[Southsider2k12]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.
A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.
Don't Miss

* Child rapists can't be executed, court rules
* Court rules in favor of Muslim at Gitmo
* High court to decide whether Navy saving whales
* Gun laws in high court's sights

"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "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 wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.
advertisement

"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.

[Ang]

If I lived in a high crime area or felt it necessary to keep a gun for protection, I would want a shot gun anyway (12-guage, piston-grip, short-barreled Mossberg). You don't have to have the greatest aim to hit something with a shotgun, and I think the end of a shot gun would be slightly more intimidating than the end of a hand gun.

[Dan]

Hooray for the Constitution!

Did you notice that the media didn't call this a "Historic" or "Landmark" decision?

[Roger Kaputnik]

Hip hip hooray!


Here is the link to the Supreme Court decision--I could not copy and paste the syllabus here. It is just the first three pages and outlines it well. Could an Admin do it?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf






Here is the BBC story and link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474924.stm


US court overturns DC handgun ban
DC residents have been barred from keeping handguns for 32 years A ban on handguns in Washington DC has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld a lower court ruling striking down the ban. They said individuals had a right to keep handguns for lawful purposes.

It is the first such case considered by the court in decades and is expected to have effects on gun laws across the US.

Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years.

The latest ruling says that the constitution "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the ruling is of profound importance, as it enshrines for the first time the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life.



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
Second Amendment to the US Constitution
Q&A: Washington DC gun lawsWebb blog: Gun crazy? Since 1976, the private possession of handguns had been prohibited in the nation's capital, while rifles and shotguns had been required to be locked away or dismantled.

The DC city council argued that the ban was needed to help keep violence and murder rates down.

But the measure was challenged by a security guard, Dick Heller.

He argued that if he was allowed to have a handgun at work, he also had a constitutional right to have one at home.

Friends of the court

In March last year, a federal appeals court agreed with Mr Heller that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to keep and bear arms and that the DC ban was unconstitutional.

The city appealed against that ruling, with the case going to the Supreme Court.

The debate is centred on whether the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects an individual's right to possess guns, or simply a collective right for an armed militia.

The case has been closely watched, with dozens of outside groups filing opinions, known as "friends of the court" briefs, setting out their arguments for or against the DC ban.

The Supreme Court's ruling could spark challenges to gun control laws in other parts of the US, experts say.

[Roger Kaputnik]

More links:



http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html

"Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

--Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

Site Menu
Busting Caps - Pink Pistols Blog
Find a Local Chapter
Pink Pistols FAQ
Starting A Chapter (PDF Ebook)
Pink Pistols ID Card Press Releases / Media
Pictures!
Posters
The Simon Jester Project! (humor)

Glossary of Terms
Building Bridges
Reading List
Links
Firearms Safety Instructors





Pink Pistols Email Lists

[url="http://www.pinkpistols.org/email.html"]
[/url]
Pink Pistols Merchandise

New!!!


Gun Facts 4.0


Contact Us

[email="admin@pinkpistols.org?subject=Pink%20Pistols%20Webpage"]Admin Email![/email]

International Media Contact
[email="media@pinkpistols.org?subject=Media%20Contact"]Gwen Patton[/email]

Powered by GrandCentral - Regular phone or cell.


(610) 879-2364

Leave a message if we aren't available.
(Send Faxes to 267-386-8907)

We did. There are now over 45 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide, and more are starting up every day. We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage. Self-defense is our RIGHT.

The Pink Pistols get together at least once a month at local firing ranges to practice shooting, and to acquaint people new to firearms with them. We will help you select a firearm, acquire a permit, and receive proper training in its safe and legal use for self-defense. The more people know that members of our community may be armed, the less likely they will be to single us out for attack. Join us today. It is your RIGHT.




