In a landmark 5-4 opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined an individual Second Amendment right to own a gun for self defense in the home.
After the decision, the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre said, "This is a great moment in American history.... The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American Constitutional law."
The plaintiff in the case was District of Columbia resident Dick Anthony Heller. As a result of his triumph, he won the right to register his handgun with the local police department.
In fact, he has already done so, calling his handgun registration "Victory!"
All right. At this point you've figured out that this isn't really "breaking news." As most of you know, the Heller decision was handed down last June and Mr. Heller registered his gun a few weeks later in August 2008.
Yet it bears repeating to get the attention of some members of Congress being herded by the shepherds at the National Rifle Association in a bill now pending in Congress.
For the first time in American history, residents of the District of Columbia could get the right to have a voting member in the U.S. House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the NRA is holding that bill hostage with a killer amendment that would strip the District's elected officials of their ability to regulate the ownership and sale of guns to protect the public.
How do they justify robbing DC residents of the right to make their own gun laws as the price for finally giving them the right to a voting member in Congress? According to the NRA's top lobbyist Chris Cox, it is "to restore the Second Amendment rights to lawful residents of the District of Columbia."
I have news for Mr. Cox and those members of Congress stuck in the crook of his shepherd's staff: District of Columbia residents already have Second Amendment rights.
Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the Supreme Court, said they did last June. What's more, the plaintiff in that case and other DC residents are exercising their rights.
What's really of concern to the NRA is that Justice Scalia handed down a measured decision that specifically endorsed some restrictions on who gets guns; what kind of guns they can get; how guns are sold, carried and stored; and where guns can be restricted.
What the NRA can't abide is the idea that the Second Amendment and common-sense gun control are now compatible with each other, instead of the false choice they've long portrayed them to be.
While Justice Scalia defined the Second Amendment as an individual right, at the same time he clearly stated that a raft of gun control laws were also "presumptively lawful," and that the list of examples he provided was "not ... exhaustive." That happens to be exactly where American voters stand on the issue.
Members of Congress flocking together under the watchful NRA eye should look at the election results in 2008 and 2006, and ask themselves if it's really worth paying for their blessing in the first place.
And such Members should save the District and the country any moralizing about "Second Amendment rights," because it's clearly a non-issue in this bill.
Simply put, duly elected officials of the District of Columbia should have the power to make reasonable gun laws, subject to the Supreme Court's definition, that their residents want to help keep them safe.
It is wrong for Congress to exact one democratic principle as the price for granting another, particularly when the courts have already shown their willingness to deal with the issue of gun rights and gun control.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Tell me again how legislation will stop them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
Hmm.
And take a look at NYC--number 259 on the list.
http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/CityCrime2008_Rank_Rev.pdf
And oh look! Detroit is #3. Lot's of gun control in Michigan too.
Proof once again that gun control has no effect on crime.
Thanks for the link, Jade.
Wanna know why the NRA is so effective? Because they have loyal, average hard working members, who write $50, $100, even $1000 checks to them, because they believe in the cause. This is called grass-root's activism. Its far more effective than some elitist like George Soros writing million dollar checks to the Brady Campaign. We are also the ones who flood Senator's and Congressman's telephones and email, vote for gun control bill we don't like, start looking for a job in 2 years, or 6 years for Senators. I'm confident we can kill a new AWB with this tactic. I'm willing to bet, NRA membership outnumbers Brady membership by at least 5:1.
If the NRA is so effective, why does every poll show a majority of Americans support:
1. more gun laws? (54%)
2. registration of guns? (79%)
3. requiring a waiting period on gun purchases? (86%)
4. limiting the number of guns someone can own? (51%)
5. preventing certain poeople from owning guns? (88%)
6. forbidding the sale of assault weapons? (67%)
Moreover, when Britain and Australia all but banned private ownership of working handguns homicide numbers and rates by firearms went down. And even if "violent" crime went up, which I acknowledge it did in Britain, the overall homicide rate still went down. Criminals didn't simply turn to other means of killing to make up the slack. Their overall homicide rates are also much lower than ours.
I don't think legal handgun owners buy handguns with the intent of killing. But we're all human. We can all do things under duress that we didn't think we'd ever do. And too often, over 5,000 times a year that means an American armed with a handgun will kill somebody they know, and over 2,000 times a year Americans will use handguns to kill perfect strangers. So I'm questioning whether handgun ownership makes us safer overall. There were fewer than 60 murders by firearms in Britain last year. There were fewer than 60 murders by firearms in Australia last year. Correct for population and there would be fewer than 500 in each compared to our 7,000.
How many of the 5000 are the result of illegal gang and drug activity? Most of them, by far. How is depriving the law abiding citizen of his 2nd Amendment rights going to change that? It isn't. It didn't work in DC, and it's failing almost as miserably in Chicago.
How many of the 2000 "perfect strangers" were attempting to commit a violent crime against the shooter, or intruded into the shooter's home?
It's common for the anti-gunn crowd to feel that they do not trust themselves with a gun, so they project this untrustworthiness on to everyone else. You can't deny 80-100,000,000 people their rights because of what a relative handful 'might' do.
"And even if "violent" crime went up, which I acknowledge it did in Britain, the overall homicide rate still went down."
So what? If someone comes at me with a knife, or a baseball bat, I have a right to use the most effective means of protection at my disposal, like a gun.
The overall homicide rates remained basically unchanged.
