Guns and the Supreme Court

I don't think so. The appeals courts have now come out all over the place with their interpretations. DC and the Fifth District recognize a fairly broad individual right, whereas the other districts find a much narrower one, or no individual right at all. I doubt the Supreme Court can reserve its own judgment for much longer.

0 Replies

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

We interlopers on this site should never forget that some of the American threaders routinely carry a gun and have one in the bedside cabinet.

Most of us have never seen a handgun.

Having a gun secreted on the person must make a substantial difference to how that person feels.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Having a gun secreted on the person must make a substantial difference to how that person feels.

Not so much really.....

Does having life insurance make a substantial difference in how you feel?

Does wearing a seatbelt make a substantial difference in how you feel?

0 Replies

I was thinking of psychological fetishes and power outreach actually map.

The association of guns with masculinity. Or fear.

The thought of half the ladies in the pub on Sat night having a Smith & Wesson's "LadySmith" 2-inch barrel, five-shot, .32-frame revolver or a neat little 3913 LS compact 9mm autopistol in their handbags is somewhat daunting to an English imagination.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I'm not clear whether a majority of voters in the USA even want a ban on firearms.

Here is a list of the results of various polls that have been conducted on gun attitudes in America over the years:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I was thinking of psychological fetishes and power outreach actually map.

The association of guns with masculinity. Or fear.

The thought of half the ladies in the pub on Sat night having a Smith & Wesson's "LadySmith" 2-inch barrel, five-shot, .32-frame revolver or a neat little 3913 LS compact 9mm autopistol in their handbags is somewhat daunting to an English imagination.

Guns in the pub is somewhat daunting to the American imagination as well. Alcohol and firearms DO NOT mix, and there are several hundred laws that address this in the US.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Personally, I expect that the Supreme Court majority opinion will find some way to avoid interpreting the second amendment.

That would certainly be in line with tradition, the extent that the Court has assiduously avoided ever making a direct ruling on the exact meaning of the Second Amendment as a constitutional statement on the regulation of firearms. Miller is as close as they have ever come to that, insofar as it concerned the National Firearms Act, and even then the Court simply referred to the narrow and specific issue of whether or not "a shotgun with a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" is properly seen as a weapon of the militia. More than that, they upheld the National Firearms Act on the basis of the government's right to regulate interstate commerce.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

....Having a gun secreted on the person must make a substantial difference to how that person feels.

I prefer the lady to know I'm just pleased to see her.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

McTag wrote:
I'm not clear whether a majority of voters in the USA even want a ban on firearms.

Here is a list of the results of various polls that have been conducted on gun attitudes in America over the years:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Thanks oralloy.

So with the poll roughly 2-1 in favour of individuals possessing firearms, no change is likely in the forseeable future.

0 Replies

I found the polling report interesting, and to the point i was making, in that while the respondents oppose specific bans, they consistently state that they would favor seeing more strict regulation. In the very first polling results listed, as the number of those favoring more strict gun control declines (while still remaining above 50%), the increase does not show up in the "less strict" category, but rather in the "kept as they are now" category.

As i pointed out, the question of an outright ban as opposed the degree of regulation makes a significant difference in the response. I would say that Americans don't want firearms banned, but that that is not reason to claim the most Americans are opposed to gun control.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I would say that Americans don't want firearms banned, but that that is not reason to claim the most Americans are opposed to gun control.

And it depends on the specific gun control being proposed.

If you're asking about the Virginia Tech case where the kid had mental problems, sure most people are going to be in favor of that level of control (myself included).

But if you're talking about gun control banning handguns from everybody, you'll get a far different response.

0 Replies

No ****, Sherlock--that's precisely what i've said in my last two posts. Personally, i think handguns should be banned--but i'm not so foolish as to believe that politicians would ever stick their necks out that far, even if they accidentally developed a set of principles.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The association of guns with masculinity. Or fear.