Busting Caps - Pink Pistols News
The blog has been moved to a new page for a new, more attractive, and more powerful structure. Click on the link above to read press releases, hear audioblogs, and get and other news from Pink Pistols National. We apologize, but the new blog does NOT allow comments to be entered by visitors to the site. If you wish to send us comments, please send us email, or join our Yahoo Groups and engage us in conversation! The year 2006 questionnaire for all candidates and holders of public office The year 2004 questionnaire for all candidates and holders of public office The candidate's scores and answers for the years 2004 The year 2001/02 questionnaire for all candidates and holders of public office The candidate's scores and answers for the years 2001/02 The year 2000 questionnaire for all candidates and holders of public office The candidate's scores and answers from year 2000

[Roger Kaputnik]

In the interest of fair play, here are these idiots:



http://www.bradycampaign.org/home.php


U.S. Supreme Court Decides Historic Second Amendment Case
Brady's Paul Helmke remarks at the steps of the Supreme Court.

Following the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center, said that the fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case.

While the Justices disagreed by the narrowest of margins, 5 - 4, on whether the Second Amendment provides an individual, non-militia based right to bear arms, all nine Justices agreed that a wide variety of gun laws are presumptively constitutional, including restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, guns in schools and other sensitive places, and bans on "dangerous and unusual" weapons.

• Statement of Brady President Paul Helmke
• Click here to read the U.S. Supreme Court decision

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=992


News Release Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke
On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling

For Immediate Release:
06-26-2008

Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319
Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.

“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.

“After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.”

# # #

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organization working to reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in America, through education, research, and legal advocacy. The programs of the Brady Center complement the legislative and grassroots mobilization of its sister organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters.

[Roger Kaputnik]

http://dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1325&mon=200806





News Release for Immediate Release
June 26, 2008District Government Reacts to Heller Ruling

(Washington, DC) -- Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in today’s ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court ruled that District of Columbia statutes banning private handgun possession at home and requiring safe storage of firearms at home violate the Second Amendment.

“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.

“In the meantime, I have directed the Metropolitan Police Department to implement an orderly process for allowing qualified citizens to register handguns for lawful possession in their homes.

Fenty, Nickles and Lanier emphasized that they will continue vigorously enforcing other gun-control laws that the court did not disturb—including the law that all firearms including handguns must be properly registered with the Metropolitan Police Department—and considering other ways to lessen gun violence in the District.

“I commend the efforts of our legal team in presenting our side of this difficult and contentious issue,” said Interim Attorney General Nickles. “I will continue to direct the Office of the Attorney General to fight hard for the people of the District. While we were not successful regarding the handgun and safe storage laws, I am pleased that the court recognized that local jurisdictions like the District can adopt common-sense, reasonable regulations to protect their citizens against gun violence, and that the court left intact the District’s law requiring licensing of those who would carry handguns.”

The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home. In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.

“We will comply with the Court’s reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit,” said Chief Lanier. “At the same time, we will continue vigorously enforcing the District’s other gun-control laws and are considering other ways to protect the District’s citizens against the scourge of gun violence.”

Under its rules, the Supreme Court will not formally issue its mandate for about a month to allow the parties to file rehearing petitions. After that period passes, the court of appeals will send the case to the district court to enter an injunction, though the district court will have to decide exactly how the injunction should be phrased. The injunction is the court order that will officially prevent the District from enforcing the handgun ban. That process may yet take several weeks.

In the meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police Department within three weeks days will issue the text of regulations to establish a process for registering handguns, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision. MPD will make clear how those who wish to register handguns should do so and what handguns may be registered. MPD will establish an amnesty period during which residents who already own handguns that were not registered previously can register them without fear of criminal liability under District law. Registration will proceed as expeditiously as possible but may need to await lower court orders implementing the Supreme Court decision.

MPD will keep the public informed of the date on which citizens officially can begin registering handguns. Citizens with specific questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at (202) 727-4275.

[Roger Kaputnik]

http://www.nraila.org/



[url="http://www.nraila.org/heller"]U. S. Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban!
Declares That the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms[/url]
-- June 26, 2008
Fairfax, VA – Leaders of the National Rifle Association (NRA) praised the Supreme Court’s historic ruling overturning Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns and on self-defense in the home, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

“This is a great moment in American history. It vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting,” declared NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it. The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American Constitutional law.”

Last year, the District of Columbia appealed a Court of Appeals ruling affirming that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home and possession of functional firearms for self-defense violate that fundamental right.

“Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right,” said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes. Washington, D.C. must now respect that right.”

Read the opinion (1 MB)

[Roger Kaputnik]

Interesting view from a Brit:




http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ju.../gun_crazy.html



Gun crazy?

• Justin Webb
• 26 Jun 08, 04:04 PM GMT

The DC Gun Law ruling is of profound importance - it enshrines the indvidual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life.

The US Constitution says "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".

Errr, what does that mean?

Now we know. Or at least five individuals decided they knew (the majority side in the court) and that is that.

For the first time, the court has ruled that it means individuals - settling the matter for at least a generation and probably longer.

You can disagree with the majority view, but you cannot escape from it if you live in the United States.

So what effect on the political debate? I suspect not much, but for a look at Obama's potential difficulties this is useful.

Meanwhile on a lighter note...

[Roger Kaputnik]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ju.../gun_crazy.html



CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 4:54pm on 26 Jun 2008, Pro-Democrat wrote:I've always thought that the bigger question was if it is constitutional to require licenses or other things to limit who got guns.
  
  As an American, I believe in the right to bear arms, but I think as it is, there needs to be better regulation as to who gets a gun, seeing how so many mentally unstable people are getting them.
  
  Anyway, back to the main point of the article. I think that the DC ban on handguns and the tight regulation of rifles was going too far, especially in the nations capital, the home of the constitution! I personally don't see how the constitution isn't clear in the matter of the right to bear arms, so I think the ruling was in general a good one.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 2. At 4:57pm on 26 Jun 2008, drewclouse This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
• 3. At 5:07pm on 26 Jun 2008, WyomingPat wrote:Hi Justin - as a Brit living in Wyoming where there are 4 guns for every person in the State, and the violent crime rate is far less than rural england, I aplaud this decision. All our rights in UK have been diluted or cancelled out by various laws that we have few left now. This underlines the right of the individual for self determination and personal responsibility.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 4. At 5:08pm on 26 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:At least I get to keep my guns, I'm still
  waiting to hear about my religion.
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 5. At 5:39pm on 26 Jun 2008, OklahomaGirl wrote:I am very relieved that the DC handgun ban was overturned! As a single female, I believe it is very important to be able to own guns for protection. On two different occasions someone has tried to come in my house unannounced. Having a couple of pistols and a shotgun atleast gives me the peace of mind to know that if someone were to get in, I would be able to protect myself.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 6. At 5:45pm on 26 Jun 2008, OldSouth wrote:Dear Mr. Webb: The facts have been documented again and again--those states where handgun ownership is legal and widespread experience much LOWER levels of violent crime.
  
  I don't own a handgun. I don't need a handgun, with the bucolic life we live, but many of my friends do actually need to carry for their own protection.
  
  A friend's father survived an armed holdup in which he was severely wounded, because he was able to return fire. He was a grocer, ambushed in his home's driveway because the criminals believed he carried cash from the store. He would be dead, were it not for the revolver he carried, and knew how to use. One bandit was wounded, and both are still in prison as a result.
  
  DC's reputation for violent crime is well-earned, because only the lawless were carrying guns! Let's see what happens when the law-abiding are allowed to defend themselves. I predict, with confidence, that the violent crime rate will drop in coming years, especially if the courts begin adding years to sentences because a gun was used in the commission of a felony. The laws are already on the books, and are effective, if the courts will enforce them.
  
  The local proverb says it all: 'Real gun control is the ability to hit where you aim!'
  
  Bless the Supreme Court, they got this one right.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 7. At 5:47pm on 26 Jun 2008, Kipson wrote:As all the restrictions and bans in the UK have totally failed to check an ever upward trend in gun crime, perhaps the Supreme Court has a point. The trouble is that most people think with their emotions on this issue and don?t bother with the facts. High levels of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens does not result in high levels of gun crime.
  
  Try looking up Kennesaw, Georgia on Google.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 8. At 5:49pm on 26 Jun 2008, tetmancallis wrote:The Supreme Court's slip opinion on this matter, in its opening paragraph, reads that the District of Columbia's law required gun owners to keep their weapons "dissembled." This can't be what was meant, since it means that the firearms were to be kept "hidden under a false appearance."
  
