US court overturns DC handgun ban

[Matt W]

BBC NEWS | Americas | US court overturns DC handgun ban

A ban on handguns in Washington DC has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld a lower court ruling striking down the ban. The justices said individuals had a right to own guns for personal use. It is the first such case considered by the court in decades and is expected to have effects on gun laws across the US. Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years. In its ruling, the Supreme Court said the constitution did not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defence in the home".

Interesting stuff...

[Gods_Mercenary]

I figured that would eventually happen.

[Praxius]

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the average gun related gun violence in that area now that this has changed.

I say this because many debate whether or not gun possession reduces crimes or increases it. I imagine in the next couple of years, we'll know.

[tivodan1116]

It's obviously the correct decision.

The Bill of Rights' entire existence was out of a desire for a list of individual rights (it's formation in the future was a promise to some delegates to the Constitutional convention who would not sign the Constitution without a bill of individual rights). It is a list of individual rights.

Why would the Framers write a list of individual rights and then say "Hey, you know what, we're writing this list of individual rights because we were tasked with the job to write a list of individual rights... but let's stick this one collective right in there, too..."??????

[shawmutt]

I'm happy with their interpretation, and looking forward to the changes this hopefully will bring nationwide, but honestly don't think it will make people safer. The people in D.C. that want to protect their homes with firearms already have shotguns.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Wasn't there something about shotguns and rifles having to be disassembled or something?

[shawmutt]

Trigger locks needed to be installed and the gun needs to be unloaded. That stipulation was also overturned in this case.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Oh, I thought it was more stringent than that, you could certainly deploy the shotgun fast enough in many cases. At any rate I wouldn't keep a shotgun any other way.

[Rainbow]

Arms sale and/or trade is one of the most lucrative businesses around the world.
Do not expect major limitations in that enterprise, guys.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: tivodan Why would the Framers write a list of individual rights and then say "Hey, you know what, we're writing this list of individual rights because we were tasked with the job to write a list of individual rights... but let's stick this one collective right in there, too..."??????

A couple of reasons. One, in 1790, these individual rights applied to free, white males of property. The founders were intent on entrusting the security of the nation in the hands of 'the People', volunteer civilian militias composed of free white males of property... including their own weapons for use in the militia.

If you read the Federalist Papers, there's an interesting irony that the founders fully believed that a federal Army would pale in significance to the overwhelming might of the combined state volunteer civilian militias, and thought it laughable to think a federal Army could ever pose a threat to the militias. The irony being that this idea is itself laughable by today's standards.

Two, the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment prefaced with a qualifying statement that defines a condition under which the right exists. And that condition is that a well-regulated militia, manned by free, white males of property -- including their own musket and powder -- is necessary for the security of our free state.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I figured that would eventually happen.

With Bush's Supreme Court,... yep. Although I held out a vague hope that when Roberts and Alito said they wouldn't be activist judges and would respect existing legal precedents, they weren't lying out their asses. Alas, it seems they were.

Quote by: Shawmutt I'm happy with their interpretation, and looking forward to the changes this hopefully will bring nationwide

Really? You mean like what?... that the U.S. will go from being the nation with the highest percentage of guns per household as well as among the most violent... well, I guess we can't top being the top.

So if we already have the most guns per household than any other civilized nation, and also have the most violent gun crime than most civilized nations, how exactly did you image allowing even MORE guns was going to improve that? The logic escapes me.

Quote by: Shawmutt ...but honestly don't think it will make people safer.

Then what exactly is it about the decision that you think will create the beneficial "changes this hopefully will bring nationwide."?

.

[Apeman81]

Finally. An individual right that was once recognized and understood again has been shone upon by the light of reason and is again recognized.
Power back to the people

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Sonart . A couple of reasons. One, in 1790, these individual rights applied to free, white males of property. The founders were intent on entrusting the security of the nation in the hands of 'the People', volunteer civilian militias composed of free white males of property... including their own weapons for use in the militia.

The security against tyranny. Tyranny from the government. Which is why the right is so important on an individual level.

And what you're saying only strengthens my point that they wanted individuals to hold the weapons.

If you read the Federalist Papers, there's an interesting irony that the founders fully believed that a federal Army would pale in significance to the overwhelming might of the combined state volunteer civilian militias, and thought it laughable to think a federal Army could ever pose a threat to the militias. The irony being that this idea is itself laughable by today's standards.

There are almost 120 million persons fit for military service in the United States. If the situation merely became so bad that 1 in 10 would take up arms against the government, they would outnumber the combined US military force by 12 to 1. Add in the fact that most of our military is currently stationed overseas, and that they would be reluctant to kill American citizens even if ordered. Suddenly, if American citizens were properly armed as was the intention of the Framers, things don't look so laughable anymore...

But it's a moot point. The practicality of such action is not reason to remove guns. There is very little likelihood that soldiers will ever be quartered in our homes against our will... That doesn't mean the 3rd Amendment deserves to be summarily dismantled, ostensibly to serve some public safety "good".

The 2nd Amendment is a LAW. To overcome a law you need a legal argument. Saying that the original thought behind the Amendment is technologically impractical (in what is purely your opinion) is not a legal argument.

Two, the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment prefaced with a qualifying statement that defines a condition under which the right exists. And that condition is that a well-regulated militia, manned by free, white males of property -- including their own musket and powder -- is necessary for the security of our free state.

1) It is not a condition under which the right exists, and you have no basis whatsoever to make that statement. It is a reason for the Amendment. It would be akin to a clause in the First Amendment saying, "Because it is important to have a press that reports things objectively, ..."
2) You're still not arguing against the Amendment. It says what it says. If you think guns are bad, the way to get rid of them is by repealing the second Amendment.

With Bush's Supreme Court,... yep. Although I held out a vague hope that when Roberts and Alito said they wouldn't be activist judges and would respect existing legal precedents, they weren't lying out their asses. Alas, it seems they were.

Yup, just like those Brown v. Board judges were being so activist... damn them for not following the Plessy v. Fergusson precedent!!!

Hint: If a precedent is wrong, it is not worth following.

Really? You mean like what?... that the U.S. will go from being the nation with the highest percentage of guns per household as well as among the most violent... well, I guess we can't top being the top.

Proof. Thanks.

So if we already have the most guns per household than any other civilized nation, and also have the most violent gun crime than most civilized nations, how exactly did you image allowing even MORE guns was going to improve that? The logic escapes me.

It's very simple, really... criminals (who want to commit violence) like easy targets. Well-armed people are not easy targets.

I'm not surprised the logic escapes you... It escapes many people, at least those without sophisticated knowledge of the criminal justice system. Speaking of which, people who DO have sophisticated knowledge, like law enforcement officers, tend to oppose gun control.

[shawmutt]

Sonart, Tido answered your questions well, but I'll address the second:

Then what exactly is it about the decision that you think will create the beneficial "changes this hopefully will bring nationwide."?

I was referring to other areas in the country, such as Chicago, with equally arbitrary and useless gun bans.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Tivodan The security against tyranny. Tyranny from the government. Which is why the right is so important on an individual level.

Sure, Tivo, that was the idea back then, but it's quaint nonsense today. The Civil War proved that. Can you name one single armed uprising against the U.S. government that has worked? Heck, President George Washington himself led troops to put down the first armed rebellion against the new U.S. government, when Congress enacted a tax on poor, small whiskey distillers - the Whiskey Rebellion - in order to demonstrate the power of the new Federal government and to pay off the debt from the Revolutionary War.

Today, against the most powerful standing army, navy and air force in the world, this idea that armed citizens are our first line of defense against tyranny is just a libertarians sophomoric wet dream.

Besides, it wasn't individual armed citizens that were seen as that defense against tyranny... it was the militias themselves, the trained, free volunteer citizens that would stand up to the government and it's quaint little 'Federal Army'.

Quote by: Tivodan And what you're saying only strengthens my point that they wanted individuals to hold the weapons.

Absolutely they did, since, at the time, the most advanced militaries in the world were still comprised of as many men as possible bearing single shot muskets that could be lined up shoulder to shoulder, supported by a few field pieces and flanked by cavalry. Therefore, the defense of our nation depended on as many citizen volunteers as possible keeping and bearing single shot muskets who could be lined up shoulder to shoulder.

