Handgun ban shotdown

[Jenksismyhero]

"guns don't kill people, people kill people."

 

 

kudos to SCOTUS for getting at least one opinion right this week.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Jenksismybitch

[lostfan]

"guns don't kill people, people kill people."

 

 

kudos to SCOTUS for getting at least one opinion right this week.

They are 1-3, that's a .333 average, actually that's pretty good.

[knightni]

Guns help people kill people more successfully.

[Jenksismyhero]

Guns help people kill people more successfully.

 

so do cars. so does alcohol. so does nearly everything in life. should we ban every material object and force people to use their hands?

[HuskyCaucasian]

I can promise you that people will be tracking gun violence in DC for the next few years.

I'd be curious to see the numbers.

[knightni]

so do cars. so does alcohol. so does nearly everything in life. should we ban every material object and force people to use their hands?

Guns were made for the sole purpose of killing people/animals/The Loch Ness Monster/The Wolfman/Aliens/IRS agent/dern ferners/yankees.

 

Cars and alcohol aren't.

[mr_genius]

I can promise you that people will be tracking gun violence in DC for the next few years.

I'd be curious to see the numbers.

 

thing is, the pro-gun groups can easily point out that the areas of the country with the strictest gun laws also have the most gun violence. it seems to be more of a problem of street gangs and drug wars rather than guns being legal.

[StrangeSox]

I can promise you that people will be tracking gun violence in DC for the next few years.

I'd be curious to see the numbers.

 

Why not just look at Chicago's numbers? Clearly, gun bans don't stop gun violence.

 

King Daley's nonsensical rant is hilarious.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1026348...n062608.article

 

An “outraged” Mayor Daley this morning denounced a U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Washington D.C.’s handgun ban as a “frightening decision” and a “return to the days of the Wild West.”

 

Daley predicted that Chicago’s 1982 handgun freeze would be next in the crosshairs of the powerful gun lobby and that gun violence will surge if they’e successful.

 

The mayor said he would vigorously defend Chicago’s ordinance, in spite of what he called the dangerous precedent set by the nation’s highest court.

 

“This is a very frightening decision for America. …Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society? If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then, why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle in the streets,” Daley told reporters at Navy Pier.

 

“I have no problems with those hunting, gun collectors….But, how do you get a gun into your house? Does it fly in by a stork? You purchase a gun. You carry the gun in a car. You come to your home. And we’ve shown time and time again how many children have been killed in their homes by guns. Parents are away, they get the guns….The child takes the gun, runs out in the street, has an argument, comes back and shoots somebody.”

 

At a time when Chicago’s homicide rate is rising by nearly 13 percent and children are being gunned down on city streets, Daley said the Supreme Court has “changed the rules” in a way that will make it far more difficult to protect law-abiding citizens.

 

“The Supreme Court and Congress have no obligation to keep our country safe. It falls on the backs of mayors and local officials. That’s who say, ‘I want my street, my parks, my school, my church, mosque and synagogues — I want everything to be safe.’…They’re changing the rules….Why should we as a city not be able to protect ourselves from those who want guns in our society?” the mayor said.

 

Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis today said that 75 percent of Chicago’s murders involve firearms. So far this year, Chicago Police have responded to 15,000 “man with a gun” calls and 27,000 calls of “shots fired.”

 

“Today’s recent decision by the Supreme Court will have to be looked at by a lot of the lawyers to see how it truly will impact upon law enforcement,” Weis said at police headquarters. “However, if the result of this ruling are that more guns come on the street, it’s going to make it more challenging for law enforcement.”

 

Daley noted that the U.S. Supreme Court building and Congress are in a security bubble with armed guards everywhere and metal detectors galore.

 

“Those who are rich and those who are in power always feel safe. Those who do not have the power do not feel safe. And that’s what they’re saying,” Daley said.

 

“You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So, they’re setting themselves aside. They’re saying to the rest of America that the answer to all of the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. I just don’t understand how they came to this thinking. I’m very, very disappointed.”

