GUN DEBATE

BOOOYA DC GUN BAN LIFTED BANG BANG

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns - Yahoo! News

Spoiler:

WASHINGTON - Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Scalia's opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting.

The brevity of Scalia's treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Chicago mayor Richard Daley said he didn't know how the high court ruling would affect the city, but said that the ruling was "a very frightening decision." He predicted an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.

"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Thursday's decision was embraced by the president, said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "This has been the administration's long-held view," Perino said. "The president is also pleased that the court concluded that the D.C. firearm laws violate that right."

White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

supreme SCOTUS 2nd Amendment armed populace don't you know guns are dangerous!?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Pangalin

Nehmi it's against the rules to have a dupe account to troll with

But I didn't even say anything about how activist judges undermine are freedoms.

Most amazing jew boots

Gun debates are one of the few issues where both sides fear the same thing.

I also think it's interesting that the places in the country where people really could use a handgun for self-defense have (had) bans.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Are you kidding? When do you ever NEED a gun?

Cougar killing my livestock.

Nobody needs a gun in the same way that nobody needs a power drill. If I felt like my life was in danger, though, I'd feel much more certain of myself if I had a gun and not a baseball bat. This is especially true for women.

Quote:

I'm willing to be proved wrong but I'm fairly sure the instances of people getting killed by fire extinguishers going off accidentally or kids using their parent's fire extinguishers to massacre their school mates are pretty few and far between. What I'm suggesting is that the risks of someone getting unintentionally killed by a gun you keep loaded in your bedside cabinet outweigh the benefits of keeping a loaded firearm in your bedside cabinet in case some crazed maniac bursts into your house at such a time as you happen to be upstairs in reach of your gun.

Problem is nobody cares, because gun accidents don't occur enough to be significant.

It's also nice that you're such a criminal expert but criminal culture isn't the same in the US. You're right, the average home invader won't be carrying a gun because that could suggest intent to kill, but some of them do and even the ones that don't have assaulted residents. The problem is that nobody is omnipresent and when somebody invades your residence you have no clue concerning their intent. Many of us would rather possess piece of mind instead of taking the extreme risks involved in confronting an invader physically. In a lot of ways a shotgun is the best weapon for home defense because the sound of the action will scare off just about anybody before you even have to confront them.

We also don't have the same kind of gangster element. Street gangs operate actively in people's neighborhoods, so accidental killings from stray bullets aren't uncommon. The emphasis on being hard also means that a lot of people become victimized when gang members try to prove themselves. This is especially true for Mexico and along the Mexican border, since Hispanic gangs and cartels have had to be hideously brutal to carve out a place for themselves. A guy was just recently assassinated by 6 men hired by a drug cartel, some of which were active members of the Mexican army. That's obviously a one in a million case, but it's indicative of how far these people are willing to go.

As for how many crimes are averted by an armed citizen, that's unquantifiable. An averted crime isn't newsworthy, and many go unreported. The same is also true of gun control and bans. Causal links between policy and resulting crime rates are difficult to prove if at all, and in cases where a link can be established (like DC assuming Mush is right) crime has also rebounded and in many cases become much worse (again, like DC). So once again it comes back to piece of mind.

There's also protection from THE GUBMINT, which is actually a terrible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. No amount of firepower is going to protect an individual from the state, despite how many communes and mountain men think they will. Firearms support revolution, and it's impossible to engage in asymmetric warfare without firearms. Private ownership of firearms can protect the free state, assuming that people are willing to defend it.

also at least we have a constitution booya

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Plus guns are fun as fuck, stop trying to take away our fun you fags.

Quote:

If that's genuinely your opinion, I assume you're against the international community trying to stop Iran building nuclear enrichment plants? Why shouldn't they be allowed to produce nuclear power when it's only the crazy people in power who'd want to make atomic bombs with the leftovers after all.

Also pre-empting this for me, I do support Iran's nuclear power program.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Shin

Yes, I can see how they might provide peace of mind to paranoid fucks who've not thought it through properly living in lawless townships but I chalenge anyone to give a reasonable, realistic, theoretical situation where having a gun at home in America will in any way help you prevent loss of property or injury.

Ence just did. From personal experience.

You're right, gun possession isn't going to stop crime, that's not the point. The point is that a gun will still provide a modicum of protection, especially if you have a security system which activates on a break-in. Conjecturing on how things can go wrong for the home invader and the victim is ultimately pointless because all cases can occur.

The point about accidental killings that I didn't get across is that yes, criminals will still have guns, and yes homicide and accidental death will still be a significant problem with strict gun control or gun bans.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Watts

So? Freud was a crackhead. Just because people abuse drugs doesn't mean they are not capable of contributing something to their field of expertise or interest.*

Freud was also a quack. You could've chosen a much better example.

Quote:

In the grand scheme of things, there weren't that many people in the World Trade Centre but they still increased airport security after someone flew some planes into it.

And airport security was still ineffective.

Traffic accidents occur frequently so their danger in regards to minor mortality justifies the legislation. Hell, the 9/11 hijacking caused the total collapse of an entire city block and killed thousands, so even if airport security is shitty new mandates are still justified.

Not enough people are killed accidentally by firearms for people to give a shit. The presence of firearms do not present a sufficient danger to the public to warrant a ban.

We shouldn't be treating millions of adults like children because a statistically insignificant number of people don't use or store their firearms safely.

You know what I would be willing to support, though? Ceilings on gun ownership. 2-3 guns per home, and more allowed if stored in a secure facility. This is because gun collections are paradoxically more likely to make one a target for home invasion, and guns stolen from private collections are a significant source of illegally circulated weapons.