  Complain about this comment
• 9. At 5:49pm on 26 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:YES
  
  Complain about this comment
• 10. At 5:52pm on 26 Jun 2008, illiniwatcher wrote:Justin, I think this was a precarious decision by the group we call "The Supremes" on these shores. While gun-rights supporters are popping champagne corks, many of the rest of us are hoping we won't be shot by what will surely be more (legal) gun owners.
  
  I predict there will be an uptick in "accidental" shootings as well as more incidents of deaths from children accessing their parents' firearms.
  
  I've long believed in the original language of the Constitution and the Second Amendment - that guns are intended to be for a "well-regulated Militia", that is, for military purposes. But as I've read other blog posts on this site and others, I've come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment needs to be revisited. The original framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned the large number of firearms in the U.S., nor the enormous industry it has become. I'm sure they also would pale at some of the more egregious acts of gun violence over here as well.
  
  One of the more controversial aspects of gun use is "self-defense". With xenophobia running rampant over here, many ordinary folks want to be able to just blow away anyone that scares them. The self-defense plea, already overused in my opinion, is going to be overworked to the point of collapse now. I'm an African American and racist whites over here that fear guys like me (even though I'm college-educated, that's irrelevant in their minds) like the "security" offered by firearms. If someone scowls or reaches in a manner that causes them to panic, there WILL be a shooting, perhaps a fatal one. Watch for that "I was shooting in self-defense" alibi from the States over the next 10 years, it will be used often.
  
  If gun bans are now illegal, then the only alternative will be to make the process for obtaining guns much more strenuous so as to discourage it. Or to more narrowly define when guns may be carried, such as for specific occupations.
  
  Also, it's sad that a country that has so much potential in the fields of science, technology and medicine has so large a number of people that just have a visceral need to be able to blow someone else away. Such individuals gave "Bush 43" a second term and, by extension, the Supreme Court that we must, unfortunately live with. I have never been a fan of Scalia, an incredibly arrogant "jurist", and never will.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 11. At 5:52pm on 26 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:D.C. v. Heller was brought on by the overreaching of gun control advocates in attempting to prohibit people from defending themselves in their homes. I am not surprised by the ruling that the people do have the right to defend themselves in their homes, and even though I am an advocate of gun controls, I am not too much bothered by the ruling, as is, for example, one of my senators, Feinstein, who is known as an advocate of gun control legislation.
  
  The Supreme Court did not rule out gun control legislation, and the more interesting question for me is what forms of regulation will be acceptable following this ruling.
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 12. At 5:56pm on 26 Jun 2008, MaverickNH wrote:We all await the dire predictions from abroad that all of the US will now become "The Wild West", awash with guns, with people shooting one another over the last celery stick in the salad bar.
  
  The Brady Campaign will declare victory for those opposed to gun ownership and request massive donations to keep up the success.
  
  Time will tell, as time has told over the last 2 decades, that allowing honest, law-abiding citizens the ability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms does not increase crime and violence.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 13. At 6:04pm on 26 Jun 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:Wow! I told myself to stay out of this discussion but I can't. I have been torn on the subject of gun control for a long time.
  
  Wyomingpat, oklahomagirl oldsouth: I have to agree with all three of you. I grew up around guns, living in the rural Southwest. As a young woman I often traveled the desert alone and I carried a gun for rattlesnakes, both the two legged and the other kind. I never had to use it but I was glad I had it.
  
  However, one thing that worries me is that children have gotten their hands on a gun and have killed school mates. Use of guns by gang members in some urban areas has increased. I don't know what the answer is but I do not think that a national gun ban will ever happen in the USA, at least not in my lifetime.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 14. At 6:05pm on 26 Jun 2008, SalemDesign wrote:I like guns. I used to be a member of the NRA. When I was a kid I got a number of NRA marksmanship medals. I used to own a rifle and I had a shooting range on my property.
  
  But...
  
  As much as I like and am rather fascinated by guns, I don't *need* a gun the way some folks seem to.
  
