crime everywhere, much of this stems from internecine fighting between criminal drug gangs. But it spills over to convenience store clerks, promising graduate students, and the elderly. Sadly, increasingly violent robberies, rapes, home invasions, and other horrors are now reported on a daily basis.
http://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/orlandos... /


Tampa is close to Orlando but the crime situation is improving:


Police: Tampa's crime rate down nearly 16%

By JOSH POLTILOVE | The Tampa Tribune

Published: February 9, 2010


TAMPA - The city's crime rate has plummeted 56 percent in the past seven years, police announced today, including a nearly 16 percent reduction last year.

The multiyear drop "translates into 20,000 less victims of crime, and that's a number that says, without a doubt, Tampa is a safer city," Police Chief Jane Castor said at a news conference.

The crime rate includes seven categories: murder, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, larcenies, vehicle thefts and forcible sex offenses. Each saw a decrease in 2009; homicides were down 26 percent and auto thefts fell 22 percent.

Police have credited the drop in reported crimes to the department's Focus on Four Plan, which aims to reduce robberies, burglaries, auto thefts and auto burglaries, in turn reducing other crimes. The plan includes decentralizing resources, making better use of crime data and trends, and developing community partnerships.

***snip***

According to the police department's 2009 statistics:

Homicides dropped from 27 to 20.

Sex offenses dropped from 115 to 111, though sodomy increased from seven to 10.

Aggravated assaults dropped from 1,777 to 1,557.

Larcenies dropped from 9,648 to 8,098.

Burglaries dipped from 4,098 to 3,501.

Robberies fell from 1,056 to 909.

Auto thefts dipped from 1,752 to 1,361.

***snip***

In 2002, there were more than 35,000 Part 1 crimes reported in the city. By last year, that number had fallen to about 15,500, police say.

Homicides are down nearly 46 percent over that period, and reported violent crimes are down 59 percent.
tp://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/feb/09/police-tampas-crime-rate-down-nearly-16-09/


Yes, Florida law does make it easy to own and even carry firearms.

You ask why a city like Orlando could have a high crime rate when the citizens are armed. The answer is simple. I have firearms in my home for self defense and I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry. That in no way makes me a cop. I know where the drugs are sold in the town I live at now, but I don't go looking for dealers to bust, I stay out of the area. I don't visit outdoor ATMs in the dark hoping some fool will try to rob me so I can shoot him. I lock my doors at night and don't hang out on my porch hoping to catch a robber.

If someones enters my home with the intent to rape and pillage and I am fortunate enough to wake up in time, I will confront the individual with lethal force if necessary. If I am in a parking lot and a mugger decides that I am prey, I will access the situation and if I feel that the person will not be satisfied with my wallet but desires to kill me - I will attempt to draw my weapon and fight for my life. I realize that I may not be successful but at least I have a better chance of surviving than if I lived in an area with draconian gun laws.

The nature of crime often changes in areas where guns are common. Criminals fear armed civilians more than police so the smart ones avoid breaking into occupied homes and carefully select victims on the street. Often because of the drug trade, murders occur when gangs fight over turf and respect. Since I am not a member of a drug gang, the fact that I have firearms has no effect on such shootings.

In my opinion, the difference in crime rates between cities and areas can be attributed to the ability of the police as well as many other social factors. Tampa's crime rate is falling and Orlando's crime rate is climbing. Tampa has a proactive and effective police department. Orlando would be wise to study the approach Tampa uses.

I have heard of the tragic shooting of two police officers in Tampa. I understand that the male suspect had an outstanding warrant and the police officers who pulled the couple over called for backup. They were shot before the backup arrived. I will have to wait for more information before making any foolish comments on what went down. However, the fact that firearms are easy for honest citizens to obtain in Tampa has little to do with the two police officers being killed by an armed criminal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. The point I was really trying to make
is that given the fact that Florida and New York have almost equal state popluations with NY have much more stringent gun control laws, there is only an 8% difference in the number of gun owners in Florida. Don't you find that curious? Wouldn't you think more people in Florida would be taking advantage of the more lenient gun laws and actually owning guns?

Someone posted a statistic about a million people carrying permit in Florida. Don't you think given the state population that is a very small number?

