Legal

Guns are fun

Steve Urkel.

Posted to Legal on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:22:51 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

There are two kinds of people in this world. Those with guns, and those who do the digging.

In a 2-1 decision, a Federal Appeals court has overturned Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns, ruling the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. From the decision:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia. (complete text of ruling (pdf), pleadings can be found here)
This ruling has potentially huge implications. As the article linked above notes, "The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope."

Tags: written by Steve Urkel, edited by port1080, Washington D.C., guns, courts, law (all tags)

This story: 47 comments (5 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Go For the Hat Trick Gordo...

rombuu.

Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:51:29 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

Liquor, check.
Guns, check.

I look forward to your upcoming story on smokes.

2

^ 1

Re: Go For the Hat Trick Gordo...

tomc.

Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:22:05 PM EST

none

Given we're talking about liquor, guns and smokes, maybe calling it a trifecta would be more appropriate.

10

^ 1

Re: Go For the Hat Trick Gordo...

Steve Urkel.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:03:40 PM EST

none

I may do that. It's difficult for me not rant about injustice when the subject of smokes comes up though.

5

Re: Guns are fun

Thalia.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:21:26 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

The dissent gives the Supreme Court, which has been ducking this issue for 70-some years a nice little out:

Although "the Constitution is in effect . . . in the District,"
O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 541 (1933) , as it
is in the States, "[a] citizen of the district of Columbia is not a
citizen of a state within the meaning of the constitution."
Hepburn, 6 U.S. at 445 (emphasis in original). Accordingly,
both the Supreme Court and this court have consistently held
that several constitutional provisions explicitly referring to
citizens of "States" do not apply to citizens of the District.

In other words, this case isn't a proper case to decide the scope of the 2nd Amendment, since the 2nd Amendment states:  "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 District of Columbia clearly is not a "free State" within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  Therefore, there is no need to reach the 2nd Amendment analysis provided by the majority opinion.

Thalia

11

^ 5

Re: Guns are fun

Steve Urkel.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:06:29 PM EST

none

That aside, do you think the judges in this case did properly decide the scope of the 2nd Amendment?

13

guns for hire

Steve Urkel.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:20:35 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

I think many, if not most, of those who argue the 2nd Amendment is a collective right did not conclude this after examing the historical record. They want to impose a ban guns, and seized upon and twisted the "well regulated" phrase as a way to do this.

Another repulsive aspect of gun controller behavior is they have no problem with loopholes in gun control laws for armed bodyguards. So ordinary people can't bear arms, but wealthy people in effect can by hiring someone else to bear the arms for them.  

16

^ 13

Re: guns for hire

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 04:11:12 PM EST

none

We don't agree very often, but you've got an amazing point regarding armed bodyguards. It's no real surprise, the rich control everything.. so why not the firepower?

Tipping Sacred Cows

17

^ 13

Re: guns for hire

Thalia.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 04:40:41 PM EST

none

My big problem isn't guns per se, it is the lack of regulations on who can own a gun and how that person stores that gun.  I'm not worried about a sane individual owning one or more guns which he or she stores sufficiently safely that neither children nor criminals have access to it.  I'm worry about the insane guy, the criminal, and the child that has access to that weapon as a result of it being in a private home.  I know of at least break-in locally where over 40 weapons were grabbed by criminals, and to date quite a few have been used to commit various crimes/ended up in the hands of criminals.  Something like 50% of guns used in crime were obtained through burglary or theft.  That makes me worry about guns being available, unsecured, in private homes, even assuming that the gun's owner is a sane individual.

Thalia

21

^ 17

Re: guns for hire

tomc.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:54:39 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

Something like 50% of guns used in crime were obtained through burglary or theft.

I find it shameful that in This Great Country, criminals cannot afford to buy guns, and must therefore resort to theft.

34

^ 21

Re: guns for hire

Thalia.

Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 05:34:30 AM EST

none

Given that there are many thousands of crimes committed with guns every year, it's a shame the gun owners can't secure their weapons so that they're not easily available to the burglar.

Thalia

19

^ 17

Re: guns for hire

Steve Urkel.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:23:23 PM EST

none

So you do think there is an individual right to own guns?

"I'm worry about the insane guy"

In my state you don't have to prove you are sane to buy a gun, or get a CPP, and it seems to work OK. You don't have to prove you are sane to get a drivers license either.

20

^ 19

Re: guns for hire

coquito.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:36:30 PM EST

none

I don't mean this to be snarky, though it may sound like it, but are you required (in your state or any) to pass any written or practical (physical?) tests to show you understand gun safety and can actually use one safely? Is there any kind of insurance needed in case someone (including yourself) is hurt with the gun (OK, so I think I know the answer to that one). But seriously, what are the kind of restrictions/regulations on owning a gun in your state? Do you think they're adequate? Optimal?

