Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   Politics & Religion (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Gun Ban in DC Gone~Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=16599)

IntheNet 03-09-2007 06:34 PM

Gun Ban in DC Gone~Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
 
SECOND AMENDMENT VICTORY!!!

According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual."

Victory at Last!

Naturally Mayor Fenty opposes the decision giving 2nd Amendment rights and freedoms to citizens; after all D.C. has been so crime free as of late!

catman 03-09-2007 06:55 PM

Could it be that we have a court that reads and interprets the Constitution, as opposed to saying what it should mean? Horrors!!!!!

HibachiDG 03-09-2007 07:42 PM

It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will take the case, they haven't done so in something like 70 years. My Constitutional Law course started of with two opinions interpreting the 2nd Amendment, one with the individual rights interpretation and another that decided that the Constitution does not grant individual rights.

I personally favor the individual rights interpretation that this Appeals court took in the DC gun ban case InTheNet linked to, but that's mainly because I'm not a strict textualist.

I haven't read all of this opinion, but I definitely agree with the majority on this...

Quote:

Even as the appeals court overturned the city's 1976 ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."
Which isn't to say anything on the specific DC guns ban, just that it would have to actually be looked at instead of having the issue brushed to the side. I like what I've ready from Rudy Guiliani in the past on gun control and the Second Amendment.

catman 03-09-2007 08:31 PM

I have no problem with reasonable restrictions, but outright "bans" are not going to pass Constitutional review, IMO.

HibachiDG 03-09-2007 09:08 PM

Just curious, but what do you consider an outright ban. I mean, for instance, if someone did 4 carjackings with a gun and they made legislation saying this man couldn't have a gun...that would be an outright ban. I don't think this is what you mean, though, but just want to find out what the line is. Maybe just let me know a couple things you consider reasonable restrictions?

I've always kind of wanted to be tough more on illegal firearms, like cracking down on those that can't have guns for criminal reasons or whatever and making sure that they don't get guns. Rather than blanket bans that include people who haven't shown that they can't handle one. And, I like location restrictions and actually being tough on those. Like schools, certain corners if police have identified the corner as a drug corner, that sort of thing. The problem to me has never been regular people having guns.

catman 03-09-2007 10:14 PM

That is what I would consider a reasonable restriction. An outright ban would be if people could not buy a gun regardless of criminal record.
Reasonable restrictions would be for anyone with a felony record or habitual misdemeanor offenders, OK?
Also, anyone owning a gun must pass a gun safety course administered by their local law enforcement.

HibachiDG 03-09-2007 10:19 PM

Yeah, I kinda figured that was what you were going for, I just didn't want to put words into your mouth.

I'm pretty conservative on gun issues, moreso than a lot of other things, all things considered. I don't like guns as a personal thing, don't think I would carry one for protection, but do believe that people should be able to have them if they are responsible, if it helps on protection. I've swayed a bit on these cities and handgun laws, have supported those types of restrictions in the past, but I think that was out of personal laziness and not personal belief. In reality, I want to be very tough on those that violate the reasonable restrictions, rather than any sort of outright bans.

One thing I favor that the Supreme Court has struck down are random searches/stops of cars...similar to DUI checkpoints. I wouldn't mind they put those up in cities late at night on weekends and such, get people either going/coming from the night scene and just make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't.

catman 03-09-2007 10:25 PM

I also approve of random checkpoints for cars. Those used to be common-place. They would check for safety features on the vehicle, along with the driver's condition.

Heathen 03-10-2007 11:21 AM

I guess I just don't get it!!! Why would you want to carry ANY gun??

It makes no sense to me?!?!?

catman 03-10-2007 11:28 AM

Heathen, some people like to hunt, other like to use them for target shooting. I taught my wife to shoot because she asked me to, making sure she understood all of the safety first.

CKFresh 03-10-2007 01:17 PM

Quote:

I guess I just don't get it!!! Why would you want to carry ANY gun??
No idea. I am completely convinced conservatives will one day argue that it is a right to carry a bomb or mustard gas. Afterall, we have the right to bear arms right? It is an outdated law that people cling to in order to feel strong or tough. How many people have to die each year from guns before this country grows up?

catman 03-10-2007 02:03 PM

Fresh, you need to understand the reasons for owning firearms. Some people own them for hunting. Others for target shooting. Some own them for protection. More gun control laws will not keep "outlaws" from using them in criminal activity. Why would a criminal worry about breaking another law?
Also, would it be better if people were pushed out of 15th floor windows? They are just as dead.
This is why I suggest that gun ownership should come with the provision that a gun-safety class is required.
Responsible gun-owners do not need to be controlled. Irresponsible gun-owners should not be allowed to own them in the first place.