 

Chicago’s ban on new handguns-and a companion requirement that all existing guns be re-registered every year-was pushed through the City Council in 1982 in the wake of the assassination attempts on former President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II and the death of two police officers.

 

The number of registered guns has steadily plummeted ever since.

 

Most gun owners have apparently decided that it’s too much trouble to re-register their weapons. And tens of thousands of additional weapons have been purchased or inherited since the freeze took effect and brought into Chicago illegally.

 

For years, aldermen have called the handgun freeze a “charade” and likened it to Prohibition.

 

Earlier this month, the City Council finally got around to acting on that belief.

 

They agreed to re-open gun registration in Chicago — but not in the narrow manner proposed by Ald. Richard Mell (33rd).

 

A former hunter, Mell had proposed a one-month amnesty after he forgot to re-register his arsenal of shotguns, rifles and pistols as required every year by the ordinance he helped to pass.

 

During the month-long window, gun owners who attempted to re-register their guns between May 1, 2007 and April 1, 2008 only to be rejected on grounds the registrations had lapsed would have been allowed to re-register without penalty.

 

The ordinance ultimately approved by the Council quadrupled the amnesty period. And it applied to everybody who “possesses a firearm that was at one time validly registered to that person in the city of Chicago.”

[lostfan]

"At a time when Chicago’s homicide rate is rising by nearly 13 percent and children are being gunned down on city streets, Daley said the Supreme Court has “changed the rules” in a way that will make it far more difficult to protect law-abiding citizens."

 

This statement is dripping with irony.

[bmags]

Let's not be irrational though and act like the only factor in gun violence is gun bans or no gun bans.

[santo=dorf]

If I wanted to I could murder someone with a steak knife.

Steak knives weren't designed to kill.

[knightni]

Steak knives weren't designed to kill.

 

They were designed to carve up a dead body though,...of an animal.

[EvilMonkey]

They were designed to carve up a dead body though,...of an animal.

Usually a tasty one.

[kapkomet]

Usually a tasty one.

moooooooo-yah.

[lostfan]

Steak knives weren't designed to kill.

Not the point.

 

edit: and even if it was, it's irrelevant, because it's just as effective if I wanted it to be.

Edited June 27, 2008 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

I think there are some fairly interesting legal aspects to this decision.

 

First and most notably, if I'm understanding the readings right, this is basically the first decision in the Court's history where it has affirmed an individual right to bear arms without any attachment to the "Militia" concept. This is certainly a fascinating new bit of law, and it's also probably fascinating that it's a new bit of law essentially created by the 5 member majority. If I were one of the folks who thought Judicial activism was a bad thing, I might consider noting that, because the court actually did create law yesterday, but since I'm not, I'll just note that it's pretty fascinating, and if this decision and its reasoning isn't overturned by a future court, then it's really a fundamental change in how we should view the writing of gun laws in the future.

 

Secondly, in terms of the Daley et al. stuff, I believe Scalia's statment said something along the lines of this just being the beginning of the Court's work on gun laws, and he's correct, there will be several more cases hitting this issue over probably the next 25 or more years. Originally, the Court seems to have interpreted that the Bill of Rights only really applied to the national government, and that the States could impinge upon people's free speech, gun, and other rights. However, after the Civil War, the court took the 14th amendment to have the side meaning of applying the Bill of Rights to state governments as well as the national one, and one by one the Court has done so (hence the local and state level establishment clause cases in recent decades, etc.). The 2nd amendment however has not yet joined its other amendments in being applied thusly, and there's probably an argument to be made as to why it should be treated differently and the state and local governments should be allowed to legislate control over firearms. Because the District is run by the Feds, this decision was about the Federal government and its abilities, so that's the next clear dividing line that gets drawn.

 

Just as a matter of public safety though, the one thing I find disappointing in this decision is that the court also ruled that trigger-lock requirements were unconstitutional. That comes out as a part of Scalia's new law, that there is an individual right to gun ownership outside of militia and solely for the purpose of self-defense, and on that clause I'll note that I'm particularly unhappy.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I think there are some fairly interesting legal aspects to this decision.

