1 2 3 4
Salanis
Salanis Dork
6/26/08 10:30 a.m.

Taken from www.npr.org

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban

NPR.org, June 26, 2008 · The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

From the Associated Press

Gearhead_42
Gearhead_42 HalfDork
6/26/08 10:34 a.m.

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/dc-handgun-ban-struck-down/1299/page1/

But yeah, we can use yours instead

Salanis
Salanis Dork
6/26/08 10:48 a.m.

Sorry, noticed yours too late.

Why has no one else jumped on this? I mean, I'm excited about this victory for personal freedom and the bill of rights and I'm not even a "gun nut".

therex
therex Dork
6/26/08 11:56 a.m.
Salanis wrote: Sorry, noticed yours too late. Why has no one else jumped on this? I mean, I'm excited about this victory for personal freedom and the bill of rights and I'm not even a "gun nut".

We should be excited when the logical interpretation of the constitution is upheld? I'm more pissed that it only was barely upheld. 5-4? Should have been unanimous. And boy howdy was the decision wishy-washy. Scalia hemmed and hawed and jumped around that there's little doubt that we'll see this case again.

At any rate, I exercised my 2A rights yesterday:

Yes, it shoots every bit as good as it looks.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
6/26/08 12:03 p.m.

I think we should be glad when our system of government proves that it can still work properly.

As I understand, the question about this case was whether the 2nd A was a personal or a communal right. Granted, I think that should have been obvious seeing as how every amendment in the Bill of Rights is about personal rights.

therex
therex Dork
6/26/08 12:08 p.m.
Salanis wrote: I think we should be glad when our system of government proves that it can still work properly.

Well then yes...I'm very glad that my civil rights weren't further eroded. :)

Salanis
Salanis Dork
6/26/08 12:11 p.m.

I think this helps reverse some of the erosion of civil rights. Politicians can't argue that they're not explicit anymore.

dmitrik4
dmitrik4 None
6/26/08 12:13 p.m.

sigh can't believe i'm agreeing w/ Scalia.

in other news, all work in Hell ground to a halt due to heavy snow.

i really thought this thread would be more hoppin' on GRM.

Wally
Wally GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
6/26/08 12:21 p.m.
dmitrik4 wrote: *sigh* can't believe i'm agreeing w/ Scalia. in other news, all work in Hell ground to a halt due to heavy snow. i really thought this thread would be more hoppin' on GRM.

I know how you feel, I agreed with Obama yesterday about executing kid touchers.

dmitrik4
dmitrik4 New Reader
6/26/08 12:29 p.m.

the accuracy of its implication aside, i did enjoy this comment, from another discussion:

Justice Scalia.... meet Justice Scalia: [Today's decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Scalia Dissent in Boumediene)
carguy123
carguy123 Reader
6/26/08 12:45 p.m.
dmitrik4 wrote: [Today's decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Scalia Dissent in Boumediene)

Yes, and here's hoping there will be a dramatic increase in the death rate of bad guys being places they shouldn't had oughta be like in my house!

I am one of the ones who have faced the wrong end of a guy held by a bad guy. It changes you. I think there are 2 kinds of people, those that WILL shoot and those that WON'T.

I am now a guy who WILL.

If there is no downside to robbing a home or someone then why not do it? If you gotta worry about what will happen to you if you do that will deter a lot of them from even beginning.

A big downside is that the present day youth has become so calloused to death due to video games w/reset buttons and movies that they don't realize death is permanent.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
6/26/08 12:59 p.m.

You are aware that you just stated that you hope someone attempts to break into your house, right?

I have a self defense strategy for if an armed assailant ever tries to take my money. I will reach into my pocket, remove my wallet, and toss it on the ground at their feet. When they bend down to pick it up, I will move away as quickly as is safe. I have no belongings that are more valuable than the cost and hassle of going to court. My cars might be, but they're fully insured. I also firmly believe that no one "wins" a fight; one person just looses less. If someone physically attacks me though, I will do everything necessary to protect myself.