Now with caps!

22

^ 20

Re: guns for hire

Steve Urkel.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:45:55 PM EST

none

If you purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer you only have to pass the Federal background check and wait five days. Obviously this doesn't apply if you buy a used handgun from an indvidual, or to the purchase of shotguns and rifles.

Unlike more restrictive states, like Texas, which requires passing a gun safety course, to get a concealed pistol permit in Washington State you only have to submit your fingerprints and pass a felony background check. That's it.

The laws seem to be adequate. I'm not convinced that more guns equals less crimes, but I see no correlation at all between more gun control and less crime.

23

^ 22

Re: guns for hire

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:53:20 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

Obviously this doesn't apply if you buy a used handgun from an indvidual, or to the purchase of shotguns and rifles
What if you were kidnapped by a pacifist alien race with far superior technology, and were purposely stranded on a distant planet, left to face an alien from another planet in a battle for your life? And what if you were in a life or death battle with that alien? And what if you found some potassium nitrate and sulfur and carbon? And a tube of some sort, fortuitously closed at one end? And, what if you came across a carbon crystal that happened to be just about the same diameter as the tube that was fortuitously closed at one end?

What if you happened to grind the potassium nitrate and sulfur and carbon into reasonably fine powders, and if you decided to mix those powders? And, just for shits and giggles, you decided to pour the resulting mixture into the fortuitously closed tube that was, you know, just laying around? And, having no other obvious place to store your carbon crystal, you decide to put it in the fortuitously closed tube?

In no real sense could your activities be said to have involved "a licensed dealer."

24

^ 23

Re: guns for hire

Steve Urkel.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:00:27 PM EST

none

That's funny (and in a sense, aren't we all in a life or death battle with our own metaphysical lizardman?), but it makes me wonder. While it's legal to buy guns and ammo from neighbor, I'm not sure if it's legal for me to manufacture a gun and gun powder myself.

30

^ 24

Re: guns for hire

dzetetes.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:33:08 PM EST

none

It looks like you have to have a type of Federal Firearms License to manufacture firearms and ammunition.  

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

25

^ 23

WTF?

Lou.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:00:59 PM EST

none

Ok, bonus points for referencing one of my favorite Star Trek episodes...but why?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

27

^ 25

Re: WTF?

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:08:05 PM EST

none

...bonus points for referencing one of my favorite Star Trek episodes...but why?
Why is it one of your favorite episodes? I have no idea. (Maybe you like guns?)

31

^ 27

Kicking Lizard Ass

Lou.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:02:21 PM EST

none

I was around 8 when I saw this.  8 year olds don't have to suspend reality when they watch tv because there is no reality.  I was relieved to see Kirk kick the lizard guy's ass...but NOT kill him.  How cool was that?

But I still don't know what your point was in referencing it?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

26

^ 23

Re: related quirk

Steve Urkel.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:07:11 PM EST

none

You used to be able to get a "Concealed Weapons Permit", which meant you could legally carry, among other things, large fixed blade knives. At some point they restricted it to just handguns.

28

^ 26

Re: related quirk

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:23:20 PM EST

none

...you could legally carry, among other things, large fixed blade knives
Could you carry a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse? That's a hell of a weapon.

29

^ 28

Re: related quirk

tomc.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:27:59 PM EST

4.50 (brilliant, funny)

Could you carry a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse?

Yes, but only for short periods of time.

35

^ 23

Re: guns for hire

pO157.

Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:12:10 AM EST

none

I am going to have to go ahead and say that would be a jurisdictional issue and the aliens would have to take up the gunpowder supply legality of your operation with you and not the Feds. In fact, I'd be moderately sure the feds wouldn't care about your operation unless you went to that planet specifically for trafficking in drugs or (<18) porn.

For all intents and purposes it would be like setting up a gun shop in Sealand. As long as the new owners don't care, neither would anybody else have grounds to do so.

32

^ 19

Re: guns for hire

Thalia.

Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:35:17 AM EST

none

I do think there is an individual right to own weapons, BUT I think that we do have the right to "well regulate" that ownership.  

I do worry about the insane guy, maybe because I know one of the lawyers who were killed by a crazy ex-client with a weapon.  I'd like testing for sanity, ability to safely use a weapon, and ability to safely store the weapon.

Thalia

36

^ 32

Re: guns for hire

humorlesscretin.

Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:29:43 AM EST

none

I'd like testing for sanity, ability to safely use a weapon, and ability to safely store the weapon.

