Supreme Court To Up Hold One Of Your Basic Freedoms?

[fuckin crazy]

Gun Rights Draw Support in U.S. Supreme Court Hearing

By Greg Stohr

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled they will declare that the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to possess firearms, questioning the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The court today considered whether the Second Amendment right to ``keep and bear arms'' covers all people or only those affiliated with a National Guard or other state-run militia. The Supreme Court has never squarely addressed that question.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the court's swing vote, said the Second Amendment confers ``a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.''

The District of Columbia's 32-year-old gun ban, by some measures the strictest in the nation, bars most residents from owning handguns and requires that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six city residents challenged the law, saying they want firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

The dispute is probably the most closely watched case of the Supreme Court's current term. People began lining up outside the court two days ago to secure one of fewer than 100 seats available to the general public. The argument session went 20 minutes beyond the hour and 15 minutes the court had allotted.

A ruling adopting the individual-rights approach would mark a long-desired victory for opponents of gun control. At the same time, the practical impact will turn on how much leeway the court gives government officials to regulate firearms, and the justices today gave mixed signals on that issue.

MORE


I don't want to give up any of my rights. The best way for the fascist to subdue a population is to disarm those people. Wake up people, the pigs are the ones with the power!!!

[Grouse]

Americans and their guns  ...

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Take away people's right to own guns and you are left with guns being owned exclusively by the govt and criminals.

I don't own a gun and not a big gun person, but I would like to have the choice of owning a gun if I wanted one.

[pilferk]

I actually agree with the NRA on this one.

I'm not a big gun guy, either.  Don't own a gun.

But unless they can pass an amendment to the constitution eliminating the right to bear arms....the NRA has a point.

You can't "ban" handguns within the municipality. 

I'd argue that all they really need to do is set up a rule with a killer wait period, and a cumbersome background check, as well as an outrageous fee, to effectively accomplish the same thing.  And then make the law that possession of a firearm by an UNREGISTERED person is illegal.

The other issue is this: While I see the point about the law making it easier for criminals to be prosecuted, it doesn't, really, dissuade those same criminals from being armed.  Criminals are criminals, and they'll find ways to carry guns.  Somehow, I don't think it's the possession of a handgun charge, when they're dealing on the streetcorners or breaking into peoples houses committing buglary/larceny, thats going to deter them.

[GeorgeSteele]

Criminals own guns, not because there's some secret underground black market gun manufacturer, but because they're legally purchased in mass quantities within states where Osama bin Laden can walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a gun.  And then those guns find their way all across the country.  Now would criminals still have guns if every state and city had the same firearm ban that DC does?  Yes, they would.  Would it be remotely to the same extent they do now?  Not even close, as evidenced in countries with stricter gun laws.

[pilferk]

Criminals own guns, not because there's some secret underground black market gun manufacturer, but because they're legally purchased in mass quantities within states where Osama bin Laden can walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a gun.  And then those guns find their way all across the country.  Now would criminals still have guns if every state and city had the same firearm ban that DC does?  Yes, they would.  Would it be remotely to the same extent they do now?  Not even close, as evidenced in countries with stricter gun laws.

Actually, exactly my point.

And short of a constitutional amendment (not gonna happen...at least not soon), it's neither practical, nor possible, to stop the flow of "legal" guns into the municipality.

So what good does the law do, ultimately?  It's not a deterrent.  It doesn't really make it much harder for them to procure fire arms.  The ONLY real benefit is to the DA's office, who can get slam dunk convictions......I'm not belittling that benefit, but at the expense of a constitutional right?  That's gonna be a tough sell, IMHO, to the SC...especially THIS SC.

[GeorgeSteele]

Criminals own guns, not because there's some secret underground black market gun manufacturer, but because they're legally purchased in mass quantities within states where Osama bin Laden can walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a gun.  And then those guns find their way all across the country.  Now would criminals still have guns if every state and city had the same firearm ban that DC does?  Yes, they would.  Would it be remotely to the same extent they do now?  Not even close, as evidenced in countries with stricter gun laws.

Actually, exactly my point.

And short of a constitutional amendment (not gonna happen...at least not soon), it's neither practical, nor possible, to stop the flow of "legal" guns into the municipality.

So what good does the law do, ultimately?  It's not a deterrent.  It doesn't really make it much harder for them to procure fire arms.  The ONLY real benefit is to the DA's office, who can get slam dunk convictions......I'm not belittling that benefit, but at the expense of a constitutional right?  That's gonna be a tough sell, IMHO, to the SC...especially THIS SC.

You can have a federal law that would apply to the entire country.  Would it be at the expense of a constitutional right?  I'm not so sure, as the Supreme Court has never determined that the "right to bear arms" is an individual right, although that could soon change pending the outcome of this historic case.  But even if it does, that right could be still be restricted within reason just like any other constitutional right, although obviously an outright ban wouldn't fly.

[pilferk]

You can have a federal law that would apply to the entire country.  Would it be at the expense of a constitutional right?  I'm not so sure, as the Supreme Court has never determined that the "right to bear arms" is an individual right, although that could soon change pending the outcome of this pending historic case.  But even if it does, that right could be still be restricted within reason just like any other constitutional right, although obviously an outright ban wouldn't fly.

IMHO, a federal law would never happen.  BESIDES the fact that nobody wants to take that law to the SC (and there would be PLENTY of challengers lining up to try to get it struck down), BESIDES the fact that nobody wants to vote for that law on the floor because they'd have to face their constituency...ignore ALL that, and you're left with the fact there is too much money behind the gun lobby to piss them off, and not NEARLY enough behind the anti-gun law lobby compel people to do the same.  I'd also argue that pro gun voters are MUCH more vocal, and find gun control a much more compelling issue on which to base their vote, than do the contrarians to that position.