FELIPE NO

But think of all that wasted electricity.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Pangalin

At any rate gun bans obviously don't eliminate violent crimes. Mostly people just resort to stabbing each other. But the class of crimes you can accomplish with knives is significantly smaller. I can't see anyone holding up a bank with a machete exactly.

I guess you could hold up a bank with homemade bombs.

Guns aren't useless if they don't hurt anybody, your own example of the bank robbery is indicative of the deterrent factor. Some people get shot during bank robberies but most of the time they don't and I'd hardly think the robber considers his gun useless because nobody was perforated. Hell, you don't even need a real gun for deterrent, which is a significant cause of gun crime in Britain. You could even use an airsoft gun in a robbery (doesn't shoot bullets).

The same principle applies to all other uses, legal or otherwise. If I can deter somebody from committing an assault or robbery without firing a single shot that's the best possible outcome.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

It'd probably be best if everybody stopped fantasizing about what could go right or wrong. Paranoia isn't going to get us anywhere, and paranoid fantasies should not be the basis of policy.

The fact is that guns have deterred crime. Guns have also made people the target of crime. Guns can save lives and also be completely useless. The core of this debate concerns cultural values, and the political reality is that despite the majority of Americans who do not mind gun control, the few that care about it are the only ones who consider it a voting issue.

So I guess Americans just love guns FUCK YEAH

YouTube Video

FUCK YEAH

YouTube Video

FUCK YEAH

YouTube Video

FUCK YEAH

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by lordphoenix71

For my critics, see the shirt.

owned

Most amazing jew boots

Look all I'm saying is that it's their fault they didn't arm themselves

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando

I feel alot safe here than I would in any state in the USA.

Talk about Myopia. Basing your personal experience on hearsay isn't very personal. If I was to do that, I'd say I'd feel much less safe in Britain where violent crime, if not necessarily homicide is much higher per capita and people are victimized at a much higher rate for crimes in general.

To be armed used to be your right as a British citizen as well, but then you curtailed those freedoms for honestly no good reason. (well I guess socialists and commies were a good enough reason at the time)

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando

Actually that isn't true I saw it in Hansard on a Parlimentry debate where an MP read out the stats that our violent crime AND gun crime were both less superior to that of the Americans but much higher than that of our European neighbours (in regards to violent crime especially). This was 2 years ago when I was studying Criminal law the first year of my degree so I can't vouch for the figure staying the same. It was during some sort of gun amnesty awhile back where we had a little froing between parties over an action plan.

Was that in absolute terms or as a rate of crime and violence? Regardless, all forms of crime have been on the increase in Britain since the 1950's, long before legislation following the Dunblane Massacre.

The history of gun control measures in the UK and US suggest that attempts at strict gun control have little to no effect on violent or gun-related crime in the long term, going both ways.

Really the reason I wouldn't feel safe in Great Britain is because you've tied your hands behind your back in regards to the self-defense issue. It's come to the point where it's a greater legal liability to defend yourself or defend others in the case of an assault or robbery, so no fucking wonder crime has been on the increase.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Well that's the problem when you attempt to legally determine reasonable cause in a potentially life-threatening situation. When you feel like your life is in danger, regardless of the criminal intent reason goes out the window.

I'm not even talking about the use of a firearm, I mean in a general sense you're in more danger protecting yourself or property with less-than-lethal means than not due to the potential civil proceedings which favor the person committing the assault or robbery.

If I couldn't even put up my dukes to defend myself and my property I just would not have nice things, because if the fight is one-sided in my favor then it looks like I was being "unreasonable" regardless of any potential reality regarding the threat.

Awarding damages to injured persons after the fact because they only wanted to burgle and not hurt anybody (really I swear it) creates a situation where people shouldn't even bother defending themselves period in any manner.

FELIPE NO

I don't think the fact that he shot them in the back can be stressed enough, it sort of implies that they're running away and not presenting any danger to his life or property.

Quote:

See, I can see the argument for wanting to own a handgun for protection, or a rifle for hunting. Here's the bit I don't get: What possible reason is there for it to be legal for a citizen to own an assault rifle.

Just curious.

As a member of the militia, which is everybody depending on how you interpret that, an assault rifle is the best thing you have for use in militia duties short of improvised explosives. The only problem is that the well regulated militia aspect isn't regulated at all and nobody receives any mandatory training in asymmetric warfare and responsible weapons storage.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Beard Overflow

It's a problematic issue, no doubt. I guess, for me, I just don't see the point in keeping an AK under your pillow. I'm not saying take the guns, I'm just saying there are, you know, limits to what we should believe is actually going to be used for hunting and target practice.

A lot of people actually do use AR15s and the civilian AK47 for hunting and target practice. You're not going to perforate a deer or anything, but the bullets are gonna be there, and you don't need to worry about keeping a .50 cal pistol in bear country. They're also very useful when hunting cougars.

What's ridiculous are the people who thing they need an assault rifle for self-defense, since that's really overkill, so much to the point in fact where an assault rifle isn't even close to the best choice. Shotguns sound scary without even needing to be fired, and handguns can be easily used indoors. Buckshot and pistol ammo don't have a penetration issue, either, so there's less danger of hurting your neighbors. Plus you can't exactly keep a rifle in a drawer or under a pillow.

Most amazing jew boots

Not all assault rifles are fully automatic. The civilian AK is modified for semi-auto only in American markets.

How ya doing, buddy?

Throw this 'should have' business out the window, the Supreme Court set precedent and you can be separate but equal.



But we don't elect supreme court justices!

Would you like to know more?

Most amazing jew boots