  When I was a kid, the NRA was all about responsible gun ownership and usage. They emphasized training in how to shoot and how to safely transport and store guns.
  
  But the NRA have got nuttier and more extreme over the last few decades.
  
  What finished me with the NRA was when they opposed putting chemical tags into commercial explosives... Which would have made it easier for law enforcement to backtrack terrorists from bomb residue. And the NRA opposed that!?
  
  The pro-gun lobby has the mantra "Guns don't kill people, people do" and I think that is true...
  
  The difference is that I'd like to point out that a lot of people in this country are killing people with guns and the only solution that the gun-lobby suggests is to arm the victims. Great!
  
  The problem in this country is that people own guns for really strange reasons. They seem to buy them because of some underlying feeling of inadequacy or because they are reserving the right to violently overthrow their local town government if they get too many parking tickets. Or massacre their boss if he dis's them at work.
  
  I am struck by the fact that countries like Sweden, Switzerland, and Israel that have universal military service for men and where reservists are usually required to have fully automatic military assault rifles in their homes have such low levels of gun violence.
  
  And in the US one rarely hears about military vet's going on shooting sprees although as a group they are certainly into guns and hunting.
  
  So, yeah; "Guns don't kill people, people do."
  
  We aren't going to get rid of the guns, so now what do we do about those darn people.
  
  I don't know what the answer is but requiring really rigorous training for gun owners might be a good idea... And, for damn sure, we should hold gun owners responsible for their mistakes.
  
  We had a hunter up in Maine a few years ago shoot a housewife hanging out the laundry. I don't think he was allowed to have her stuffed and mounted but, apart from that, he got off with a wrist slap.
  
  And somewhere in the midwest, a homeowner shot a Japanese exchange student who mistakenly knocked on his door looking for a Halloween party that was being held down the street.
  
  The Japanese student was unarmed... And this was not a high crime neighborhood. But the home owner answers the door with a gun in his hand and shoots some kid... Why? Because he was a stranger? Because he was oriental? And, again, he got off with a slap on the wrist. I don't think they even took his gun permit away.
  
  My feeling is that, if you own a gun, you should be held responsible for what you do with it. If your home is invaded and you shoot the bad guys... You should get applauded and be given the keys to the city.
  
  But if you shoot your wife with it or threaten your neighbor because his radio's too loud... Or shoot some tourist who knocks on your door... Then you should go to jail.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 15. At 6:10pm on 26 Jun 2008, laughingdevil wrote:So the citizens of the "capitol of the free world" can carry a gun but not cast a vote in the presidential election! And are more eager to fight for their right to a gun than to vote Most people in the rest of the would find that a bit wierd, which is more important, a gun or a vote? To the Americans it is obviously a gun, to most of Europe it's the vote, no wonder America's foreign policy is so messed up!
  
  Complain about this comment
• 16. At 6:11pm on 26 Jun 2008, SuperJulianR wrote:At times life in the UK can be very frustrating - high petrol prices, congested roads, surveillance society, high taxes, no proper constitution, a Government that can and does run roughshod over our freedoms and liberty, but on two subjects at least - guns and healthcare - we definitely live on the more civilised side of the Atlantic Ocean.
  
  The decision on guns was predictable, but sad. How many Americans will die as a result of the insane idea that everyone should all be allowed to carry weapons which have no other function than to kill and maim?
  
  Complain about this comment
• 17. At 6:18pm on 26 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:The responses which lean against the USSC decision seem to be way overblown.
  
  The decision does very little, if anything, in the area of "gun control".
  
  The USSC decision did only two things:
  
  1. It formalized what the large majority of Americans have always assumed: that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to own guns, and is not limited only to the National Guard and Reserves.
  
  2. It affirmed that "reasonable" gun control laws and regulations are permissible if valid rationale can be articulated. In this affirmation, it held that absolute bans are not "reasonable".
  