I read somewhere that in Wyoming 55% of the populace own guns. Big difference between there and Florida, don't you think?

The real issue is not restrictive gun control laws keeping people from owning guns, but ATTITUDE and CULTURE. Florida has a very large number of transplants/retirees from the North. People move and bring their attitudes and cultures with them. If they have never owned guns, or had any desire to, less restrictive gun laws are not going to make any difference to them at all.

To the NYC posters, if NY were to eleminate all their gun control, you would probably still be in a very small MINORITY of gun owners. It's just the culture. Less restrictive laws isn't going to change that.

BTW, I was almost a victim of crime in NYC three times in 38 years living there. I didn't need a gun to protect myself. I used my brains and whatever was around me at the time as a weapon.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Wyoming is basically a rural state ...
hunting is very popular in Wyoming. (I know people who have lived in Wyoming and they did a lot of hunting.)

In the rural area of Florida where I now live just about everybody owns firearms and hunts. Deer and wild hog are plentiful.

The Tampa Bay area is an urban area. When I lived there I knew several hunters but most of my friends and co-workers did not participate in the sport.

Therefore there is no real surprise that a higher percentage of people in Wyoming own firearms than Floridians. Remember that the largest city in Wyoming is Cheyenne with a population of 55,443. The Tampa Bay area of Florida has a population of 2,733,761 which is more than the population of the entire state of Wyoming.

In a rural area it's far easier to enjoy shooting sports than in an large urban areas. It was hard to find a place in the Tampa Bay area to go shooting. Most people shoot at indoor ranges and the price can be prohibitive. For example one popular range, Knight Shooting Sports in Pinellas County charges $15 per hour to shoot and $75 per hour if you want to rent a firearm, with eye and ear protection and 40 to 50 rounds of ammo.

While you are accurate when you say that there are plenty of transplants and retirees in Florida, many come from states where gun ownership is fairly common (such as Ohio).

I found your comment that you were a victim of violent crime three times in NYC over a 38 year period very interesting. I lived in the Tampa Bay area for 37 years and was never a crime victim. My daughter did run off an intruder one time by pointing a large caliber revolver at him as he was forcing a sliding glass door to our home open. From the way she described him running off, I suspect he felt that he was the victim.

Congratulations on keeping your wits about you and surviving the encounters with brains and improvised weapons. Realize that the use of lethal force is the absolute last choice when attacked. If it's possible to get out of a bad situation by turning your money over than it's wise to do so. As a martial arts instructor once taught me, you can always replace your wallet, your credit cards, drivers license and money. You can't replace your life. Lethal force to me is reserved for those times when the threat of severe bodily harm or death is imminent and unavoidable.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. This isn't about hunting really
The issue was handguns. Don't the majority of hunters use rifles? My husband used to hunt deer and always went with rifles, not handguns. DC banned handguns, not rifles.

Pretty difficult to carry and conceal a rifle walking around, wouldn't you think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. I was trying to explain the difference in firearm ownership ...
and while many hunters use rifles many also use handguns.

Hunting in Florida is usually at close range and often in dense brush. While I am not a hunter, I do know a number of hunters who feel that a handgun is more convenient. Of course, most of my shooting was at pistol ranges so I know a lot of handgun aficionados.





Of course a wild hog can put a hunter up a tree. Usually in the heat of the moment, the hunter leaves his rifle or shotgun on the ground. A handgun can be very useful in that situation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #43
69. A gun is no guarantee of safety.
did you hear about the 2 cops in Tampa who were shot to death while stopping a car for a traffic violation? The cops were ARMED. Why didn't they defend themselves with their guns?????? Hmmmm?

Having a firearm is no guarantee of being able to defend yourself from assault. But not having one certainly puts you at a disadvantage.

Why do you think police officers carry firearms if they were not suitable for self-defense?

Yet, Orlando has the 5th highest crime rate in the country. How can that be possible, if it so EASY for the general public to own, AND CARRY, guns in Florida?

Simple: Most firearm crime is committed by criminals. Over 90% of firearm murders are committed by people with extensive criminal histories, including on average 4 felonies. Orlando, like most major cities, has a serious gang problem. It is thus no surprise that the cities have high firearm homicide rates.

