2ND Amendment Ruling Due in 2008

[Haggis@wk]

US court to review Washington, D.C., handgun ban

To say this is as big as Roe v. Wade is not an overstatement and will probably determine whom the next president of the United States will be.

And to say this will be closely followed by tens of millions of Americans is also not an overstatement and, quite possibly, might be an under-statement.

Candidates, notably on the Left, have been praying that this was not going to come up simply because it will force them to take a side, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

And the timing couldn’t have come at a worse time for those who wanted to avoid this issue. All the major candidates will have to stake out some position on this prior to the early caucuses (cauci?)

Traditionally, candidates from both sides tend to cater to the other-than-central fringe and then move to the center once they secure the nomination. I don’t see this as a significant stumbling block for the Republicans. Democrats, however, have never, ever won an election espousing greater gun control laws; one reason why they haven’t addressed this issue since, at least, 2000.

Unfortunately, Their kook fringe left base they are depending on now to get them beyond New Hampshire froths at the mouth when gun control is an issue and will probably punish any candidate that hews from that line.

The Democrats have to be sweating bullets tonight.

My take on the outcome? Well, If the court pays as much attention to assessing the reasonableness of regulations aimed at firearms -- where there's a textually secured right -- as it does to regulation of abortion -- where there isn't -- firearms owners will receive considerable protection. And if courts fail to do so, the legitimacy of courts will suffer considerably.

Man, this news just injected a whole new dimension to this election!!!

[jamiebk]

They tried this is San Francisco and it did not stick.

San Francisco Superior Court Rejects Gun Ban
2nd Amendment Upheld

By NRA News, 6/13/2006 1:13:34 PM
Yesterday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down the San Francisco handgun ban, asserting that under California law local officials do not have the authority to ban firearms from law-abiding citizens. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban from its inception.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre stated, "This ruling is a major victory for freedom and for the National Rifle Association. Proposition H was an ill-conceived gun ban scheme that would have violated the rights of only the law-abiding in San Francisco. We fought this outrageous attack on the constitutional rights of the good guys and we prevailed. We are determined not to see this gross injustice happen again and will fight any effort by politicians to resurrect this faulty proposal."

The San Francisco gun ban would have prohibited law-abiding city residents from purchasing firearms - rifles, shotguns and handguns - for any lawful reason, whether for self-defense, hunting or recreational shooting. In addition, current law-abiding gun owners would have to surrender their registered handguns to the police.

Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist, stated, "We are pleased with the decision of Judge James Warren of the California Superior Court. In today's ruling, Judge Warren ruled California law prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults. This ruling supports the premise of NRA's argument. The NRA filed it's lawsuit soon after Proposition H passed arguing that the proposition was in violation of California preemption laws that say firearm laws are regulated by the state."

The San Francisco Police Officers Association also opposed the ban, stating that the new law nullified "the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes."

Cox continued, "It seems evident that the authors of this measure either intentionally misled voters during the election or authored this proposed measure with gross disregard of California law. Regrettably, the biggest losers were the voters in this municipality who had to bear the considerable financial burden to satisfy the careless political whim of their elected officials."

NRA and its Civil Rights Defense Fund presently support more than 60 cases involving the constitutional rights of gun owners. NRA filed a lawsuit challenging gun confiscations in the wake of Katrina (NRA v. New Orleans) and to clarify California's so-called "assault weapon" law (Hunt v. Lockyer). It successfully challenged the San Francisco gun ban (NRA v. San Francisco), and it is challenging seizures of firearms at New York and New Jersey airports contrary to federal safe passage law (John Torraco and William Winstanley in New York and Gregg Revell in New Jersey). Successes include striking down unconstitutional laws in Wisconsin (State v. Hamdan), New Mexico (Baca v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety), Oregon (State v. Dalgado), and West Virginia (State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner). NRA also supported cases involving successful self-defense, for example, Jeffrey Kinder, Sr., and Jeffrey Kinder III (Arizona) and Tracey Roberts (Iowa).


Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services.

[dai bread]

No matter what my personal opinion is of the "right to keep & bear arms", it is far too late to bring gun control to the U.S.

No matter what laws are passed, the rest of us will continue to regard America as an armed society.

The genie, as they say, is out of the bottle.

[analog]

Gun control ? Genie?

She's running for president and we're trying our best to keep her in the bottle.

a.

[Shapley]

Jamie,

The important thing to realize is that the D.C. handgun ban avoids any ambiguity that might be thrown in by issues of States' rights, since D.C. is a Federal entity, not a part of any State. This ruling should, if delivered in a straightforward manner, resolve questions of the Federal government's role in the gun control issue.

