Kelli, forget it. There is no way the Supreme Court is going to hold that a hand gun ban is anything but unconstitutional. They have already made it pretty clear what they think of the anti-rights faction's interpretation of the Second Amentment. The latest Gallup Poll says 73% of the population agrees that their exists an individual right to own firearms.
We told you.
People have a God given right to be able to protect themselves and their families, certainly in their own homes. Rifles and shotguns are not the ideal choice in such close quarters. They are unwieldy.
Generally speaking, a rifle is the worst choice. Ever hear of 'over-penetration'? That's when the bullet goes through the bad guy, through the wall behind him, through poor Uncle Ned reading the paper in the next room, through the wall behind him, through the cat, and into the brand new flat-screen. That's pretty much guaranteed to happen with most rifles.
So, the good citizens of Washington DC will be safer with handguns in their homes, than they are with long arms. Especially long arms with trigger locks.
Historic Day At The Supreme Court
In the three days since oral arguments were held in District of Columbia v. Heller, I've had the chance to reflect on the day's events and develop some perspective.
I was in the courtroom on Tuesday, and counted myself fortunate to have had a ringside seat to history. It was probably the most extensive discussion ever by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the nature and scope of the Second Amendment, and whether and to what extent elected representatives have the power to pass the reasonable gun control laws they believe are necessary to keep their communities safe.
In the cold morning air outside before the white marble steps of the Court building, Brady activists were respectfully carrying signs and speaking to the media. They were joined and cheered on by passers-by - school children, government workers, and tourists - and encountered little opposition from the National Rifle Association or other gun groups.
Meanwhile, inside the courtroom, I watched the lawyers present their cases and I was constantly aware of how critically and immediately the Justices' decision will affect the gun laws that protect you and your family every day, including the Brady Law, the federal machine gun ban, plus many strong state gun laws in California, New York, Illinois, and others.
What I saw on Tuesday were nine Justices struggling to come to terms with opposing approaches to the Second Amendment.
While we believe that legal precedent, historical records, and a contextual reading of all the words in the Second Amendment make it clear that the "right" of the people to "keep and bear arms" must be related to service in a "well regulated militia" (see our amicus brief), a majority of the Justices seemed to be leaning against this view. At the very least, they were interested in exploring the idea that the Amendment protects some private, individual right to own guns unrelated to service in a well regulated militia.
What still stands out to me three days after the argument, however, is that there was broad support from all sides for all current and proposed regulations concerning guns, short of a near-total ban on all guns. It was intriguing to watch the Justices search for an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment that would also allow most existing gun control laws.
For example, Justice Breyer wanted to know what sorts of gun control laws would survive under a "reasonableness" standard vis-Ã -vis some new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Questions from Justices Breyer, Stevens and Ginsburg managed to extract concessions from Mr. Heller's attorney, Alan Gura, toward the end of his argument.
Machine gun bans? Reasonable, Gura conceded. Plastic gun bans? Reasonable. Licensing? "We don't have a problem with the concept of licensing," Gura said. Requirements to demonstrate competency with a gun? Reasonable. Background checks? Reasonable "of course," Gura said. Gun bans by college campuses? Mr. Gura said that "Might be doable."
In a matter of about 10 minutes, Mr. Heller's own attorney ended up endorsing (or at least not opposing) key portions of the Brady Campaign's legislative and policy agenda.
After looking over the oral argument transcript, we have good reason to be hopeful that the Justices' ruling will uphold action by elected officials at all levels to enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect their communities.
Regardless of whether the District wins or loses, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's "right" to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns. Their ruling this summer will determine what happens next as we work to reduce and prevent gun violence in this country.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Not all handgun data is as positive as what Msorgy reports. The BJS found that most gun crime is committed with handguns. "Of all firearm-related crime reported ... 86% involved handguns." Moreover, according to the NCIC "stolen gun file," of approx. 2 million reports of stolen guns in the mid-1990s, 60% were handguns. Other studies on gun theft have noted that such crimes were more likely in states without sufficient laws that required "safe storage" & where there were large numbers of gun owners & (relatively) high-crime rates.
While the SC is scrutinizing handguns, consider how these have changed. In 1950, the revolver was the most common type. Now, semi-automatic handguns are considered the norm. From 1899-1993, about 223 million guns became available in the U.S. ~ including over 79 million rifles, 77 million handguns & 66 million shotguns, and "the number of new handguns added to those available has exceeded the number of new shotguns and rifles in recent years," (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/guic.txt).
Kids & guns? Researchers found that juvenile inmates preferred "large caliber, high quality handguns" and that 55% owned a semi-auto. handgun. The AMA found that between 36% and 50% of 11th grade males believed they could easily get a gun. "[T]he rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15" was found to be almost 12 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention).
Contrary to your opinion about the availability of self-loading pistols prior to 1950, the Colt Government Model (AKA the 1911) was available from 1911, the year it was adopted by the military. The Luger pistol was available from about 1898, and so was the broom-handle Mauser pistol.