Keeping firearms out of the law-abiding public's hands will do nothing to address the root cause of the problem, which is narcotic-fueled gang warfare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. Not in your lifetime :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Oh, sure. It's easy. Only need 1 conservative to replace, and that won't even take 4 more years.
You'll probably even live to see it, if you aren't 80 years old and need surgery tomorrow.

It's a given.
70% of the people in this country are sick of the number of gun deaths that take place in this country every single year.
Within 2 more years, the people will rise up to give the Democrats more Representatives in the House of Representatives and more Senators in the Senate and during Obama's 2nd term in the White House, he'll get to nominate his 3rd Supreme Court Justice.
And maybe even his 4th Supreme Court Justice.

You just can't believe that all of these douchebag decisions made by such a rightwing Superme Court can be overturned so easy.
Or so quickly.

They can.
Bank on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Is that the same 70%..
Who believe that the second amendment protects an individual right?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-s...


Or the 71% who do not want to ban handguns?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-...


Or the 51% who want gun laws to remain the same or be relaxed?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-...


Oh wait, that's even bigger now- 61% don't want new restrictions.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll /
"Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll."

I'm sorry, did you say something about public support for more stringent gun laws??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Don't be offended, we're talking about guns, weapons, firearms. Things that kill people.
Go look at state polls and see what you get.
A totally different picture.

Like in DC.
Or in Chicago.
Or in San Francisco.
Or in New York City.

See, rhubarbs aren't all that concerned it with guns.
But, cities are different than the wide open spaces of the West.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Should cities also be able to ban gay marriage? Abortions?
How does this 'civil rights by popularity' thing work, again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. So, what's your take on Loving v. Virginia?
The good people of Virginia supported (at least most of the voters, who were overwhelmingly white) the criminalization of mixed-race marriage, but the Supremes found this to be an un-Constitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Should Virginia have been allowed to continue their 'different' view?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Hrmm.. no response to either of our questions..
Wonder if the logic train met a trestle bridge of 'oh-shit-thats-right'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #39
60. You're the little train that can't quite pull it up the hill. I believe in mixed-race marriages.
I also believe in mixed-bags of guns.
LoL
Shotguns, rifles, pistols, too.

But, if a community says that handguns are too dangerous and we don't want them, and the state Supreme Court agrees, and the State legislature agrees, then that is the law of that community.

I've lived on both sides of the railroad tracks.
And I know what it is like to get shot at.
And I know what it is like to shoot back.

And there is going to be a whole lot more shooting going on when the troops get back and there are no jobs, and no healthcare for the troops, and PTSD sets in.

I lived through the 70s and I saw it first hand.
So, this was a dumb decision.
And it will be changed in just a few years.
Maybe by the end of the year.

Because all the city council has to do is redraft their laws concerning their handgun ban, and it can be enforced once again.
That's what they did in DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. 900 new handgun owners in DC would disagree.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/chicago-handgu...

^ 800 listed there, other sources say 900.

And hey, I didn't ask whether or not you believe in mixed-race marriages, I asked:

"Should cities also be able to ban gay marriage? Abortions? How does this 'civil rights by popularity' thing work, again?"

If you're willing to cede local control of one right, what other rights are you willing to hand off to the local aldermen?

Should NYC be able to outlaw Islam? Should Detroit be able to ban Al-Jazeera from local TVs? Are you cool with California's prop 8? After all, it got the votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. I doubt you'll get a direct answer, but thanks for trying.
Amazing how ostensible enemies are quick to seize upon the same methods when something they don't like happens...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. That's hilarious.
I'll jump up and down and demand a direct answer until my feet hurt.

LoL

Just one little Conservative judge away from a liberal 5-4 Supreme Court.
That's why we wanted Gore to win in 2000.
That's why we wanted Kerry to win in 2004.

And that is why Obama won in 2008.
And why he will be reelected in 2012.

What are they going to do? Recycle Caribou Barbie with another old senile geezer?

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. So, you're comparing mixed-race marriages to owning guns??!!!!
That's pretty trollish behavior, bubba.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. You misidentified the troll. Of course the right to arms is more fundamental than the right to marry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #48
59. That's what lead to shotgun weddings. Hahahahahaha!!!!!!
The states should have the right to restrict gun ownership in their own communities.
Owning guns is not a gawd given right.
They take guns away from psychos and felons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #59
70. "gawd given right"
The states should have the right to restrict gun ownership in their own communities.