I certainly fail your first test and pass your 2nd, but what in your mind qualifies as safe storage?  My gun is stored unloaded in a reasonably well-hidden hard plastic box with a loop/"bike chain" style lock.  No unaided child can get the gun out without the key, but any fool who takes the box and has access to power tools can open it in 5 minutes or less.  I'm not in a position to spend thousands on a proper 500+ pound gun safe (nor am I inclined to do so to store 1 $800 gun), should I not be allowed to own a gun purely on that basis?  Many leases (mine included) don't look kindly on such large installations, should only homeowners and lucky leasers be allowed to own guns?

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

37

^ 36

Gun Storage

Lou.

Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:57:55 AM EST

none

I'm not in a position to spend thousands on a proper 500+ pound gun safe (nor am I inclined to do so to store 1 $800 gun),

What's wrong with one of these?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

39

^ 37

Re: Gun Storage

humorlesscretin.

Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:05:55 PM EST

none

What's wrong with one of these?

It's a wee bit light at 64 lbs... I'm a renter, I can't floor-mount the thing (otherwise I'd buy one of these) and I'm loath to trust a gun cabinet that weighs less than my TV.  Kind of a no-win situation... anything heavy enough to not be carried off is heavy enough to make a mess of the floor and be a lease violation.

That said, that's the best solution I've yet seen and I may end up buying one.

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

41

^ 39

Re: Gun Storage

Lou.

Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:11:33 PM EST

none

Hey HC, I hope this does work for you.  Perhaps it could be bolted to the wall?  I have lived in drywalled apartments where I needed to put shelves up...when I moved it just spackled the holes, threw on some "landlord off-white" paint, and went on my merry way.  Granted, no lock/safe is perfect, but I always thought that the purpose of such was to make theft inconvenient enough so that the thief went somewhere else for easier pickings.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

43

^ 41

Re: Gun Storage

humorlesscretin.

Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:30:56 AM EST

none

Perhaps it could be bolted to the wall?  I have lived in drywalled apartments where I needed to put shelves up...when I moved it just spackled the holes, threw on some "landlord off-white" paint, and went on my merry way.

That could work... I'll have to look into it a bit, but that should be doable, thanks.  (After living here for a decade without putting 1 single nail in the wall, I'm going to bolt something up.  Sheesh.)

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

38

^ 36

Re: guns for hire

Steve Urkel.

Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:34:34 PM EST

none

Why is there no law requiring household cleaners or medicines be kept in safes? Children cand and do get into those and die from it.

"1 $800 gun"

Just curious, what's your $800 gun? Target pistol?

40

^ 38

Re: guns for hire

humorlesscretin.

Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:07:27 PM EST

none

Just curious, what's your $800 gun? Target pistol?

A Glock 22 with a sight upgrade, 2 15 round magazines and all the miscellaneous junk a first time gun owner needs, back during the ban when the 15 round mags were expensive as hell.  (Now you can buy the 15 round mags for <$20 each on the web. sigh)  Nice not-so-little gun.  In retrospect I should have gone with something a bit lighter, maybe a 17, but oh well.

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

42

^ 40

Re: guns for hire

Steve Urkel.

Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:46:36 PM EST

none

I'd forgotten how expensive things got during the ban. Because of pressure from the Feds lots of small gun dealers got their supplies cut off, that seems to have affected prices too.  

All I own now days is a little SIG P228. It's a fun piece, that I'm incapable of parting with, but if I had to do it over I would go with a large-gun, small-gun battery of the same caliber. Like a large .45 of some sort for in the home, and one of those mini-Glock slim-lines for carry. Even though I haven't had the need to carry in years. But that's what I would do.

44

^ 42

Re: guns for hire

humorlesscretin.

Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:08:24 AM EST

none

Because of pressure from the Feds lots of small gun dealers got their supplies cut off, that seems to have affected prices too.

Exactly.  Exacerbated by being out in the boonies, where if you can't shoot a "bar" with it, most places don't carry it.

All I own now days is a little SIG P228.

Mmm, nice.  If I knew then what I know now, I might have gotten one of those.  (The place where I got my Glock also had a couple SIG 226s or 228s.  But I wanted .40, 9mm being for sissies.  Two boxes later... ow.  Next time I'm buying the "sissy" pistol.)

Like a large .45 of some sort for in the home, and one of those mini-Glock slim-lines for carry. Even though I haven't had the need to carry in years. But that's what I would do.

Interesting.  Professional wisdom vs. amateur thought, I guess, because I would have thought the other way:  smaller gun for home, bigger and hopefully steadier gun for carry situations.  Then again, my Glock is a PITA to usefully conceal so I can see going for the slim-line if you have any hope/need of concealment.

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

46

^ 44

Re: guns for hire

Steve Urkel.

Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:50:10 PM EST

none

9mm is for sissies. Have you ever shot any non-Glock .40's? I sometimes think because Glocks have a steep grip-angle for some people lots of recoil gets transfered into the soft part of the hand. I knew a guy who shoots .357 revolvers all the time and he found shooting a Glock 9mm unpleasant. You could see the pattern on the back of the grip imprinted on his fat hand when he was done.  