As to any assertion that you might make about the rate of fire from self-loading pistols, they are not really any faster than a revolver. The record rate of fire, from a handgun, was set by Ed McGivern, using a revolver. Why can a revolver be fired faster than a self-loader? The answer is the self-loader requires a minimum time for the slide to open with recoil, then pick up a cartridge from the magazine and cycle closed, chambering the round. A revolver only needs sufficent time for the projectile to clear the cylinder, and the inertia of the spinning cylinder helps with the trigger pull for successive shots.
"such crimes were more likely in states without sufficient laws"
You mean like Chicago, DC, and New Jersey?
"Other studies on gun theft have noted..."
Which other studies do you refer to?
"such crimes were more likely in states without sufficient laws"
Sufficient to do what?
"where there were large numbers of gun owners & (relatively) high-crime rates."
Are you making an attempt at a correlation here?
That statement could have many different meanings based on the location of "where'.
Washington DC, for instance, has relatively high crime rates, but a very low rate of legal ownership of handguns. Therefore one could conclude that the reported rate of theft might be artificially low.
If one knew which "other studies" you were referring to, one might be able to make a more informed judgement on this subject.
"Researchers found that juvenile inmates preferred "large caliber, high quality handguns" ...".
I have little doubt of that, but I highy doubt they would have preferred their victims to have been armed with those same caliber and quality handguns.
"...and that 55% owned a semi-auto. handgun. "
Really? That seems rather incredible since nearly every state has laws against selling handguns to minors, laws against minors purchasing handguns, and laws against possession of a handgun by a minor.
It seems that has direct implications on your statement regarding "sufficient laws".
If a law against purchase, and a law against possession is not sufficient to keep criminals from committing crimes with firearms, exactly what law would be?
And here it is, folks. While Paul and his ilk are pestering the law-abiding with their frivolous legislation, our judicial system is hard at work making sure felons are getting off easy...
http://blogs.bet.com/music/soundOff/?p=210#comment-6077
Also, take a look at the comments. Now this is not meant to be prejudicial in anyway, but when you have a whole culture which accepts that type of behavior, maybe we should start looking at changing THAT thought pattern instead of focusing on implements. And before the anti"s claim that I am racist, I am pointing to the "urban culture" not a specific race.
Where is Jesse Jackson when you REALLY need someone to relate to the urban populace? Probably protecting in front of some mom and pop gun shop i'd imagine.
You know, I shouldn't be, but I'm dumbstruck at the responses to that article. Convicted felon commits multiple federal crimes and tax evasion (avoiding the registration of machine guns and suppressors) and gets a slap on the wrist? I hope that judge comes down on him hard and doesn't accept any of that B.S. from the plea bargain.
Oh Where, Oh Where did ReasonIsMy Religion go?
I am still waiting for Reason to rebut my FBI/DOJ study posting.
Michael
"Reasoned Discourse(tm)"
New Gallup poll says 73% of Americans believe there is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-Believes-Americans-Right-Own-Guns.aspx
Michael
"Will of the People(tm)"
"Trained Sheep"
solitude-
How does your example (from wsbtv) have any relation or bearing on MY inherent (and soon-to-be clarified) individual right to self-protection?
Your example, while tragic, represents what, something like under 1% of per capita deaths (accidental deaths caused by firearms) in the US? So my inherent right to protect myself and my family should be infringed upon because of a statistical anomoly?
I'd like to see you argue that same logic as it pertains to medical malpractice.
A 92-year old woman, shot dead by police for "self defense". What big men three police officers must've felt like taking out that frail, little old lady! OR maybe, as has been stated here many times over, having a gun has dangerous side effects.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10374909/detail.html
You know, the more I read that first line, the more I get the impression that you are wholly against self defense. Am I wrong? What would you do if folks busted down your door without knocking? Would you protect yourself?
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I sincerely hope you're not blaming a woman trying to protect herself, a woman who we have reason to believe may very well not have heard the police given her age and physical health, and our lack of definitive facts one way or another.
Interesting reply, snaky...why do you continue to use the scenario, "..a woman...", "...a woman..."...not to pick scabs, as it has already been established you're thoughts on women voting. But really?
Me? As mikey loves to announce given the opportunity...Let's keep this in perspective here. I'm not Dirty Harry, or something, I'm not packing a Magnum. Have you ~seen~ the size of those bullets? They make me question my manhood - I'm a bit jealous, actually! They're HUGE!
Then again, I'm thinking an air-gun and fast trigger would've taken out a 92-year old woman! So, I ask again, your point....?
So what is the frequency of these events? Or is this as irrelevant as you claimed mike101's article was/is? I am assuming it happens often, and that you have proof of such, based on your claim of side effects...
Just to stem the "drug deal" argument before it even gets started, here's a couple more. Seems quite clear, even from these few examples, this all ~ALL!~ would've been avoided had they not fired their weapon "in self-defense".
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/im-not-murderer-they-make-me-out-be
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184992,00.html
Though I was only able to view the first link...
"As I"m walking through the hall, someone comes busting through my door."
He said intruders were pushing through the bottom panels of the four-panel door, he said. The lighting in the house was dim. Frederick said he didn"t hear anyone say "police" or see identification.