Bear in mind that the courts have not ruled out all restrictions on firearm ownership. What they have ruled out are bans on firearms.

Owning guns is not a gawd given right.

By two Supreme Court cases now, however, the right to keep and bear arms is both an individual and a fundamental right, and is now incorporated under the 14th amendment.

They take guns away from psychos and felons.

They also take away the right to vote - through due process of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #59
71. "They take guns away from psychos and felons"
You have a right to keep and bear arms in ways that do not directly threaten other people--you have the right to keep and bear arms responsibly, not the right to keep and bear them irresponsibly.

If you are incapable of keeping and bearing arms responsibly--due to sickness, youth, or inebriation--you do not have the right to bear arms UNSAFELY. So you can properly be forbidden to bear arms if you fall under any of these categories.

Additionally, you can lose your right to keep and bear arms if you are convicted of a suitable crime. There is nothing unique about this. You can lose your free association right to be alone with your own children if you are convicted of a suitable crime. You can lose your First Amendment right to post online or even use a computer if you are convicted of a suitable crime. The Constitution does not forbid the temporary or permanent loss of rights, it forbids the loss of rights without due process of law. Conviction indicates that due process of law has been followed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #46
54. I am , it's just like the Texas GOP wanting to override Lawrence v. Texas
i.e. the decision that threw out anti-sodomy laws. Discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://jaysays.com/2010/06/texas-gop-official-platform-...


I'd also point out that the duly elected legislators of Nebraska recently enacted laws (over the governor's veto) that
are explicitly designed to get around Roe v. Wade.


Would you like to use the same standard in those two cases?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
52. Ummm...
Like in DC.
Or in Chicago.
Or in San Francisco.
Or in New York City.


You mean the places whose extremely restrictive gun laws, which have in two instances just been ruled unconstitutional, didn't actually prevent their high levels of gun violence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. Hmmm.....
Yup, in those there places.
I sure do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #61
75. Nothing much will change.
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 09:42 AM by one-eyed fat man
New York and Chicago were crime-infested cesspools in 1870, 1970 and it's a dollar to a donut bet they still will in 2070. New York's corrupt Democratic machine, Tammany Hall, championed the first ban on handguns with the Sullivan Act in 1911 so the Irish thugs wouldn't have as much competition from the Italian thugs. Nothing has really changed in a 100 years except the thugs have more diversity.

The key ingredient to having a crime infested cesspool is criminals. New York, Chicago, DC, LA etc have more than their share and breed more everyday. The only thing this decision will change is a small percentage of law-abiding citizens will avail themselves of the right to own a gun for self-defense. It just might do a tiny number of them some good. The loosening of concealed carry laws has neither caused the massive blood-bath the strident fear-mongers had predicted nor the small reduction in crime during this same period be attributed to the same change in gun laws.

The thugs will always have guns; this won't change their numbers or the ease with which criminals disregard any law they choose. The only thing that will happen is more bloviating politicians will spend more time pandering to idiots seeking simplistic solutions to complex problems and throwing tax money down rat-holes (legal firms owned by friends and relatives) futilely fighting lawsuits against their next unconstitutional set of ordinances.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cowman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Fairy tales can come true
they can happen to you. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #29
42. Check out these polls...

In U.S., Record-Low Support for Stricter Gun Laws
October 9, 2009

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict. That is down 5 points in the last year and 34 points from the high of 78% recorded the first time the question was asked, in 1990.






http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in-u.s.-record-low-su...



Democratic Party Image Drops to Record Low
Favorable images of Democratic, Republican Parties now tied

April 8, 2010

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in a late March USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18-year history of this measure. Favorable impressions of the Republican Party are now at 42%, thus closing the gap between the two parties' images that has prevailed for the past four years.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/127262/Democratic-Party-Imag...


If you did succeed in getting more liberal judges appointed to the court and they decided to overthrow the recent rulings on RKBP (highly unlikely), you would probably never see another Democrat in the office of President in your life time.

The same thing would happen to Republicans if they managed to get a court so conservative that it overturned Roe v Wade.