I don't think this ruling will have a significant impact on the crime rate, one way or the other.

My girlfriend is reading an interesting book, "Freakonomics", and one of the things the author looked at was the decrease in violent crime that occurred in the 90's. Lots of people tried to take credit for the decrease based on their political actions. The author said that the most likely cause for the decrease was Roe v. Wade, and legalized abortion. There were fewer kids being had by the sort of dysfunctional people who would have raised kids to be hoodlums.

confuZion3
confuZion3 HalfDork
6/26/08 1:20 p.m.
Salanis wrote: My girlfriend is reading an interesting book, "Freakonomics", and one of the things the author looked at was the decrease in violent crime that occurred in the 90's. Lots of people tried to take credit for the decrease based on their political actions. The author said that the most likely cause for the decrease was Roe v. Wade, and legalized abortion. There were fewer kids being had by the sort of dysfunctional people who would have raised kids to be hoodlums.

I liked that book. I have another theory about why violent crime is decreasing. I attribute it, in a big way, to the increase in average mental function of adults currently 18 to 25 years old. If you look at average intellegence (a good way to measure it is by looking at average SAT scores), you would see a drastic decline in the '60s (there are theories about why this happened including lead exposure, exposure to radioactive Iodine, and others). SAT scores dropped hard and stayed down for about 30 years. 18 years after some of the possible causes went away (leaded gasoline, for example), we started to see a pretty huge recovery on SAT tests.

Scores have started to go up --- at the same time violent crime statistics have shown a sharp decrease in the number of violent crimes committed by the same age group (which is, coincidentally, the largest age group of violent crime committers).

There is nothing in that theory about guns. At all. And in a district with one of the highest crime rates in the country, (DC), it appears as if a gun ban did relatively little anyway.

Cotton
Cotton Reader
6/26/08 1:26 p.m.
Salanis wrote: I have a self defense strategy for if an armed assailant ever tries to take my money. I will reach into my pocket, remove my wallet, and toss it on the ground at their feet. When they bend down to pick it up, I will move away as quickly as is safe.

What if there are two or more attackers?

Dr. Hess
Dr. Hess SuperDork
6/26/08 1:29 p.m.

confuZion3, are those SAT scores you mention adjusted? You do know that there has been a built in SAT score inflation, right? You have to adjust a 1978 score to a 2008 score. There's a table somewhere. I think that the true adjusted SAT over time score has not improved, but gone down. A score of X in 2000 and the same score in 2005 represents a decline in true test scores. Universities have the correction tables so they can look at my score and compare it to your score and come up with a some semblance of a valid comparison.

Violent crime went down in the 90's because we were in an economic boom and people had jobs and were having a good time. Not because we executed them before they had a chance to become hoodlums.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
6/26/08 1:29 p.m.

It seems that crime rates have little relation to how much the populace is armed. The sort of person inclined to commit an armed violent crime will probably do it regardless of how they are armed, or what their potential victim might be carrying.

There are plenty of false correlations all over, though. My dad points to the low crime rate in a particular town near where we lived and the high rate of gun ownership. I pointed out that this is a fairly homogenized, affluent, and educated suburban community with a well funded police department.

Seems to me that the main contributors to crime or lack-thereof are education, mental health, and relative economic equality.

Dr. Hess
Dr. Hess SuperDork
6/26/08 1:34 p.m.

Salanis, there has actually been studies where the go to prisons and ask the inmates: Have you ever not robbed someone because you thought they might be armed? And that was a primary reason for not robbing people. Also the primary reason for not burglarizing when people are home, because they are afraid they might get shot. In England, roberies while you're home are quite common because the crooks know you're not armed. Also, gun crime went way up after they banned guns in the UK. Go figger. And, the weapon of choice went from a handgun to an assault rifle. Hey, it's all illegal at that point, so may as well get a good one.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
6/26/08 1:37 p.m.
Cotton wrote:
Salanis wrote: I have a self defense strategy for if an armed assailant ever tries to take my money. I will reach into my pocket, remove my wallet, and toss it on the ground at their feet. When they bend down to pick it up, I will move away as quickly as is safe.
What if there are two or more attackers?