I'm not aware of either association; is this a European thing?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No ****, Sherlock--that's precisely what i've said in my last two posts. Personally, i think handguns should be banned--but i'm not so foolish as to believe that politicians would ever stick their necks out that far, even if they accidentally developed a set of principles.

Well, that's not precisely what you've said.....but either way, am I not allowed to agree?

I really don't see the problem you have with handguns, they are no more or less safe/dangerous than rifles or shotguns. Sure they are more concealable, but that works AGAINST the criminals (they don't know who may be carrying). Criminals will not follow the law whether you outlaw handguns or not. Even if you rounded up ALL handguns, they really aren't that hard to make by hand with simple machining tools.

Handguns reduce the liklihood in this country of many violent crimes, including rape.

0 Replies

I consider the contention that handgun possession reduces crime to be a crock of ****, for which i have never seen anyone advance reliable evidence. The notion to that the possibility of people carrying a concealed weapon reduces the possibility of handgun violence appears to me to be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who favor handgun ownership and the right to carry concealed weapons. In short, i suspect that you are merely peddling claims which support which you already are prepared to believe.

If handguns were prohibited to everyone but the military and the police forces, the mere possession of such a weapon becomes a crime, and anyone employing a handgun immediately makes themselves blatantly obvious as a criminal--and they would truly be outside the law, unless they dispose of the weapon. The claim that there is a substantive difference between rifles and shotguns as opposed to handguns is also ludicrous, and not simply on the basis of the ability to conceal the weapon. Only assault rifles have the ammunition capacity which to match the firepower of a 9mm automatic. The biggest problem with handgun shoot-outs is how many bystanders can get hurt or killed. I don't care how many gang-bangers off one another, but spraying the street with gun fire can kill quite a few other people. If you walk down the street with a rifle or a shotgun in your hands, you are going to make yourself rather obvious, though.

0 Replies

I don't think anyone has posted a link to the appellate court opinion yet.

Parker, et al. (Heller) v. District of Columbia (.pdf)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I consider the contention that handgun possession reduces crime to be a crock of ****, for which i have never seen anyone advance reliable evidence.

I doubt that there is any evidence that you would consider reliable being that you're so set in your position.

The evidence is not conclusive on either side of the argument, but certainly there is no reliable proof that fewer handguns REDUCES crime.

Take a look at Illinois for example. Strictest gun laws in the country, higher violent crime rate than 39 of the 50 states. More rape than 25 of the 50 states.

Then look at Washington DC, highest crime rates in the country....far fewer handguns than the country as well.

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

So, while I may not be able to convince you of my position, you certaintly do not have any evidence promoting yours. I'll error on the side of freedom.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The notion to that the possibility of people carrying a concealed weapon reduces the possibility of handgun violence appears to me to be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who favor handgun ownership and the right to carry concealed weapons.

And let's drop the qualifier "handgun" violence. That is not the argument, and yet is a popular tactic of gun banning proponants.

0 Replies

The Court's summary:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it 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.

The Court also notes:

Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them . . . That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Setanta wrote:
The notion to that the possibility of people carrying a concealed weapon reduces the possibility of handgun violence appears to me to be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who favor handgun ownership and the right to carry concealed weapons.

And let's drop the qualifier "handgun" violence. That is not the argument, and yet is a popular tactic of gun banning proponants.

Why should i agree to that? I have specifically stated that i do not support a ban on all firearms, but that i consider the problems which arise from firearms to arise chiefly, almost exclusively, from the proliferation of handguns. Therefore, it is specifically handgun violence with which i am concerned; it is specifically handguns which i think ought to be banned. I have pointed out that i do not see any reason to ban rifles and shotguns, that i see no reason in law or in logic to prohibit the regulation of firearms by the Several States or the Federal government, and finally that i am not so foolish as to believe that handguns will be banned. So whomever it is that you feel you are arguing with, you are, apparently, not arguing with me.

0 Replies

Guns and the Supreme Court

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know