"The use of firearms in criminal activity continued to constitute only a small proportion of all offences recorded by the police in 2007-08; 3 per cent of recorded homicides (4 offences), 5 per cent of recorded attempted murders (33 offences), and 2 per cent of recorded robberies (61 offences). In each of the remaining three categories, less than 0.7 per cent of offences involved the alleged use of a firearm" Source: Statistical BulletinCrime and Justice Series: Recorded Crimes Involving Firearms: Government of Scotland, March, 2009
The same thing applies on the street, I have a legal right to defend myself and there is no better tool than a handgun. In 98% of cases, the gun is never fired, the mere presentation of a gun will cause most criminals to flee. They seek targets of opportunity, least resistance.
I grew up around guns, I learned to shoot at 10 years old. Guns are an awesome hobby, stress reliever, and just plain fun. I have no criminal intent, I was raised with proper morals and values, respect for authority, and a firm grasp of consequences. If I want an AR-15, I should be allowed to own one, I'm no threat to anybody, except the violent criminals.
www.gunfacts.info
As I've said before, everyone who legally owns a gun and has never used it illegally, is by definition, not a criminal, at least when it comes to guns. However, the instant he/she uses the gun in an illegal fashion, whether it is to murder one person, or 10, or 32. They become a criminal. Then the legal gun owners say, "...just another case of a criminal using firearms illegally...why should my right to own any kind of gun I want be regulated?" Perfect answer. Except to all the dead people and their loved ones.
The per capita murder and non negligent HOMICIDE rate, by every means, in the United States in 2007 was .059 per 1000 people according to the FBI. It was .015 per 1000 people in Australia and .014 in Great Britain in 2007, or four times what it is in the U.S. per capita, according to NationMaster.com. Now I suppose that if gun ownership rates in the U.S. per capita were the same as these two countries we might make up the slack by increasing the number of homicides committed with weapons other than guns, but I kind of doubt it.
jimtom, how do you propose I defend myself, in my home, staring down an intruder? Do I just cower, beg for my life and say "take whatever you want"? I don't think so! If someone forcibly enters my home, they will be staring down the barrel of a gun. Also, I live 16 MILES from the nearest Sheriff's office, which puts them about 20 minutes away, could be even longer. If someone targets me out here, I'm on my own, that's why I keep a pistol in the nightstand. Hopefully you can understand where I'm coming from here.
The same thing applies on the street, I have a legal right to defend myself and there is no better tool than a handgun. In 98% of cases, the gun is never fired, the mere presentation of a gun will cause most criminals to flee. Of course, I have no references to back up this claim whatsoever.They seek targets of opportunity, least resistance.
I grew up around guns, I learned to shoot at 10 years old. Guns are an awesome hobby, stress reliever, and just plain fun. I have no criminal intent, I was raised with proper morals and values, respect for authority, and a firm grasp of consequences. If I want a 55 gallon drum of Sarin, I should be allowed to own one, I'm no threat to anybody, except the violent criminals.
In Australia, according to NationMaster, firearms were only used in 13% of all murders in Australia in 2007. They reported 59 murders by firearms, or .003/1000 people.
By contrast, there were 9,369 murders using firearms in the U.S. in 2007, or .028/1000 according to the FBI.
One hypothesis: The more guns there are floating around in the population, the likelihood that someone, on a per capita basis, will get shot and killed, increases. There are 50 million or more handguns in the U.S., thieves steal roughly 200,000 a year from homes, persons, gun shops, so we go out and buy more guns for self-defense, the criminals steal 'em again, so we go out and buy more guns.... Who's safer from murder by firearms? The people of Great Britain and Austraila.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.html - scroll down for graph.
It's gotten so bad, they had to ban pocket knives and swords. There is proposed legislation that would ban large cooking knives.
They put remote security cameras all over the country, so the gangbangers started wearing hoodies. Now they are trying to ban those.
"Who's safer from murder by firearms? The people of Great Britain and Austraila." jimtom
Is a person less dead when they are murdered with a knife (or a Cricket bat)?
As you have just seen, violent crime is rising faster in your gun-free Utopias than it is here.
No, there are not.
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
Again, there are far more laws regulating alcohol than guns. And let's face facts, much of the damage done by alcoholics is to themselves. Unfortunately, misuse of guns tends to affect innocent parties.
"Again, there are far more laws regulating alcohol than guns. And let's face facts, much of the damage done by alcoholics is to themselves. Unfortunately, misuse of guns tends to affect innocent parties.
"And let's face facts" (translation- I am about to pull something out of the air). Have you ever faced a fact in your life? How many laws are there regulating alcohol consumption, othert than the fact that you have to be 21 to imbibe?
Alcohol is misused far more frequently than guns are, and often affects innocent parties. I guess you've never heard of anyone being killed by a drunk driver, even though it happens several times a day.
Why do you waste everyone's time with baloney like this?
I predict, that despite this incident, Obama's not going to push the AWB, he doesn't want that political fight, this early in his term.
Fact is, nobody has advocated civilian disamament. Never.
It's an NRA ploy to scare rubes, such as yourself, into giving them money.\
WRT beer--we do have more regulations as to who can sell beer and who can buy it. We also have laws as to who may consume beer.
OTOH, firearms are far more dangerous--there are no laws regulating who can buy, sell or use firearms.
You've got to be kidding.
Fact is, there are about 2000 gun laws on the books in this country (probably half of them are in NJ alone) regulating who can buy, sell, and use firearms.
It's a BC/VPC ploy to scare rubes, such as yourself, into giving them money.
Jade, do you sincerely believe there are people reading this who are dumb enough to believe you?
Jade, I do believe that is the most absurd, and blatantly false statement I've ever read on the internet. You have truly outdone yourself. Kudos.
I don't suppose you've ever heard of the Gun Control Act of 1968. That's where it all started. Ever hear of the NRA backed Brady Background Check? Now we have hundreds or thousands (as in lots and lots) more gun laws.
You must not have much faith in the intelligence of the average human, huh?