There will, no doubt, be later cases regarding the individual States' rights to regulate firearms within their jurisdictions. For the libertarian-minded, this ruling will be very important. The impact it has, if any, on State regulations will depend on the wording of the decision. In any case, there will likely be challenges at the State level if there is any attempt to use the decision to bolster or weaken State-imposed regulations.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

This week saw another horrific massacre by an apparently disturbed teenager, this time at a shopping mall in Omaha, Neb. The 19-year-old gunman took eight lives before killing himself.
But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage I’ve read mentioned that the mall where this happened was, like Virginia Tech, a "gun-free zone.”

Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn't one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.

[snark]The mystery continues. Why on earth did this sick gunman pick a “gun-free” mall to make himself famous?

Why didn’t he choose a police station, National Guard Armory or local gun show to make his point?[/snark]

If I had been in that mall and had to leave my pistol in the car I believe I could sue the mall for, after stripping me of my right to defend myself, failure to protect me.

[OperaTenor]

Guess what? This kookie, frothy leftie doesn't think gun control is the answer, either.

Guns aren't the problem. The bloodthirsty, commercial media is the problem.

[analog]

gosh - sorry to have killed the thread.

[Haggis@wk]

After the Virginia Tech shooting, people asked whether a CCL holder could have made a difference once the shooting started. Jeanne Assam answered that question on last Sunday.

"I saw him coming through the doors" and took cover, Assam said. "I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down."

The gunman had three weapons and more than 1,000 rounds of ammo and "About 7,000 people were on the church campus at the time of the shooting". He was planning on staying there awhile.

Now watch the MSM try to smear this “gun nut,” it’s part of their playbook.

[Haggis@wk]

Follow-on to the above post

”People don’t stop killers, people with guns do

The 40 states (including Maine) where concealed-carry permits are readily available to law-abiding people report on average a 22 percent lower violent crime rate, a 30 percent lower murder rate, a 46 percent lower robbery rate and a 12 percent lower aggravated assault rate than the 10 states where the possession of firearms by honest citizens is greatly restricted.

[Haggis@wk]

A letter dated 12/14/2007 which is signed by 47 senators to Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary, Department of the Interior is seeking to allow law-abiding citizens to transport and carry firearms consistent with state law where the National Park Service’s site and the National Wildlife Refuges are located.

Since National Parks are often large, thinly populated with LEOs, and frequently contain wildlife that may think that humans taste very good, it seems like a plan to me.

[Haggis@wk]

This is surprising only to those who haven't been paying attention.

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.

The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

More than 155,000 Michiganders -- about one in every 65 -- are now authorized to carry loaded guns as they go about their everyday affairs, according to Michigan State Police records.

[Trumpetmaster]

Sounds like having that law in place winds up as a "deterrent"

I am pretty surprised at this....

[jamiebk]

This is surprising only to those who haven't been paying attention.

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.

The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

More than 155,000 Michiganders -- about one in every 65 -- are now authorized to carry loaded guns as they go about their everyday affairs, according to Michigan State Police records.

It's really not possible to determine whether the people who obtained a license (permission) to carry a concealed weapon are actually doing so.

[Shapley]

It's really not possible to determine whether the people who obtained a license (permission) to carry a concealed weapon are actually doing so.

That's part of the point of having a concealed carry permit. Those you're dealing with don't know if you're armed or not. Many will assume you are and tend to be a bit more polite.

I once heard this story told about Buddy Hackett. Apparently Mr. Hackett was very vocal concerning those who smoke in non-smoking areas. A fellow comic and Buddy Hackett were attending a show. They sat down in the auditorium, and were conversing before the show began. One of the ladies in a seat near theirs lit up a cigarette. Mr. Hacket turned to the lady and shouted "Hey! Put out that cigarette! Smoking is not allowed in here!"

The ladies' escort, a broad-shouldered man much bigger than Mr. Hackett, turned to him and began cursing him. He finally asked Mr. Hackett to step outside.

"Okay." said Mr. Hackett, "Do you have a gun?"

"No." the man replied.

"Well, I do." said Mr. Hackett.

The man turned to his lady friend and said: "Put out that damned cigarette!"

I have no idea if Mr. Hackett was armed or not. Apparently, the ladies escort wasn't sure, either, but he didn't appear willing to find out. If it was necessary to actually carry the firearm, there would be no need to have the 'concealed' requirement.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

It's really not possible to determine whether the people who obtained a license (permission) to carry a concealed weapon are actually doing so.

That's part of the point of having a concealed carry permit. Those you're dealing with don't know if you're armed or not. Many will assume you are and tend to be a bit more polite.