47

^ 46

Re: guns for hire

humorlesscretin.

Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:43:12 PM EST

none

Have you ever shot any non-Glock .40's? I sometimes think because Glocks have a steep grip-angle for some people lots of recoil gets transfered into the soft part of the hand.

I haven't shot any other .40s, no.  I fired a .45 enough to "know" that it was bigger than I liked, but that was a Glock too.  Smaller Glocks and non-Glocks both without issue, but I haven't ever just sat and fired 100 rounds from one of the smaller Glocks so it likely wasn't enough to notice.  And you describe the problem exactly, so I have no doubt that you're right.  (I never got to the point of an imprint from it, but yeah, right into the soft part of the hand.  Much like drinking, never enough trouble to keep me from shooting, just enough to make me regret it afterward.)

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

45

^ 38

Re: guns for hire

Ozyman.

Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:49:27 AM EST

none

There is a law that dangerous cleaners and medicines have child safety tops (or I assume there is a law - since every product comes like this).

3

Re: Guns are fun

rEvolution inAction.

Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:34:00 PM EST

none

I was all for the ban on handguns but against the ban on assault weapons. The second amendment states that the reason people need to bear arms is in order to have a militia. An assault weapon would be helpful in cases where the militia would be needed (now its only AK's that are illegal, though). As would rocket propelled grenades, claymore mines, certain types of ammunition, repeat action shotguns, silencers for long rifles.. nuclear weapons.

But handguns? They're purely for murder.

Tipping Sacred Cows

9

^ 3

Re: Guns are fun

arromdee.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:17:12 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

It's hard to tell when people are being snarky because they're making a joke but don't care about the facts, or whether they're being snarky as a way of making a point.

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon" in any meaningful sense.  The infamous "assault weapons" law defined it in a purely arbitrary way which regulated cosmetic features, not firepower, and certainly not machine guns, which were already regulated in 1934.

14

^ 9

Re: Guns are fun

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 04:02:18 PM EST

none

Machine guns aren't really man-portable in a non-squad sense.. but yes, we need access to those as well. I'm serious about what I meant here. I believe that we need access to all the weaponry needed to fight a modern military.. but am opposed to handguns (historically they were used mainly in duels and by officers to execute [murder] anyone who disobeyed an order).

Tipping Sacred Cows

4

^ 3

Re: Guns are fun

tomc.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:10:24 AM EST

none

I tend to think more strategically.  

I believe we have the right to bear nuclear attack submarines.

6

^ 4

Re: Guns are fun

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:47:23 AM EST

none

Why a SUB? Why not an SUV?

Tipping Sacred Cows

7

^ 6

Re: Guns are fun

humorlesscretin.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:19:42 AM EST

4.50 (funny)

The SUB is easier to park.

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

12

^ 3

Guns are ghun

Steve Urkel.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:18:46 PM EST

none

"The second amendment states that the reason people need to bear arms is in order to have a militia"

As this ruling points out, that isn't the case.

"now its only AK's that are illegal"

The assault weapons ban expired. And ownership of AK's was never illegal.

An unintented side effect of the 'Assault Weapons Ban' was that it drove down the prices of AK's and related imported AK pattern rifles because of the surge of importations of such weapons after the ban was enacted but prior to going in effect.* High quality 'assault' rifle makers were unable to increase output prior to the ban, but the combination of the dumping of actual military surplus from Russia/Eastern Europe and Chinese factories cranking up production flooded the market.  

*Or this may have been because of grandfathering import quotas, I can't remember.

15

^ 12

Re: Guns are ghun

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 04:05:59 PM EST

none

I was under the impression that they were banned specifically in the mid-late 80's but I cannot find any source for this. I'm going to conclude that I was misinformed.

Tipping Sacred Cows

18

^ 15

Re: Guns are ghun

Steve Urkel.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:15:13 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

Owning "assault weapons" was never illegal.

The AWB defined certain guns as "assault weapons", then banned banned the manufacture and sale of new guns that met this definion, as well as all magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. As I mentioned above, loads of pre-ban rifles and high capacity mags were imported prior to the ban taking effect. Since the features which determined what rifles were banned were mostly cosmetic (i.e. grip or stock types, bayonet mounts, etc.), manufacturers also began making modified versions of various rifles to get around being subject to the ban.

33

^ 18

Re: Guns are ghun

rEvolution inAction.

Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:50:57 AM EST

none

I wasn't talking about the AWB.. I was under the impression that there was a law regarding AK and AK look-alike weapons.

Tipping Sacred Cows

8

It had to be said:

pO157.

Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:06:35 AM EST

none

I don't own a gun; my ancestors were Quakers!

This story: 47 comments (5 from subqueue)
Post a Comment