I think you maybe missed the point. If someone wants my money enough to resort to lethal force, it's not worth that much to me. I'm going to do what I can to defuse the situation and remove myself from it as efficiently as possible. Giving them my money is the easiest way to do that.

I also have a good sense of situational awareness, and that's way more valuable than any gun.

I'm not an anti-gun guy. I'm very pro 2nd A. I just don't personally feel any need to have a firearm for self defense.

I have a friend who is a bit interested in firearms but refuses to ever own a handgun, because he has a history of depression. Even though he's now medicated and totally stable, he rightly sees a handgun as more danger to himself than to anyone else.

carguy123
carguy123 Reader
6/26/08 1:41 p.m.
Salanis wrote: You are aware that you just stated that you hope someone attempts to break into your house, right?

I don't know how you got that out of what I said.

What you should have gotten is that if they do come into my house they may not come out.

You need to be threatened with a handgun and a shotgun, be tied up and thrown in the corner with a guy who is so nervous that he tries to stick the shot gun barrel THRU you neck while his hand is shaking so hard he can't keep even keep it there with all the pressure.

You need to see him pause as he hits the front door and aim at you direction ready to shoot only to have the scared guy holler to come on before the cops get there and you'll realize that fear will stop many for ever committing the crime.

Kids need a deterrent/penalties/limits whatever you want to call them to learn to behave. They have to learn the boundaries. Criminals are just bigger (sometimes) kids.

There are, or should be, consequences to your every action. If you buy a new car your check book balance drops. If you try to rob someone you might get hurt yourself. Cause and effect, it's very simple.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
6/26/08 1:45 p.m.
Dr. Hess wrote: Salanis, there has actually been studies where the go to prisons and ask the inmates: Have you ever not robbed someone because you thought they might be armed? And that was a primary reason for not robbing people. Also the primary reason for not burglarizing when people are home, because they are afraid they might get shot. In England, roberies while you're home are quite common because the crooks know you're not armed. Also, gun crime went way up after they banned guns in the UK. Go figger. And, the weapon of choice went from a handgun to an assault rifle. Hey, it's all illegal at that point, so may as well get a good one.

Fair enough. I still hold that they are not the primary factor for overall crime rates. Clearly these people in jail weren't dissuaded from committing a crime, just from committing it against a particular individual.

The ultimate thing is that you just need to be a less attractive target than someone else.

And I still say good situational awareness is a better self defense tool than any weapon. As an example, while in the Caribbean, walking along with my Dad, Step-Mother, and Grandmoter, I saw a vagrant who made me a bit uneasy. I stopped walking and moved to stand between him and my step-mother and grandmother. My dad, who is a big pro-concealed carry, walked right up to the guy, who then tried to assault him. Fortunately, the guy was too drugged out to do anything effectively.

carguy123
carguy123 Reader
6/26/08 1:48 p.m.
Salanis wrote:
Cotton wrote:
Salanis wrote: I have a self defense strategy for if an armed assailant ever tries to take my money. I will reach into my pocket, remove my wallet, and toss it on the ground at their feet. When they bend down to pick it up, I will move away as quickly as is safe.
What if there are two or more attackers?
I think you maybe missed the point. If someone wants my money enough to resort to lethal force, it's not worth that much to me. I'm going to do what I can to defuse the situation and remove myself from it as efficiently as possible. Giving them my money is the easiest way to do that. I also have a good sense of situational awareness, and that's way more valuable than any gun. I'm not an anti-gun guy. I'm very pro 2nd A. I just don't personally feel any need to have a firearm for self defense. I have a friend who is a bit interested in firearms but refuses to ever own a handgun, because he has a history of depression. Even though he's now medicated and totally stable, he rightly sees a handgun as more danger to himself than to anyone else.