  Item 2. above is a "full employment" ruling for lawyers, as there will be massive litigation about what "reasonable" actually means. Similar litigation has been going on for many decades and will continue for many more.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 18. At 6:18pm on 26 Jun 2008, omniTim wrote:Its a tragic situation when people a "applaud the decision" and "Bless the Supreme Court" for maintaining the right to bear arms. America is gone my friends, long gone straight down the pan. Too late now, but how can the right to bear arms lead to peace, my rootin' tootin' cowboy friends? I mean just for a second, forget Clint Eastwood, if you can, and think. No guns = no gun crime. If you think it is right that people should bear arms, do not complain how terribly terrible it is when a raging lunatic, no doubt middle class, white and messed in the head from listening to too much Metallica stampedes a University bearing arms killing innocent people. It is not rocket science. Until the next University. Here's to you OldSouth...
  
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 19. At 6:21pm on 26 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:illiniwathcer, #10, considering that the
  long rifle was invented in Pennsylvania,
  I think that it would be hard to make the
  case that the framers of the constitution
  intended to restrict private ownership
  of firearms in any way.
  
  In fact, firearms were as essential a tool
  for survival in 18th century as the dishwasher
  is today. And, if anybody comes to take
  my dishwasher away, I'm moving to another
  country.
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 20. At 6:23pm on 26 Jun 2008, illiniwatcher wrote:I agree with SalemDesign - the two incidents he mentions mean that the penalties for bad gun usage must be escalated. Slaps on the wrist simply send a message that "undesirables" can be indiscriminately taken out with a wink from the state. That's not what the U.S. is supposed to be about, is it?
  
  Complain about this comment
• 21. At 6:26pm on 26 Jun 2008, bottchef wrote:I am an American and personally do not carry a gun. Having been raised in a community that eschews guns, I still find them frightening, mysterious, and overwhelming. However, I do believe that American individuals should have the right to bear arms and I do agree that there are many wonderful, law-abiding citizens in this country who do own guns and do not feel an urge to blow someone else away. This type of thinking and accusing is irrational and inaccurate. It's important to remember that firing a gun is a choice. Holding or owning a gun obviously doesn't somehow make someone a killer. The person has to CHOOSE to be a killer.
  
  My sister, who lives in NYC, was mugged at gunpoint (to her head) in Washington D.C. very recently. Clearly this ban on guns in the capital hasn't protected innocent American citizens. I don't know that having a gun with her would have helped in that situation, but other situations may allow for self defense. Furthermore, it seems only reasonable that a citizen should be allowed a fighting chance, even if he/she doesn't succeed. It's not rational to think that you can wait for the police to arrive.
  
  Lastly, the right for an individual to bear arms is vital so that citizens can protect themselves in disasters (think of the plundering after Hurricane Katrina) and also so that they can protect themselves from abuses of their own government.
  
  While I maintain my position that citizens should have the right to bear arms, there should be background checks and maybe even mental health clearance for this privilege. And while I feel that this should be protected as an individual right, I personally don't intent to buy or start carrying a gun anytime soon.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 22. At 6:28pm on 26 Jun 2008, PWS1950 wrote:What you all and most Americans miss is this has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection but everything to do with protecting ones self and community from excesses of the federal government.
  
  The bear arms bit is always quoted but the right to form a militia is rarely done so.
  
  Being a member of an enactment society I have seen how the Feds hate this and always have agents at rehearsals, 'cos you can bet if the people in these societies have old weapons they will have new, and generally are of a like mind. This is in essence a militia, and under this amendment we as a people are allowed to form.
  
  I do not wish to induce or incite anything here, but make sure that if our weapons were taken from us the potential for a government like the UK has, or even in an extreme worse case like Zimbabwe has that is oppressive, restrictive and excessive could form without any concern that its population could, if needs be, remove it.
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 23. At 6:37pm on 26 Jun 2008, NoRashDecisions wrote:"For the first time, the court has ruled that it means individuals - settling the matter for at least a generation and probably longer."
  
  Yes and it took the wrong decision!!! This is bull!!! The constitution clearly states "a well regulated milissia"! That clearly means millitary means only-its so obvious!!! What were the justices smoking!! This sucks!! Now more people will own guns, more people will accidently, accidently on purpose, or just flat out dilibrately kill others, more victoms will suffer, and perhaps worst of all the US's reputation abroad will slide ever and ever closer to the point of no return!!! This isn't fair!! If the second amendment said something governing capitle punishment or the drinking age for instance, then guns would've been banned years ago!!!
  
  The UK did it a decade ago for goodness sake!! And though they are experiencing a temperorary spike in gun crime at the moment, I'm sure things will settle down soon!!! Please don't be foolled UK citizens that our gun laws are the better solution to gun crime!!!
  
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 24. At 6:40pm on 26 Jun 2008, OklahomaGirl wrote:No doubt, gun owners should be responsible. Common sense really should come into play at some point. Guns should be kept out of reach of small children.
  And here's an off the wall idea - why not teach gun safety in school? Kids could then grow up knowing how to properly and safely handle a gun and have respect for it. That would also cut down on people being anti-guns just because they have never been around them and don't know the facts.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 25. At 6:42pm on 26 Jun 2008, batterseaexile wrote:I too believe the Framers of the Constitution meant that arms should be available for the well regulated militia. They could never have envisaged the easy availability and low cost of guns in our day.
  
  We will see more classroom shooting sprees, more children injured in gun accidents. Those Americans I know who advocate gun ownership are most frightening in the extremity of their passion on the subject. Let them get on with it.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 26. At 6:52pm on 26 Jun 2008, washdc08 wrote:It is important not to impose foreign cookie-cutter views about American culture. Each society is built upon specific tenants. This does not mean that all cultures are static, however if one does not understand a countries socio-political history (where its roots are), it is almost impossible to understand why a society is structured in a certain way.
  
  The Framers did not fully contemplate affirmative rights within the American Constitutional system. Following the American Revolution ? a revolt against the excessive interferences of the British Crown in everyday life?the framers desired to protect negative rights to ensure that government was as small as possible to mitigate governmental interference with individual liberty.
  
  As Sunstein writes a negative rights focused constitution, ?is best understood as a bulwark of liberty, properly conceived; and a constitution that protects ?positive? rights can be no such bulwark, because it requires government action, rather than creating a wall of immunity around individual citizens.?
  
  Therefore, in the United States, there is absolutely NO requirement under the FEDERAL CONSITUTION for police to protect individuals. This is famously exemplified in the tragic DeShaney case- where a child was beaten by his 'guardian' and social services was not held liable for failing to protect him.
  
  In short, American gun laws come in a history steeped -for better or for worse- in a negative rights based society. Private rights trump public entitlements and it seems that is why the court rulled that guns are a protected private right.
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 27. At 6:56pm on 26 Jun 2008, Reuben34g wrote:God bless America!
  
  Back home in my neck of the woods the second amendment might as well be another divine commandment.
  
  In my home state of Oregon my sister keeps an AK-47 by her bed, and I keep a pistol in my truck, you could even drive around with one in the chamber if you want,
  
  Go down to California way and that's all illegal, my sister's rifle and my 15 round clips are banned as 'assault weapons' there.
  
  I was worried that the Supreme Court would make the wrong decision like when they let the big companies abuse the eminent domain clause of the constitution to steal private land to build strip malls.
  
  I'm relieved that we're not going to go down the road of a totalitarian police state.
  Because the second amendment wasn't upheld today, we would soon be loosing the first.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 28. At 7:02pm on 26 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:laughingdevil (#15) is mistaken when he asserts that residents of the District of Columbia cannot vote in presidential elections. D.C. in fact has three electoral votes, which is the same number that they would have if they were a state.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 29. At 7:02pm on 26 Jun 2008, David_Cunard wrote:Justin writes "and that is that." Perhaps for now, but should a Democrat be returned to The White House and a vacancy occurs on the Court, an individual who matches the dissenting minority view could be installed, after all, it was only one Justice who made this decision possible. As some conservatives want Roe v Wade overturned, it is just as likely that this ruling can be voided - eventually.
  
  Although unsuccessful for FDR, it might be possible to add more justices to the Court, which in (many) years past was done, but perhaps like FDR, that would be opposed by both parties. We seem to be stuck at nine, so an appointment by a new Democratic President would likely be the best that can be done.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 30. At 7:02pm on 26 Jun 2008, WyomingPat wrote:Illiniwatcher points out about accidental shootings. Yes training is an issue. Moving here from the UK I find that drivers here do not have a clue which is why there are so many accidents on the roads - way higher than Europe. That does not mean ban driving. It means better training.
  
  There are so many facilities here for training in firearms - often nearly free. Local Sheriffs offices and police depts often have training courses. As an ex Royal Marine I went for 2 local courses initially to ensure my own and others safety. I then went for a course at one of the leading centres - Frontsight in Nevada. Safety is of the highest importance. A minimum of 18 hours training is required to get a "carry" permit but that is only just a start.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 31. At 7:03pm on 26 Jun 2008, kframe19 wrote:I'm shocked and saddened.
  
  The law that made the District of Columbia one of the safest cities in the nation, if not the world, has been dismantled.
  
  I predict a sudden wave of violence on the streets as criminals with guns begin to prey on law-abiding citizens.
  
  Oh, wait, silly me, that's already happened.
  
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 32. At 7:06pm on 26 Jun 2008, mediamofo This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
• 33. At 7:07pm on 26 Jun 2008, aquarizonagal This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
• 34. At 7:08pm on 26 Jun 2008, copperCrashBandicoot This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
• 35. At 7:35pm on 26 Jun 2008, norniron_pete This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

[Roger Kaputnik]

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/



check this out

[Ang]

Now I know more than I ever wanted to know about gun control.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Here is the final thought: Do not jerk the trigger.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Here is what the Indiana Constitution says:

Article 1, Section 32.
The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

[southyards]

Short Definition Of Gun Control: Grip weapon fimly with both hands, center the sights upon target, squeeze trigger slowly and firmly.

[Roger Kaputnik]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7476644.stm



By James Coomarasamy
BBC News, Washington
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Washington DC handgun ban is likely to have legal and political consequences.



Mr McCain already has the support of gun-control opponents The legal ones are not yet clear. Much depends on whether this federal ruling is seen as applying to other states or cities, which have similarly tough gun laws.

In his majority brief, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted future, complex legal arguments about some of the restrictions, which the court had ruled were valid, such as denying the sale of guns to convicted felons or people with mental illnesses and outlawing their possession, in places such as schools.

But - with the presidential campaign well under way - the political impact has been immediate.

'Elitist view'

Both leading candidates have offered their views on the ruling.

First out of the blocks was Republican, John McCain, who had filed his own brief in support of the plaintiff in the case, DC security guard Dick Heller.



Today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right - sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly
John McCain
Q&A: Washington DC gun lawsWebb blog: Gun crazy? He applauded the Court's decision and wasted no time in taking a swipe at his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

Referring to the comment made by the Illinois Senator during the primary season, about bitter, working class Americans "who cling to guns and religion", Senator McCain said "unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right - sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly".

His goal was transparent.

He wanted to use the court's decision to reinforce the impression that his opponent is an elite liberal, out of touch with the views of hard-working, gun-owning Americans.

Democrats have traditionally had a hard time dealing with gun issues and Barack Obama is no exception.

Who benefits?

Last year, a spokesman for his campaign said that Senator Obama felt the tough DC gun law was constitutional, although, as time has gone on, the candidate himself has taken a more detached view of the case in public.

He certainly took more time to react to the Court's decision than John McCain and, when he did, he said that supporting gun rights and some gun controls was not a contradiction, emphasising the part of the Court's ruling, which stressed that the right to own arms was not unlimited.



Has Mr Obama changed his position on gun regulations? And the candidate - who was once a community worker in Chicago's South Side - referred to his empathy with the issue of urban, gun-related crime:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms," he said, "but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common sense, effective safety measures."

So - who benefits most?

The answer is, it probably does not matter that much.

A candidate's view on gun control is unlikely to sway more than a small percentage of voters in November and, while John McCain may have improved his stock among those gun owners, who have objected to some of his positions on gun issues, Barack Obama's nuanced response probably will not have changed voters' views of him that much.

Yet, for all his talk of change, the Democratic presidential candidate probably shares one thing with his predecessors: the hope that the gun debate goes away soon.