CKFresh 03-10-2007 02:25 PM

Quote:

More gun control laws will not keep "outlaws" from using them in criminal activity. Why would a criminal worry about breaking another law?
They would not worry about breaking another law, but it would more difficult for them to find a gun if they were outlawed. Take a look at countries like Canada or England, where hand-guns are outlawed. Criminals do not have guns. Of course there are a few exceptions, but for the most part, it is nearly impossible to find a gun. The guns that criminals use in this country were purchased legally at one point. You stop the problem at the source. If there weren't pawn shops and gun stores on every corner, and a gun in every home, it is much more difficult to find a gun.

You may say, "Well then they will use knives, or baseball bats." but we all know that these type of weapons are not nearly as effective nor dangerous.

Quote:

Also, would it be better if people were pushed out of 15th floor windows? They are just as dead.
Well, that is assuming you are on the 15th floor which is a problem in and of itself, but I digress. Of course murder will still happen, but at a lesser rate. Again, look at countries like Canada or England, where murder per capita is lower than the US, where crime per capita is much less, and violent crime happens less frequently.

But the murders in this country don't bother conservatives. Afterall, those affected by gun violence are usually poor minorities. If gun violence spread to the suburbs (which it will) hand guns would be outlawed tomorrow. When you only hear about people being shot on the news, instead of being affected by it, it is easy to oppose gun control.

IntheNet 03-10-2007 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 240352)
Take a look at countries like Canada or England, where hand-guns are outlawed. Criminals do not have guns. Of course there are a few exceptions, but for the most part, it is nearly impossible to find a gun.

Do you have a copy of Constitution in your basement? The Bill of Rights? Take a look at Second Amendment!

No wait... take a look a First Amendment... free speech... see it? Okay fine...

Want to lose it? Continue your campaign against guns in Second Amendment and you'll lose your right to free speech in First Amendment!

We are not Canada or England but the United States. Someone that crosses the front yard and knocks on private doors to take guns gets buried in back yard. Simple as that. We have that right.

The District of Columbia has been the best example of the folly of gun control; check the FBI stats on the annual crime of this 10-mile square each year for the last 20... Now let citizens defend their homes with their 2nd Amendment rights...

Bravo to DC! Bravo...

catman 03-11-2007 12:31 AM

Fresh, do you honestly think it would be difficult for criminals to get hand-guns if they were outlawed in this country? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you and some ocean front property in Iowa for you as well.
Sorry Fresh, but as the old saying goes, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
You have made another bold statement that requires proof. "Take a look at Canada and England where hand-guns are outlawed. Criminals do not have guns."
Knives, in the hands of someone properly trained are nearly impossible to avoid, and baseball bats are more lethal in close quarters than hand-guns are. A person can disarm someone with a baseball bat and will most certainly inflict damage on a perpetrator.
Please take off your rose colored glasses and look at the real world. Criminals have no difficulty getting outlawed weapons here right now, so why would more restrictive laws make their "pipeline" dry up?
As to the per capita crime rate in England and Canada being lower than it is here, possibly the population is better behaved and has more manners than ours does?
As to conservatives not being affected by crimes, I have sat on many juries, and been excused from many others. Don't tell me I have not been affected by crime. I was a witness in a case where a "mule" was delivering pot to some place in the big town near here. I was an employee at a convenience store, working the night shift and this guy came in wanting to buy beer after hours. I could tell he was already intoxicated, and declined to sell him the beer, for the reasons I have listed. I called 911, giving plate number and description of the vehicle and the local police officer responded almost immediately. It took him 2 miles to pull the guy over and when he did, he noticed a back-seat full of guns (that had been stolen from a farm couple earlier that day). He got permission to search the car and found over 100 lbs of pot in the trunk. I helped take a "bad-guy" off the street, and found out later that he'd had a loaded 9 mm in his pocket. He did not use it.
Don't tell me crime does not affect me.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.