Once again, a quaint and completely obsolete idea today, but you're right... it's exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written.

Quote by: Tivodan There are almost 120 million persons fit for military service in the United States. If the situation merely became so bad that 1 in 10 would take up arms against the government, they would outnumber the combined US military force by 12 to 1.

The Civil War cost 600,000 lives by 1865, out of a population of 30 million. Given todays population and the massive power of modern weapons, you're talking about around 6 million dead... MINIMUM!!!

A far, FAR better solution is the Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi model... mass civil disobedience.

Once again, your dreamy ideology is making a wishful fantasy out of what would be a monumental blood bath. The same idiotic mistake Boy George made, believing that military solutions are always the way to go.

Quote by: Tivodan But it's a moot point. The practicality of such action is not reason to remove guns. There is very little likelihood that soldiers will ever be quartered in our homes against our will... That doesn't mean the 3rd Amendment deserves to be summarily dismantled, ostensibly to serve some public safety "good".

Except that the bleak reality is that the United States, supposedly the beacon of civilization, remains near the top of every measure of murder and gun violence in the world.

How do you possibly see that as an acceptable trade for an obsolete ideal that, by your own implication, can't serve it's intended purpose? Our right against the harboring of troops is not costing us 30,000 lives a year and 10 times that many maimed and injured.

Quote by: Tivodan The 2nd Amendment is a LAW. To overcome a law you need a legal argument.

For the last 70 years, the law has been defined by the legal argument presented in 1939 by the SCOTUS, and affirmed and expanded on by 8 of the 11 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal... thank you very much.

So now we have a NEW law. Thank you George Bush for yet another disastrous blessing bestowed on a country you've damn near destroyed. Hopefully, with Bush gone, we can eventually get a new court balance, reverse this Scalia nonsense and return the reading of the amendment to what it was, and AS IT WAS WRITTEN!

Quote by: Tivodan Hint: If a precedent is wrong, it is not worth following.

So keeping this country the highest in percentage of households owning guns in the world and nearly the highest rates of gun murder and violence in the world is your idea of the way things oughta be?

I call that the definition of a sick society.

Quote by: Tivodan Proof. Thanks.

Beg your pardon??? Proof of what? Proof that being the most gun happy has made us the most murderous? Oh goody!

Quote by: Tivodan It's very simple, really... criminals (who want to commit violence) like easy targets. Well-armed people are not easy targets.

Let's go really, REALLY slowly here, Tivo.

The U.S. already has the highest percentage of households with guns than any nation that keeps such records.

That means we have more armed citizens, per capita, than anyone else.

With me so far???

So... by YOUR logic -- "Well-armed people are not easy targets" -- we, being more well armed than anyone else in the world, should have among the LOWEST rates of gun violence in the world. Correct?!?

And yet, the exact OPPOSITE is true. We have among the HIGHEST rates of gun violence in the world. Yet despite this fact, this reality that's staring you right in the face, you insist on believing the wishful thinking that even MORE guns will somehow change this.

Yes, I'm sure that flooding the country with even more guns will increase the opportunities for self defense. Unfortunately, it will increase the opportunities for criminals, the angry, the crazy and the misguided to abuse guns EVEN MORE.

Quote by: Tivodan Speaking of which, people who DO have sophisticated knowledge, like law enforcement officers, tend to oppose gun control.

Apparently not ALL law enforcement officers.

"The FOP supports legislation that helps law enforcement and labor unions including proposals to increase gun control measures..." Fraternal Order of Police.

Tag... your turn.

Quote by: shawmutt I was referring to other areas in the country, such as Chicago, with equally arbitrary and useless gun bans.

And ONE... MORE... TIME.

America ALREADY HAS more guns per household than any developed country on earth, yet remains among the most murderous and violent on earth. How do you imagine that pouring even more guns onto the streets is going the improve things? And please don't say it will allow us to better defend ourselves... if we already have the MOST guns per household of any nation, therefore we should already be amply able to defend ourselves. Yet the exact opposite is true... we continue to murder and injure each other with guns in far greater numbers than societies with fewer guns and more gun control.

.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Sonart . Sure, Tivo, that was the idea back then, but it's quaint nonsense today.

Which does not invalidate the law.

As I stated, the 3rd Amendment is quaint nonsense. But there it is.

The law is the law.

Today, against the most powerful standing army, navy and air force in the world, this idea that armed citizens are our first line of defense against tyranny is just a libertarians sophomoric wet dream.

Why? Who says that tyranny only comes from a full-on attack? Tyranny can be small and slow, it can be individual towns and police forces, or it can be the federal government.

Absolutely they did, since, at the time, the most advanced militaries in the world were still comprised of as many men as possible bearing single shot muskets that could be lined up shoulder to shoulder, supported by a few field pieces and flanked by cavalry. Therefore, the defense of our nation depended on as many citizen volunteers as possible keeping and bearing single shot muskets who could be lined up shoulder to shoulder. Once again, a quaint and completely obsolete idea today, but you're right... it's exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written.

19 towel-heads with penknives and box cutters fundamentally altered our way of life, and you keep insisting that the ability to line up an army on a battlefield shoulder to shoulder is necessary to get the government to pay attention or alter its course...

Remind me again who's notion is quaint and obsolete?

The Civil War cost 600,000 lives by 1865, out of a population of 30 million. Given todays population and the massive power of modern weapons, you're talking about around 6 million dead... MINIMUM!!!

More than 20 million people died fighting in World War II. Are you saying that merely because the death toll could be high, it would not be a worthy cause?

And you ignored what I said about troops. You talk about "modern" military, but do you really think the "modern" military would, when faced with the choice of killing Americans to support tyranny or going home, would choose the former?

I think the key to such a situation would be a small amount of resistance, simply enough to make our troops realize they couldn't get through it without hurting someone. Once they realized that, they would refuse to fight.

A far, FAR better solution is the Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi model... mass civil disobedience.

Perhaps in certain situations. Not in others.

Except that the bleak reality is that the United States, supposedly the beacon of civilization, remains near the top of every measure of murder and gun violence in the world.

And yet you somehow think that merely passing a law making firearms illegal will suddenly cause gun violence to cease... completely ignoring that, overwhelmingly, gun violence is committed with illegal guns.

I'm sorry, but who is having the wet dream?

How do you possibly see that as an acceptable trade for an obsolete ideal that, by your own implication, can't serve it's intended purpose? Our right against the harboring of troops is not costing us 30,000 lives a year and 10 times that many maimed and injured.

1) It can serve its intended purpose and is serving it right now.
2) It's not "costing" us anything. Correlation not causation fallacy.

For the last 70 years, the law has been defined by the legal argument presented in 1939 by the SCOTUS, and affirmed and expanded on by 8 of the 11 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal... thank you very much.

And Plessy v. Ferguson was "the law" for almost the same period of time. So we should have stuck with "separate but equal"? Earlier court decisions are always right?

Furthermore, the plain text of the Amendment has, as you admitted above, granted Americans the right to own firearms (purpose for the right notwithstanding).

Plain text > SCOTUS. You lose.

So now we have a NEW law. Thank you George Bush for yet another disastrous blessing bestowed on a country you've damn near destroyed. Hopefully, with Bush gone, we can eventually get a new court balance, reverse this Scalia nonsense and return the reading of the amendment to what it was, and AS IT WAS WRITTEN!

As it was written, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, which would mean the tossing of every law dealing with firearms. I don't think you want that, and, as written in the decision, neither does the Court.

Do try to be a bit less hyper in your distaste for Bush... It really makes you look like your political bias is clouding your ability to analyze the black letter law.

So keeping this country the highest in percentage of households owning guns in the world and nearly the highest rates of gun murder and violence in the world is your idea of the way things oughta be? I call that the definition of a sick society.

Any proof of any of those things? This is the second time I've asked.

Let's go really, REALLY slowly here, Tivo. The U.S. already has the highest percentage of households with guns than any nation that keeps such records. That means we have more armed citizens, per capita, than anyone else. With me so far??? So... by YOUR logic -- "Well-armed people are not easy targets" -- we, being more well armed than anyone else in the world, should have among the LOWEST rates of gun violence in the world. Correct?!? And yet, the exact OPPOSITE is true. We have among the HIGHEST rates of gun violence in the world. Yet despite this fact, this reality that's staring you right in the face, you insist on believing the wishful thinking that even MORE guns will somehow change this.

LOL @ nonsensical logic...

Ok, let's go really, REALLY, REALLY, slowly:

CORRELATION

DOES

NOT

IMPLY

CAUSATION.

THERE

ARE

MYRIAD

FACTORS

THAT

LEAD

TO

CRIME

AND

GUNS

ARE

BUT

ONE

TINY

PART

OF

THEM.

How was that? I mean, I'm basing my argument regarding gun violence on, you know, my actual education, extensive as it is, in criminal justice and the law, and you're basing yours, apparently, on a blog you read on moveon.org... But I'm trying to make it, you know, clear.

Yes, I'm sure that flooding the country with even more guns will increase the opportunities for self defense. Unfortunately, it will increase the opportunities for criminals, the angry, the crazy and the misguided to abuse guns EVEN MORE.

How? By the same logic, making drugs illegal has meant that we don't have any drug use in America... and making, say, pot, legal, would FLOOD the country with pot and we'd all be high all the time... where's the "laughing" smiley face when I need it?

And ONE... MORE... TIME. America ALREADY HAS more guns per household than any developed country on earth, yet remains among the most murderous and violent on earth. How do you imagine that pouring even more guns onto the streets is going the improve things? And please don't say it will allow us to better defend ourselves... if we already have the MOST guns per household of any nation, therefore we should already be amply able to defend ourselves. Yet the exact opposite is true... we continue to murder and injure each other with guns in far greater numbers than societies with fewer guns and more gun control. .

Your syllogism is fallacious, since you have not shown that allowing law-abiding persons to legally buy guns will result in "pouring" more guns onto the streets. Until you prove that conclusively, there is no point in paying attention to the rest of your nonsense.

[shawmutt]

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.

Just repeating that in case it was missed

[lsbskins1]

Correlation does IMPLY causation. It does not prove causation but it does imply it. And you will NEVER find two countries with exactly the the same statistical base. It's like saying because George smoked Marlboros and got lung cancer, showing that Sam smoked Winston's and got lung cancer makes the statistical comparison invalid. I love how you guys grab hold of "logical fallacy" arguments and just run with them as if bringing up the term invalidates the contention. Let me go slow.

If
I
find
that
there
is
a
statistical
correlation,
that
IS
evidence
FOR
causation.
If
I
further
study
and
retain
statistical
correlation
when
systematically
adjusting
variables
then
that
correlation
becomes
VERY
strong
evidence
for
causation.

If you want to win this argument, you have to show the mistake in the logic. Sota like this. If I say children who hear Mozart get better grades, therefore listening to Mozart makes you smarter, you then say "But you forgot to adjust for the "resource variable". Mozart is most often played in more affluent homes and it is actually this greater access to resources that leads to the Mozart correlation. If you study lower income homes and compare those children, you lose the statistical correlation between test scores and Mozart. This leads us to believe the more important correlation is between availability of assets and higher test scores."

See how that works? Again, correlation does imply causation and the more systematic and exacting the correlation, the greater is the chance that that correlated "thing" is the "cause".

So, now, the task is to find the "fault" in Sonart's correlation. Show the mistake or accept the evidence, thank you.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm not sure how the existence of relatively draconian handgun laws in D.C. at the same time when something like 80% of murders are still committed with guns supports your correlation, but whatever.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I'm not sure how the existence of relatively draconian handgun laws in D.C. at the same time when something like 80% of murders are still committed with guns supports your correlation, but whatever.

I'm not sure how your assertion that the high gun murder rate proves that the gun law is ineffective is valid when it ignores the fact that there is no "border patrol" that keeps DC citizens from crossing into Virginia and getting those relatively easily available weapons, but whatever.

[Gods_Mercenary]

And what is to stop the same from happening even if a nation wide ban is put in place? we can't stop busloads of Mexicans from coming over, or shipments of drugs, why would we be able to stop weapons? A change of culture is in order first to reduce demand.