You have never been robbed. It's not just the money in a face to face confrontation so throwing the $$$ down won't end it. They have to prove they are superior to you in some way (to make up for their E36 M3ty life?). How many times do you read of someone who did just that and still got shot. No witnesses that way.

Salanis
Salanis Dork
6/26/08 1:54 p.m.
carguy123 wrote:
Salanis wrote: You are aware that you just stated that you hope someone attempts to break into your house, right?
I don't know how you got that out of what I said.
carguy123 wrote: Yes, and here's hoping there will be a dramatic increase in the death rate of bad guys being places they shouldn't had oughta be like in my house!

No I get your point. I don't disagree. I just think the answer is that people need to be aware of their surroundings, and take personal responsibility for their own safety. I do not see that as requiring a firearm.

Also, in that hostage scenario you presented, with two nervous and desperate assailants, I do not see how having a handgun would have been especially useful in that situation.

However, I don't have an issue with people wanting to concealed carry. I think it makes sense. I just don't personally feel that my safety would benefit from doing that. I feel much more threatened by SUV drivers with cell phones and vanity mirrors.

confuZion3
confuZion3 HalfDork
6/26/08 1:55 p.m.
Dr. Hess wrote: confuZion3, are those SAT scores you mention adjusted? You do know that there has been a built in SAT score inflation, right? You have to adjust a 1978 score to a 2008 score. There's a table somewhere. I think that the true adjusted SAT over time score has not improved, but gone down. A score of X in 2000 and the same score in 2005 represents a decline in true test scores. Universities have the correction tables so they can look at my score and compare it to your score and come up with a some semblance of a valid comparison. Violent crime went down in the 90's because we were in an economic boom and people had jobs and were having a good time. Not because we executed them before they had a chance to become hoodlums.

Yes. They are adjusted to reflected, basically, the repeated dumbing-down of the SATS. It is only in the most recent years that the depression has started to turn around. Literally, with my college graduating class and maybe a year or two before. We're not to our 1950s levels, but we're on our way. I think that once schools readjust to accomidate an average intellegence that has not been seen since the '50s, we will be on track again.

Although, I take the SAT scores with a grain of salt anyway. I did not do that well on them, but my IQ is quite high, and I did quite well in college. I guess when you show up to your SATs late the first time and don't have a test to take the second time, you are bound to do worse. There's nothing like waiting for someone to bring you an exam while everyone else around you is having the directions read to them. But the data fit with a high correlation when you look at a population.

.

also:

.

Hooray for our justice system, the Constitution of the United States of America, and our political process for upholding an amendment which so many take so seriously, and for continuing to function so well after two centuries.

WilD
WilD New Reader
6/26/08 2:04 p.m.

Very true. If someone is going to kill you for your wallet, giving it to them is not going to greatly improve your odds of survival. I agree with the situational aware ness thing though. If they got the drop on you and you are held up, a gun in your pocket might as well be a thousand miles away.

My previous neighbor was leaving a club of some sort when someone pulled up beside him in an SUV and demanded something, I don't recall what, maybe to get out of his car. He saw a gun and panicked and tried to drive away. At this point, the robbers decided to unload on his car. He was lucky he was only hit in the leg (although he still very easily could have bled to death). Armed robbers don't just want your stuff, they want you below them. They will kill you even if there is no monetary gain in it for them.

Strizzo
Strizzo HalfDork
6/26/08 2:12 p.m.
Salanis wrote: My girlfriend is reading an interesting book, "Freakonomics", and one of the things the author looked at was the decrease in violent crime that occurred in the 90's. Lots of people tried to take credit for the decrease based on their political actions. The author said that the most likely cause for the decrease was Roe v. Wade, and legalized abortion. There were fewer kids being had by the sort of dysfunctional people who would have raised kids to be hoodlums.

didn't he more specifically say that the cause was due to the use of legalized abortion by african americans, and catch hell for it? i think i remember hearing about that back when it first came out.

1 2 3 4

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
U10JdDavWQVuJBUMbqxkGcyMCL49ivsy5xAitIfN3WgeIigO39c1zwAYXuqCW57t