Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a politically charged challenge to the District of Columbia’s gun control laws. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can.
Just for the record, I disagree with the ediotorial. The Constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms as an individual right. It is not just for the purpose of arming State Militias.
Posts: 2043 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
It is not just for the purpose of arming State Militias.
Aye, there's the rub. With all those clauses and commas, one can conclude that is the sine qua non. I wonder if the question of how effective the DC ban has been will be brought up, or if that will be considered irrelevant? At any rate, I have a hunch there will be some middle ground decision made.
Citizens of Washington, DC do not have all the Constitutional rights guaranteed to the citizens of the states; in fact, they didn't even have the right to vote for President until the 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961. They still do not have any representation in the Senate, and only have a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives. Thus, it would seem that, whatever the Second Amendment actually means (and, LR's statements notwithstanding, the meaning is not very clear, else other cities wouldn't have gun control laws), it does not necessarily apply to the District of Columbia.
Posts: 16166 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
DG-You are correct about Washington DC. That has always been an odd-ball set up. I can remember a time, they didn't even elect their own mayor, rather the mayor was appointed by the President.
Posts: 2043 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
it does not necessarily apply to the District of Columbia.
True. And that might be an out for the SC...a very narrow ruling based on the DC case and circumstances. However, so many others are looking for some sort of encompassing resolution to the question, the SC may comply.
your right to bear arms leaves me puzzled-wasn't that written up a couple of hundred years ago? Why do you need state militia groups as well? When I lived in Kansas it was a weekly debate about gun control in the papers and yet the ads stayed about Gun shops where you could get all the guns and ammo you needed.I am not sure of the figures in Canada but you must have a lot of unregistered firearms and how you are going to get an accurate accounting for all of them is a fantasy
They need militias in case the English come back.The Founding Fathers did consider including the right to keep a horse and carry a bugle as well, but left that out as too obvious(and possibly contentious, particularly after 'bugle' was misheard and the first draft read 'beagle').
I would not be surprised with I am sure some of the excuses some militias are allowed to operate. I once saw a Michigan Militia (0n a M. Moore film) and here were these people in the woods with I think automatic weapons and I was thinking " Where is the enemy?"
It is not illegal for a private club to call itself a militia. That does not mean it is a militia. Several private clubs call themselves "Brotherhoods", but few of their members are actually related to each other to such a degree.
Posts: 16166 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by cyberlaol: your right to bear arms leaves me puzzled-wasn't that written up a couple of hundred years ago?
Yes it was. And it was also written right around the same time the First Amendment was written. Long before the Internet, Radio, Television, Podcasting, Desktop publishing, etc. Thus, I would ask anyone who says the Second Amendment is out of date if any of those forms of communication lack First Amendment protection since they weren't around at the time the First Amendment was written?
quote:
Originally posted by cyberlaol: Why do you need state militia groups as well?
The Founding Father's original intent as it regards to the term "militia" simply meant every able-bodied civilian male. It had nothing to do with any kind of army. Any objective examination of their writings proves this. When they used the term "militia" they did not mean anything like the National Guard. The National Guard was formed over 100 years after the Second Amendment was written.
quote:
Originally posted by cyberlaol: When I lived in Kansas it was a weekly debate about gun control in the papers and yet the ads stayed about Gun shops where you could get all the guns and ammo you needed.
John, your line of reasoning works against your point, not for. If, as you imply, the First Amendment protection extends to modern forms of communication, then it logically follows that the Constitution is being interpreted to include modern circumstances. If that is the case, then the Second Amendment surely can be interpreted the same way as well, in fact, should be interpreted to include modern circumstances. All this, of course, assumes that the Amendments have equal weight. You aren't implying that the Second Amendment has more weight than the First, or any of the others, are you?
Posts: 16166 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England."
"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York."
I'd love to see the statistics on this. I also want to hear the explanation how New Yorkers, with the Sullivan Law, are safer, since they cannot legally own handguns in most cases.
Below from Wikipedia -
The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a controversial gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician. It dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.
For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
It's hard to see how gun ownership makes New York safer, since it is very difficult to get a permit. And remember, "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns." (The same can be said for refrigerators, Buicks, or anything else. Truisms are like that.)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 16166 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by coldfuse: "You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England."