Be careful of what you wish for, you may get it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
63. "If you did succeed in getting more liberal judges appointed to the court"
Edited on Tue Jun-29-10 04:31 PM by Major Hogwash
Obama would be reelected hands down, 70-30.

The GOP is dead.
They have no ideas, they broke the country, they started 2 wars, it's over for them.

Their biggest star is Sister Palin.
Seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. Never underestimate your opponent ...
I remember the Republicans saying the Democratic Party was on its last legs.

The Beginning of the End of the Democratic Party
June 25, 2004

***snip***

But what of the Democratic Party? It is important to have a serious political organization to provide opposition to conservatives, thereby sharpening political arguments, and giving voters a clear choice. America needs a competition of between legitimate ideas coherently argued, and it needs its major parties to be serious about protecting the United States from its obvious enemies.

The Democratic Party is quickly becoming a parody, led by bitter, screeching fools who cannot come to grips with the fact that a duly elected President is boldly leading the fight against those who would destroy us. They cannot see past their own lust for power, and want power only for its own sake. They can't or won't recognize that the President is betting his political life on doing what is right. It's a foreign concept to them.

The leadership won't even listen to one of its own, Zell Miller, when he warns of the party's impending demise. They have nothing to offer except their rage, pessimism, and tired proposals. If the party is not saved from the likes of McAuliffe, the Clintons, and their dimwitted imitators, it will cease to exist, sooner or later.

There is a faint hope for the party in such persons as Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee and Barack Obama, their nominee for the Senate in Illinois. These two are the opposite of the current leadership dynamic and smart, as well as unwilling to merely step back and call the Republican Party names, or see how much horse manure they can throw at the wall until some of it sticks. Both also have a demonstrated record of being able to actually work with political adversaries to get things done. It is doubtful they would be so stupid as to argue that Michael Moore is somebody who should be taken seriously. The Democrats would do well to put these two out front and find others like them if they exist. Otherwise, it's curtains. And America loses.emphasis added
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/06/the_beginning_of...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #68
73. Yeah, but you're quoting from REPUBLICANS.
Sheesh, talk about someone who doesn't "get it".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cowman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
37. Pretty soon?
What have you been smoking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
40. Chances are that the Supreme Court will not take up another case ...
similar to the Chicago handgun ban in the near future despite the makeup of the court. Perhaps in 20 to 30 years.

If you got your way and a more liberal SCOTUS did overturn today's decision in the next few years, you have to realize that the chances of another Democrat being elected President would drop dramatically. The overwhelming majority of people in our nation believe in the right to own firearms. They also understand that Presidents nominate the justices in the Supreme Court.

Therefore, a very large percentage would never vote for another Democratic President and would work to elect another President who would appoint conservative judges. Once the court became conservative again, it would merely throw out your liberal court's ruling.


In U.S., Record-Low Support for Stricter Gun Laws
October 9, 2009

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict. That is down 5 points in the last year and 34 points from the high of 78% recorded the first time the question was asked, in 1990.






http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in-u.s.-record-low-su...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
65. You sound like a broken record now. That's the same response the last time.
I mean, if you really believe that, go ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
15. So can I take my gun into Disney World now? That's when the fun really starts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bold Lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. You probably should read the decision before making such statements and assumptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Yes, ... if Disney World is in your home in Chicago you certainly can!
Why do you ask?

Or did you not bother to read the actual ruling and just felt the need to make a condescending snarky comment out of sheer ignorance of the subject?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yes. I decided to make a condescending snarky comment out of sheer ignorance.
How did you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bold Lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. "How did you know?" Because you show a propensity to do just that.
Edited on Mon Jun-28-10 12:27 PM by Bold Lib
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

On edit: You've now been given a link to the text of the decision on two occasions that I know of. Have you taken the steps to correct your (self admitted) ignorance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. It's not the first time you've done that, and I doubt that it will be the last time
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Disney land is private property.
Disney land could allow firearms on their property a decade ago if they wanted to.

This ruling neither forced a private property owner to accept firearms nor prohibits from from doing so.

If you want to know if you can bring firearm to Disney land you should consult with the Disney corporation not Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. If you don't know anything about the subject, why do you start by making ridiculous assumptions?
No, this ruling does not affect private property in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #15
76. Try taking one in and I'll watch the "fun" start with you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 04:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC