States Must Honor Gun Rights

Don · Jun 28, 2010

This just in.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court extended the reach of the constitutional right to bear arms by saying it binds state and local governments as well as federal officials.

The justices, voting 5-4 in a case involving Chicago’s handgun ban, said an individual right to bear arms was among the fundamental guarantees protected against state interference through a constitutional amendment after the Civil War.

“A provision in the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the federal government and the states,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

A wise move on their part. Still, it was only 5-4.

SPMiller · Jun 28, 2010

Is this where we start debating in a roleplaying-like context RAI vs. RAW?

whistlelock · Jun 28, 2010

It's interesting that in this case the "conservative" part of the court sided with the Federal government and the "liberal" part sided with the State governments.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0629-court-guns-20100628,0,7159395.story

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion for the Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined to form the majority.

Don · Jun 28, 2010

I think it's even more interesting that the "conservative" part of the court sided with the individual, and the "liberal" part sided with the state.

veinglory · Jun 28, 2010

I think it was a wiser move on Chicago's part to ban handguns in an attempt to slow the massacre of young people on our streets. I hope they find a way to bring the ban back in, in a new form. I wish gun ownership was more like a privilege than a right, so there was a way to stop adolescent gang members from walking the streets with them.

icerose · Jun 28, 2010

veinglory said:
I think it was a wiser move on Chicago's part to ban handguns in an attempt to slow the massacre of young people on our streets. I hope they find a way to bring the ban back in, in a new form. I wish gun ownership was more like a privilege than a right, so there was a way to stop adolescent gang members from walking the streets with them.

The problem with turning it into a privilege vs a right is there's nothing to stop the government from disarming a specific group. Most major slaughters committed by governments around the world were first proceeded by a weapons ban. Even Japan saw this when the Samarui disarmed the people and the villagers were forced to arm and train themselves themselves with farm tools. Same with Scotland from England. They weren't allowed swords so they trained with sticks and rocks.

MGraybosch · Jun 28, 2010

veinglory said:
I think it was a wiser move on Chicago's part to ban handguns in an attempt to slow the massacre of young people on our streets. I hope they find a way to bring the ban back in, in a new form. I wish gun ownership was more like a privilege than a right, so there was a way to stop adolescent gang members from walking the streets with them.

Instead of trying to disarm people, why not figure out why people feel the need to arm themselves in the first place, and then do something about it?

Don · Jun 28, 2010

The handgun ban in Chicago has only kept guns out of the hands of honest citizens. It's no harder to find illegal handguns than illegal drugs. Often the same outfit makes a big profit off of both.

The MPDC website isn't very helpful, but I did find a couple of stats for 2009 and 2010. I see that homicides declined from 186 in 2008 to 143 in 2009, and this year they're running 15.4% behind last year.

There's tons of other data out there backing up those results, from Florida's moves in the 1980s to present day. Here's a book full of data.

Here's an interesting tidbit. Bolding mine. Sorta says "concensus" to me, which is a popular decision-maker for a lot of people.

In reporting on Lott's original analysis The Chronicle of Higher Education has said that although his findings are controversial "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."

Don · Jun 28, 2010

icerose said:
The problem with turning it into a privilege vs a right is there's nothing to stop the government from disarming a specific group. Most major slaughters committed by governments around the world were first proceeded by a weapons ban. Even Japan saw this when the Samarui disarmed the people and the villagers were forced to arm and train themselves themselves with farm tools. Same with Scotland from England. They weren't allowed swords so they trained with sticks and rocks.

You're not seriously implying that our benevolent masters would ever do such a thing, are you, icerose? Because that just might get you an all-expenses-paid vacation in beautiful Cuba.

MGraybosch · Jun 28, 2010

Don said:
The handgun ban in Chicago has only kept guns out of the hands of honest citizens. It's no harder to find illegal handguns than illegal drugs. Often the same outfit makes a big profit off of both.

The problem is that cops, prosecutors, prison builders, politicians have a raging hard-on for prohibition. Prohibition gives cops an excuse to look busy. Prohibition helps prosecutors rack up convictions so they can eventually run for office. Prison builders profit from prohibition. Politicians look like they actually give a shit when they impose prohibition.

The fact that prohibition ruins otherwise law-abiding lives, makes gangsters rich, and encourages a well-deserved contempt for the rule of law never occurs to anybody who goes around with a prohibition-induced priapism.

MGraybosch · Jun 28, 2010

Don said:
You're not seriously implying that our benevolent masters would ever do such a thing, are you, icerose? Because that just might get you an all-expenses-paid vacation in beautiful Cuba.

The Tokugawa Shogunate didn't want Tetsuo the Peasant taking a katana to the Shogun's tax collectors. Uncle Sam doesn't want us serfs ventilating its enforcers.

Torgo · Jun 28, 2010

Uncle Sam doesn't want us serfs ventilating its enforcers.

Whoa, really?

AceTachyon · Jun 28, 2010

veinglory said:
I think it was a wiser move on Chicago's part to ban handguns in an attempt to slow the massacre of young people on our streets.

Unfortunately, gun bans only affect the folks who actually follow those bans. That is, law-abiding citizens.

Gang members and the like will still find ways to get guns illegally, even if there is a ban.

Consider:
"Gun Control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun...."
— Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, Vanity Fair, 9/99 page 165

And in the FBI report Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officer, one offender, asked about the ease of obtaining firearms illegally, said:

All these politicians are screaming about more gun laws, more gun laws. F--- the guns laws. I never gave a sh--- about the gun laws that are on the books....I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold and picked up a gun, ever...

It's on page 10.

Consider also that the Columbine shooters broke at least 20 gun laws already in place in order to do their deed. None of those laws stopped them.

MGraybosch · Jun 28, 2010

Torgo said:
Whoa, really?

Yeah, really.

You see, America isn't really the land of the free or the home of the brave. It's actually a great big plantation that stretches from sea to oil-slicked sea. The politicians and the corporate executives are Massa. The cops are the overseers. Care to guess what the rest of us are?

shadowwalker · Jun 28, 2010

The biggest argument the government uses for gun laws is let's make Average Citizen safe. Point out that criminals don't care about the law (DOH!) and it's "but... but... but..." and the conversation switches to children being shot by careless owners, etc (to which I always respond, "So you're an advocate of banning cars, too?").

As others have stated, the first thing a dictatorship in the making does is disarm its citizens. If the people have no means of fighting back, the government is free to terrorize at will.

Don · Jun 28, 2010

But Matt, you get to pick where you work on the plantation, and sorta pick a job, as long as it's on the approved list. And you get to keep most of what you earn. There's lots of stuff you can buy on the approved list, too. And you're free, as long as you don't violate a few thousand pages of rules and regulations. And you won't get beat as long as you don't sass a policeman, politician or bureaucrat. How is that not freedom?

MGraybosch · Jun 28, 2010

Don said:
But Matt, you get to pick where you work on the plantation, and sorta pick a job, as long as it's on the approved list. And you get to keep most of what you earn. There's lots of stuff you can buy on the approved list, too. And you're free, as long as you don't violate a few thousand pages of rules and regulations. And you won't get beat as long as you don't sass a policeman, politician or bureaucrat. How is that not freedom?

That just makes me a house n----r.

SPMiller · Jun 28, 2010

I really can't work up a lot of sympathy for handgun-lovers. If it came down to it, I'd give mine up. What ought to be legal without qualification is weapons with utility beyond murdering other citizens. Shotguns, rifles, military weapons, etc.. If we ever need handguns for standard issue as military sidearms, we can manufacture them on demand.

robeiae · Jun 28, 2010

SPMiller said:
I really can't work up a lot of sympathy for handgun-lovers. If it came down to it, I'd give mine up. What ought to be legal without qualification is weapons with utility beyond murdering other citizens. Shotguns, rifles, military weapons, etc..

Agree.

veinglory · Jun 28, 2010

MGraybosch said:
Instead of trying to disarm people, why not figure out why people feel the need to arm themselves in the first place, and then do something about it?

I don't think the local government is going to be able to solve poverty, substance abuse, family breakdown and gang violence--or at least not before hundred of people are shot and killed. Is the right to carry guns so absolute that no exceptions can ever be made?

veinglory · Jun 28, 2010

Don said:
The handgun ban in Chicago has only kept guns out of the hands of honest citizens.

It allowed gang bangers flouting the law to be disarmed, detained and charged with a crime. Now they can basically tell the cop to F-off and walk awy, loaded pistol in hand. A loaded pistol kept only for the purposes of committing homicide.

MGraybosch · Jun 28, 2010

veinglory said:
Is the right to carry guns so absolute that no exceptions can ever be made?

Exceptions must never be made because the government must never be trusted. History shows that tyranny flourishes in countries where the average person is either deprived of the human right to possess weapons for self-defense -- or is taught to think that she does not possess this right in the first place.

quickWit · Jun 28, 2010

MGraybosch said:
Exceptions must never be made because the government must never be trusted. History shows that tyranny flourishes in countries where the average person is either deprived of the human right to possess weapons for self-defense -- or is taught to think that she does not possess this right in the first place.

I feel safer already.

Don · Jun 28, 2010

SPMiller said:
I really can't work up a lot of sympathy for handgun-lovers. If it came down to it, I'd give mine up. What ought to be legal without qualification is weapons with utility beyond murdering other citizens. Shotguns, rifles, military weapons, etc.. If we ever need handguns for standard issue as military sidearms, we can manufacture them on demand.

The most utilitarian weapon I own is a handgun. It allows me to go about my day relatively unimpeded, yet still provides defense against the majority of predators I might run across, whether in the woods or in town. I may even manage to pick up lunch on my morning walk if I flush some small game and have a sharp eye. It certainly gives them more of a sporting chance than a scoped rifle.

SPMiller · Jun 28, 2010

RAW says we have a right to bear "arms", but it's explicitly linked to militias/military. There's nothing in it about defending yourself from criminals. It's about defending the state from external threats. An individual right for a collective purpose.

States Must Honor Gun Rights

All Living is Local

Prodigiously Hanged

Whiskey Rebel

All Living is Local

volitare nequeo

Lost in School Work

Lunch Break Novelist

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

Lunch Break Novelist

Lunch Break Novelist

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Odd person

Lunch Break Novelist

empty-nester!

All Living is Local

Lunch Break Novelist

Prodigiously Hanged

Touch and go

volitare nequeo

volitare nequeo

Lunch Break Novelist

Totally Ninja!

All Living is Local

Prodigiously Hanged