I once heard this story told about Buddy Hackett. Apparently Mr. Hackett was very vocal concerning those who smoke in non-smoking areas. A fellow comic and Buddy Hackett were attending a show. They sat down in the auditorium, and were conversing before the show began. One of the ladies in a seat near theirs lit up a cigarette. Mr. Hacket turned to the lady and shouted "Hey! Put out that cigarette! Smoking is not allowed in here!"

The ladies' escort, a broad-shouldered man much bigger than Mr. Hackett, turned to him and began cursing him. He finally asked Mr. Hackett to step outside.

"Okay." said Mr. Hackett, "Do you have a gun?"

"No." the man replied.

"Well, I do." said Mr. Hackett.

The man turned to his lady friend and said: "Put out that damned cigarette!"

I have no idea if Mr. Hackett was armed or not. Apparently, the ladies escort wasn't sure, either, but he didn't appear willing to find out. If it was necessary to actually carry the firearm, there would be no need to have the 'concealed' requirement.

V/R
Shapley

My point was/is, that the "statistics" quoted are meaningless. Just because permits are pulled does not mean that guns are in fact being carried anymore than before. And frankly, even though it is a humorous story, there are some people out there who will use gun force for something as meaningless as enforcing a cigarette law.

[Shapley]

I believe the whole point is that, as the number of potential firearms carriers increases, the desire by criminals or would be criminals to take the chance that any given person is armed is reduced. The fact that there are more potential legal firearms on the street is a deterent to crime, whether or not those firearms actually exist.

As I said, if the existence of actual firearms was necessary to reduce crimes, there would be no need to conceal them. The whole point is to keep the criminals guessing.

Also, Mr. Hackett was not pointing out the firearm as a means of enforcing the smoking ban, he was pointing out the firearm as a means of protecting himself from the ladies' escort, who was apparently willing to resort to violence in order to uphold his lady friend's 'right' to violate the smoking prohibition. There is a big difference between the two.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

And frankly, even though it is a humorous story, there are some people out there who will use gun force for something as meaningless as enforcing a cigarette law.

I'm troubled that you consider the cigarette law meaningless. Never mind the second-hand smoke issue, the cigarette ban in auditoriums was inacted for a more immediate health issue - the risk of fire in a crowded facility with minimal exits. I happen to believe that enforcing that law is anything but meaningless, although I'm sure management would have been happy to resolve the issue by removing the cigarette and/or the smoker once they were called. However, if the smoker and her escort continued their refusal, at what point do you suggest one should stop trying to enforce the law and capitulate to the lawless?

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

And frankly, even though it is a humorous story, there are some people out there who will use gun force for something as meaningless as enforcing a cigarette law.

I'm troubled that you consider the cigarette law meaningless. Never mind the second-hand smoke issue, the cigarette ban in auditoriums was inacted for a more immediate health issue - the risk of fire in a crowded facility with minimal exits. I happen to believe that enforcing that law is anything but meaningless, although I'm sure management would have been happy to resolve the issue by removing the cigarette and/or the smoker once they were called. However, if the smoker and her escort continued their refusal, at what point do you suggest one should stop trying to enforce the law and capitulate to the lawless?

V/R
Shapley

I don't consider it meaningless and I am a staunch non-smoker myself. However, I don't think that enforcement warrants taking the law into one's own hand through lethal force. One can simply move away from the trouble maker and if necessary let the police take over. I only used the comparison because that was the jist of the story you recited.

I can just see it now. A violation of the 20 foot rule...."You...with the cigarette...Step away from the doorway or you will be shot". Really, Shap. Is that a reasonable enforcement considering the "crime?" Lethal force can't be used to solve every problem or infraction on the law.

[Shapley]

I don't propose using a firearm to prevent smoking. Annie Oakley used to shoot cigarettes out of people's mouths, but I'm sure most of us lack that skill.

That being said, once you've pointed out to the offender that they are in violation of the law, what then? If they refuse to comply, call the manager and have him remove them. If they refuse his requests, he will call the law, who will arrive. They will have a firearm, nine times out of ten. They will not use it unless the confrontation turns ugly, but they will not hesitate to use it if it does. I would argue, at that point, that they are not using it to enforce the smoking ban, as the issues has escalated far beyond that.

The smoking ban, or any such misdemeanor law, does not justify the use of a firearm. If, however, the offender refuses, with threat of violence, to comply with a reasonable request to comply, it may become necessary to defend oneself. You will find that people tend to be more aggressive when they think they have a strength advantage. Remove that advantage, such as through the presence of a firearm, and you find that the majority of them tend to become much more reasonable.

The license process is designed to ensure that the carrier of the firearm is aware of which situations permit and which ones do not permit the exhibition and/or use of the firearm.

V/R
Shapley