"I was like, 'Oh, God, if I don"t shoot, then he"s going to kill me" ¦"
"On Jan. 14, three days before the police shooting, Frederick said, someone kicked in a rear portion of the fence around his home and broke into his garage.
"They ransacked my place like they were looking for something. But they didn"t take anything," he said."
"Hours before the encounter with police, Frederick said he purchased three dead-bolt locks for his garage and home. He said he was worried he would be victimized again."
...and can only base my opinion on what I see in that article, it looks an awful lot like a justified case of self-defense to me.
People who break through your door in the nighttime are not a protected species, regardless of what their shirt proclaims. It is truly a sad case, but the police should have done a better job of gathering intelligence BEFORE they broke through the door.
Tell me honestly ed, faced with the same situtaion and fearing for your life, what would you have done different?
And they don't understand why we feel the need to be armed.
This one is too close to home.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6043617
4 16 year-old "children" beat a commuter so badly, he had a heart attack, and died. This happened at 13th and Market in Philadelphia, in the subway/suburban rail concourse in CENTER CITY, at 2;30 PM, in front of a large number of witnesses. This didn't happen in the hood.
I pass through here several times a month. The victim was the manager of the Starbucks, in the Marriott Hotel, at 12th & Market. Whenever I'm in town, I stop there for a Cappucino. Hell, I've probably seen the manager a hundred times.
I know that in some locations, people have give given up on using public transportation, simply because public transportation has been taken over by the gangs and hoodlums. People believe they are putting their lives at risk riding public transportation. The problem is there are not sufficient police to put an officer on every bus, every light rail car, and every bus and light rail car. I cannot blame people for avoiding public transportation, because a good rule of self defense is to avoid places where there might be trouble.
BTW: I believe toodles is angry, because I do know more about the shooting sports than he/she does. His/her insults are inconsequential, just like his/her arguments.
And this relevant to the discussion...how? (Excluding your poor taste in finer coffees, of course!)
*crickets*...figures...point proven!
The "Safe Homes Initiative" -
"Officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes."
"If weapons are recovered, they will be tested and destroyed if they are not found to be linked to any other crimes.A police spokeswoman said that if evidence of other crimes is found during voluntary searches, amnesty will be granted for that crime as well."
There is zero logic in this, as the ones with anything to hide damn sure aren't going to allow a voluntary search. Every time I read a story like this, demonstrating the government's refusal to embrace reality, I laugh like a little girl, and weep for "the children".
http://www.nbc4.com/news/15688264/detail.html?taf=dc
This same "feel good" BS was tried in Philly. It went nowhere, and accomplished zilch. These folks are not going to let cops into their homes. No way, no how. They did a little better when they launched the "Groceries for Guns" campaign. At least that netted some of the junk guns I mentioned previously, in exchange for vouchers that could be used at the grocery store.
However, it was nowhere near as successful as the well publicized "No Snitching" campaign, launched by the gangbangers when Philly cops tried to get people to disclose the names of people who owned guns. The purpose of this being to terrorize the law abiding folk in the hood into keeping their mouths shut. It worked.
Not worth stressing over. Like you said, it will go nowhere. What concerns me immensely is the "absolute amnesty". Law enforcement officers are legally bound to enforce the law, whether or not they like the law and whether or not their higher-ups tell them to or not to. This notion that police can act outside the law is as despicable as when the current administration said the same (in the same speech as their "we interpret the Constitution as we feel necessary" comments).
Then again, it IS D.C., whose public officials have not proven themselves the most astute problem solvers...
I am now convinced that the Anti's really have not yet made the correlation between crime and who commits crime. You would think it would be easy, you know, since the word "criminal" is very similar to the word "crime."
"Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police."
Oh, I get it, the safe homes initiative is aimed at LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, you know, those who are willing to cooperate with police.
One of these days the Anti's will realize that in order to combat crime, you have to actually target the CRIMINAL.
If you've got nothing to hide, what's the harm? They've already said they would allow amnesty for anything else they find. I don't see why the uproar.
At least it's a step in the right direction.
Aargh! Two post attempts, both which seem to have cut off the important parts. Hoping the third try is the charm: I am seeing a lot about "compromise." I was a big believer in compromise, which is why I supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The 1994 AWB specifically exempted over 650 hunting rifles and shotguns, and most gun control advocates often invoked that feature to promote the ban and said that they would not ban popular hunting guns. That sounded like compromise to me. But most gun control advocates then turned around and supported the 2003 attempt to REVOKE the exemption list of 650 hunting rifles and shotguns and to specifically ban guns on that list (HR2038 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy D-NY, Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003). Would at least one of the gun control advocates who want to me to compromise please tell me why they think I would fall for that line again? (Details and links documenting the 1994 hunting rifle and shotgun exemption and the 2003 attempt to revoke it are available upon request.)
I hear you on the posting problems; I see one sentence in my post below and almost 500 words in the Word document I typed it in, so something doesn't like it very much. I think more posts and more stress on the server is going to be the only way to get noticed, since Huffington Post seems to be ignoring folks complaints (or aren't getting enough of them).
You know Paul, your article started so well. And then you had to go and say this.
Posted March 21, 2008 | 02:36 PM (EST)