No...anti-gun legislation (as in a ban), at this point, is "pie in the sky" thinking.  It sounds good, and it might even work in the manner many hope it would, but from a practicality and a constitutional standpoint, it's unlikely to get done.

Restricting the right would work, if you could get national support for such a movement.  It's been tried before and those movements always smash against the rocks of the NRA.  That's not to say it might not be time to bang the drum again, but...so far...the movement promoting strict gun legislation...or, rather, supporting the kind of VERY strict legislation I think you're hinting at...have just not been vocal or effective.

[GNRreunioneventually]

Americans and their guns  ...

The Netherlands and there..........well nothing really


yet another dumbass thing about getting rid of guns that WILL NOT HAPPEN. why can't we focus on something actually important such as why the hell is there oil in alaska and utah and why we're not drillin for it? OR something like immigration, i think we oughta put an express lane from mexico to canada or The Netherlands.


just a thought

[SLCPUNK]

Stupid guns.

[Bodhi]

good...

you take the guns away from the average person they have nothing to defend themselves with.....the only people who will have them are the people you don't want to...

[GeorgeSteele]

good...

you take the guns away from the average person they have nothing to defend themselves with.....the only people who will have them are the people you don't want to...

Exactly, which is why there's so much more violent crime in countries with stricter gun laws.

[Genesis]

good...

you take the guns away from the average person they have nothing to defend themselves with.....the only people who will have them are the people you don't want to...

Exactly, which is why there's so much more violent crime in countries with stricter gun laws.

I beg to differ, which countries are those? University / School / Mall shootings (at least one every month or more) and gun violence on the scale that America has isn't found anywhere else.

[freedom78]

good...

you take the guns away from the average person they have nothing to defend themselves with.....the only people who will have them are the people you don't want to...

Exactly, which is why there's so much more violent crime in countries with stricter gun laws.

I beg to differ, which countries are those? University / School / Mall shootings (at least one every month or more) and gun violence on the scale that America has isn't found anywhere else.

I think he was being sarcastic.

Anyway....obviously you can't have gun violence without guns, but a lot of America's gun violence could be dealt with by dealing with the root causes of all crime, primarily poverty. 

And, at this point, it's damned hard to get all those guns back, whether we're talking about legal weapons in hands that use them responsibly or illegal weapons in the hands of criminals. 

In other words...there's no easy solution such as simply banning guns. 

[SLCPUNK]

I shot a person with my finger once...true story.

Oh, and a rubber band.

[Grouse]

Americans and their guns  ...

The Netherlands and there..........well nothing really

erh...Windmills?, those can be very dangerous too you know!

[GeorgeSteele]

good...

you take the guns away from the average person they have nothing to defend themselves with.....the only people who will have them are the people you don't want to...

Exactly, which is why there's so much more violent crime in countries with stricter gun laws.

I beg to differ, which countries are those? University / School / Mall shootings (at least one every month or more) and gun violence on the scale that America has isn't found anywhere else.

I think he was being sarcastic.

You just know me too well.  Let's go get a latte.

Anyway....obviously you can't have gun violence without guns, but a lot of America's gun violence could be dealt with by dealing with the root causes of all crime, primarily poverty. 

True, but I don't think in this case it needs to be one or the other in terms of treating the symptom or the disease.

And, at this point, it's damned hard to get all those guns back, whether we're talking about legal weapons in hands that use them responsibly or illegal weapons in the hands of criminals. 

In other words...there's no easy solution such as simply banning guns. 

Difficult, but not impossible to make a major dent.  Law enforcement are often successful in seizing huge quantities of illegal guns, but under current laws, it doesn't matter because there's an endless supply on the market.  Also, you can restrict the ammo just as you would the guns. 

[freedom78]

good...

you take the guns away from the average person they have nothing to defend themselves with.....the only people who will have them are the people you don't want to...

Exactly, which is why there's so much more violent crime in countries with stricter gun laws.

I beg to differ, which countries are those? University / School / Mall shootings (at least one every month or more) and gun violence on the scale that America has isn't found anywhere else.

I think he was being sarcastic.

You just know me too well.  Let's go get a latte.

Despite my support of Obama, I'm not much of a latte guy. 

And, at this point, it's damned hard to get all those guns back, whether we're talking about legal weapons in hands that use them responsibly or illegal weapons in the hands of criminals. 

In other words...there's no easy solution such as simply banning guns. 

Difficult, but not impossible to make a major dent.  Law enforcement are often successful in seizing huge quantities of illegal guns, but under current laws, it doesn't matter because there's an endless supply on the market.  Also, you can restrict the ammo just as you would the guns. 

Yeah, I've always wondered about that.  I suppose DC could ban ammo sales, though they could still just go to Maryland or Virginia to get it.  What DOES need banned are all the new types of ammo, armor piercing, etc.  Store that stuff for the military, but why is it on the streets?  The only reason, realistically, is to kill cops.  I feel pretty confident saying that that's bad.

[SLCPUNK]

erh...Windmills?, those can be very dangerous too you know!

Yea, ask Don Quixote.

[GeorgeSteele]

You just know me too well.  Let's go get a latte.

Despite my support of Obama, I'm not much of a latte guy. 

So that must mean Obama hates lattes too.  First he's a racist, now he's an anti-lattite.  Now I'm definitely not voting for him.