 

First and most notably, if I'm understanding the readings right, this is basically the first decision in the Court's history where it has affirmed an individual right to bear arms without any attachment to the "Militia" concept. This is certainly a fascinating new bit of law, and it's also probably fascinating that it's a new bit of law essentially created by the 5 member majority. If I were one of the folks who thought Judicial activism was a bad thing, I might consider noting that, because the court actually did create law yesterday, but since I'm not, I'll just note that it's pretty fascinating, and if this decision and its reasoning isn't overturned by a future court, then it's really a fundamental change in how we should view the writing of gun laws in the future.

 

"Judicial Activism" = the most overused phrase in the english dictionary.

 

Roe v Wade was judicial activism, Brown v Board was judicial activism. It's the Courts first interpretation squarely on the right to bear arms ever, so of course it's going to be creating something new. There was nothing to base their decision on but the actual words of the Constitution.

 

Totally agree though, this is a fascinating decision. This will be up there with Roe and Brown as hallmark decisions that are going to be tested over and over again.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Jenksismybitch

[lostfan]

I really hate the term "judicial activism" because probably 80% of the time you hear it used, all it means is "I hated the judge's decision, I'm right and he's wrong therefore he is making the law up" and it has nothing to do with the actual definition. What it's supposed to mean is a judge exceeding his authority and effectively creating a new law or changing the meaning of an old one. It doesn't happen that way nearly as often as people like to pretend it does.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This was pretty humorous:

Following the Supreme Court's landmark decision on gun rights, the cable news networks had one crucial task: rounding up the best gun-totin', pistol-packin', bullet-blastin' stock footage they could find to spice up their otherwise boring legal voiceovers.

 

Did they succeed? Judge for yourself with our roundup of the best gun b-roll used by the networks during the last news cycle.

[BigSqwert]

LMAO!!

[mr_genius]

haha

[Balta1701]

I really hate the term "judicial activism" because probably 80% of the time you hear it used, all it means is "I hated the judge's decision, I'm right and he's wrong therefore he is making the law up" and it has nothing to do with the actual definition. What it's supposed to mean is a judge exceeding his authority and effectively creating a new law or changing the meaning of an old one. It doesn't happen that way nearly as often as people like to pretend it does.

I totally agree that you're right on the usage of the phrace "Judicial Activism". The thing I find interesting is that by overturning precedent and creating a new right, I think this ruling is just about as "Activist" as you could get using any definition other than "left-leaning". I don't really care that it is, because I view the constitution as a living document that doesn't have static meanings (That's part of its strength) and thus, as society changes, the courts should allow their interpretations of it to change also. But if you're going to define judicial activism as a problem, then here's a classic example of it.

[lostfan]

I totally agree that you're right on the usage of the phrace "Judicial Activism". The thing I find interesting is that by overturning precedent and creating a new right, I think this ruling is just about as "Activist" as you could get using any definition other than "left-leaning". I don't really care that it is, because I view the constitution as a living document that doesn't have static meanings (That's part of its strength) and thus, as society changes, the courts should allow their interpretations of it to change also. But if you're going to define judicial activism as a problem, then here's a classic example of it.

I thought that here was more of an example of interpreting/reinforcing the Constitution where it hadn't been before which is basically their job, just they're not always going to agree. As far as judicial activism I think the eminent domain from a couple years ago was a better example since the majority basically changed the meaning of a word so they could change the definition of the law entirely, and interpret it however they wanted, seemingly arbitrarily.

[bmags]

I thought that here was more of an example of interpreting/reinforcing the Constitution where it hadn't been before which is basically their job, just they're not always going to agree. As far as judicial activism I think the eminent domain from a couple years ago was a better example since the majority basically changed the meaning of a word so they could change the definition of the law entirely, and interpret it however they wanted, seemingly arbitrarily.

 

I disagree, this isn't that different than interpreting/reinforcing the consitution by saying the 4th amendment and such ensures a right to privacy.

[lostfan]

I disagree, this isn't that different than interpreting/reinforcing the consitution by saying the 4th amendment and such ensures a right to privacy.

I don't understand, it doesn't sound like you're actually disagreeing with me.