Coldfuse, the figure about domestic burglary in that link is utter rubbish. It is complete nonsense to say that 53%, over half, of burglaries in Britain occur when people are at home. In decades of dealing with criminals I'd be surprised if I'd had even 5 per cent of burglaries where people were at home,and even fewer where the people were aware of it .Burglars here aren't that stupid. They don't want to enter a home where they may be seen or surprised while searching or where the occupier calls the police as he hears them trying to get in. They want peace and quiet.Burglars here won't normally enter a house which has a dog in it, not because of the dog biting them but because of the noise it makes. The house is unoccupied , save for the dog, but they don't like the risk that the noise will get the neighbours interested. Most burglaries in Britain occur in the daytime when people are out e.g at work or on holiday.
I can't speak for the other figures, but, if they are like that one, they are not to be believed.
Originally posted by mozart56: Ironicly this article is from BBC News, they usually are a good source . I wonder where the study came from ,they don't mention it.
Yes, but it's not a news item. It's an opinion, an argument, piece by Joyce L Grant.You'll notice that she's billed as a "US academic". BBC News carries such debating pieces on controversies. If we were able to search we'd find some rebuttal of the argument, some other debating piece, and questioning of the figures.
She quotes: " According to Glanville Williams in his textbook of criminal law" Hmm. Well, Professor Williams died in 1997 , age 86. She appears to think that he was still with us in 2003, the date of this piece, or 2002 when she wrote her book. He was long retired before his death in 1997.We'll pass over the fact that she has misunderstood what the professor was saying, but then she's a historian (and, semble, one with an agenda )
Originally posted by FredPuli: Coldfuse, the figure about domestic burglary in that link is utter rubbish. It is complete nonsense to say that 53%, over half, of burglaries in Britain occur when people are at home. In decades of dealing with criminals I'd be surprised if I'd had even 5 per cent of burglaries where people were at home,and even fewer where the people were aware of it .Burglars here aren't that stupid. They don't want to enter a home where they may be seen or surprised while searching or where the occupier calls the police as he hears them trying to get in. They want peace and quiet.Burglars here won't normally enter a house which has a dog in it, not because of the dog biting them but because of the noise it makes. The house is unoccupied , save for the dog, but they don't like the risk that the noise will get the neighbours interested. Most burglaries in Britain occur in the daytime when people are out e.g at work or on holiday.
I can't speak for the other figures, but, if they are like that one, they are not to be believed.
That is a reasonable comment. When you went to research the figures, what did you discover?
Posts: 7494 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
The thread is about firearms and gun control. It does raise that old chestnut, so beloved of the NRA, that somehow our laws in Britain have no effect and if there were as many guns out there in Britain as people, or anywhere near as many, (compare the USA) our gun crime would still be minimal. Crooks, we are told, can always get guns (they are just too sporting in Britain to do so in any numbers. It's a culture thing. ).Our firearm stats are so British that they included use of crossbows until 1988 and still include imitation and replica guns used in crime, as well as such things as paintball guns, stun guns, pepper spray guns etc (We have, of course, noted the use of replicas and banned the importation, manufacture or sale of realistic imitation guns in 2006).We also have laws to ban the sale of weapons which can be converted or reconverted into firearms: there was a flourishing trade in 'deactivated' weapons which were technically legal.
Provisional figures for the twelve months ending September 2007.Firearm offences in England and Wales:
Fatal injuries (prima facie, therefore, murder or manslaughter) 49
Serious injuries: 368
Slight injuries: 2,728. 41 per cent of 'slight injuries' were caused by imitation weapons, some of which fire plastic pellets .
Robbery with firearm (all forms of robbery , including from the person i.e 'mugging'): 3,891
Firearms were used in just under 4 per cent (3.8 per cent) of all robbery offences recorded by police
Imitation weapons were used in 2,493 offences , 24 per cent less than the previous year.
Handguns were used in 4,144 offences, a drop of 11 per cent on the previous year.
Overall, in 2006/7 there were a provisional 9,608 recorded firearms offences of all kinds , a 13 per cent decrease on 2005/6 and the lowest number recorded since 2000/01. That may give us grounds for thinking that our controls are having an effect, even though we have been facing the constant danger of weapons coming in from the old Soviet bloc countries, several of which are now member states of the European Union (and so not subject to the same rigorous border controls within Europe).
Still, 49 gun homicides a year in a population of 50 million, bears slightly favourable comparison with the home of the NRA, doesn't it ?
.
