PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide


petegz28
06-28-2010, 08:44 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices signaled, however, that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

Chiefshrink
06-28-2010, 08:45 AM
Damn close vote 5-4 and why these Kagan hearings are so important.

boogblaster
06-28-2010, 08:48 AM
I'd like my gun-rights back ...

talastan
06-28-2010, 09:02 AM
Good decision! :clap:

HonestChieffan
06-28-2010, 09:05 AM
Wonder how many who post here have a Concealed Carry Permit. I read its approaching 15% nationwide.

talastan
06-28-2010, 09:13 AM
Wonder how many who post here have a Concealed Carry Permit. I read its approaching 15% nationwide.

I haven't gotten my permit.......yet. I plan on getting it this year as a Christmas gift as well as I'm looking at a handgun to go with it. Any suggestions? :)

HonestChieffan
06-28-2010, 09:21 AM
I haven't gotten my permit.......yet. I plan on getting it this year as a Christmas gift as well as I'm looking at a handgun to go with it. Any suggestions? :)


I have my CCW. Pistols are like buying clothes. Everyone has different tastes and every gun has a different purpose. I have a 9mm Beretta 92FS and like to shoot it but too bulky for CC. I also have a Smith 38 spcl 5 shot revolver that is small enough to carry. Im looking at a Glock in the smaller version. I have a 45 SIG thats a great gun but again bulky.

Id suggest a Glock, Sig, Beretta as a target and all around fun gun to shoot and use recreationally in a 40 or 9mm. And just decide if you really want to carry and then look for a gun that fits your specific needs.

alnorth
06-28-2010, 09:47 AM
Damn close vote 5-4 and why these Kagan hearings are so important.

more like why presidential elections are important. The Kagan hearings are irrelevant, she's an ultra-liberal replacing another ultra-liberal.

Even if a moderate or conservative was being replaced, Obama would simply nominate someone who did a much better job of concealing their philosophy. You cant stop a liberal president from getting liberal judges confirmed, and you cant stop a conservative president from getting conservative judges confirmed. When an election is lost, this is the consequence. Hopefully the 5 on the other side eat right and wear their seatbelts until after the next election or two.

Radar Chief
06-28-2010, 09:53 AM
I haven't gotten my permit.......yet. I plan on getting it this year as a Christmas gift as well as I'm looking at a handgun to go with it. Any suggestions? :)

;)
My only handgun is a Colt 1991A1 .45ACP.
Love the caliber for personal protection but the Colt full sized frame is a little big for CCW.
I’ve looked at a Taurus model 617 that is a 7 shot revolver in .357 Mag or .40 Smith caliber but the used market is pretty slim, anyone with a handgun is holding on to them, and I don’t necessarily have the funds for another new gun I hope I never have to use.

banyon
06-28-2010, 10:15 AM
I have no problem with this decision, presuming that it does not turn into a later basis for striking down automatic weapons regulation, the ability of felons to posess weapons, etc.

ClevelandBronco
06-28-2010, 10:26 AM
I have no problem with this decision, presuming that it does not turn into a later basis for striking down automatic weapons regulation, the ability of felons to posess weapons, etc.

I guess it's possible that a legislature could make it legal for felons to possess weapons, but it's pretty darned unlikely, IMO. There's just no upside that I can see. Most politicians aren't going to want to be perceived as pandering to the felon population. I understand your caution regarding automatic weapons.

banyon
06-28-2010, 10:30 AM
I guess it's possible that a legislature could make it legal for felons to possess weapons, but it's pretty darned unlikely, IMO. There's just no upside that I can see. Most politicians aren't going to want to be perceived as pandering to the felon population. I understand your caution regarding automatic weapons.

I wasn't thinking of a legislature, I was thinking about a court striking down legislative restrictions on such ownership.

ClevelandBronco
06-28-2010, 10:34 AM
I wasn't thinking of a legislature, I was thinking about a court striking down legislative restrictions on such ownership.

My bad. I didn't think of that. Yes, that is a valid concern then.

alnorth
06-28-2010, 10:40 AM
I wasn't thinking of a legislature, I was thinking about a court striking down legislative restrictions on such ownership.

Given that the majority has bent over backwards to say several times in their opinions that this does not remove reasonable gun restrictions, I don't think this is a big concern at all. If states can not ban felons from having automatic weapons, then you really have no meaningful regulation. In that case, they would have just come out and said the right was absolute with no exceptions.

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2010, 11:16 AM
Awesome. We have way too many resrtictive gun laws in this country.

talastan
06-28-2010, 11:21 AM
But,but,but,but,but,but,but,but.....Mayor Daly says we'll turn into the wild west if people have more access to guns!! /Lefttard.

Here is a good article by Stossel on the subject.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/28/supremes-say-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-to-guns/

June 28, 2010 10:48 AM UTC by John Stossel

Supremes Say “Yes” To Guns
The Supreme Court just ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Justice Alito wrote in the majority opinion and concluded:

“The 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment right… to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to keep and bear arms, but that case only applied to DC, and other federal property. This new case, McDonald vs. Chicago, challenged all gun bans. On my FBN show last week (video here) I interviewed Otis McDonald, the plaintiff suing for his right to own a gun in Chicago, and his attorney Alan Gura.

“Common sense tells me that we should be able to defend ourselves,” Gura told me. “Government cannot take away your right to defend yourself with the tool… most commonly used for that purpose.”

But Chicago's Mayor Daley said that if his gun ban is struck down:

"Access to guns will destroy America faster than any other war. Take Europe. Take Japan and other countries that don't have access to guns. They don't have the amount of killings."

They don’t. But they also have different cultures. Just look at Switzerland, where all men are expected to keep a machine gun at home -- they have a far lower murder rate than the United States.

Comparisons across countries aren't very helpful, because there are many reasons why crime rates differ. It's more important to look at what happens before and after bans.

Here's what happened after DC passed its handgun ban:

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/files/2010/06/DC1.jpg

Ratio of DC's murder rate to the murder rate in the other 48 largest cities. Source: More Guns, Less Crime (3rd Edition, 2010)
And after it was repealed:

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/files/2010/06/DC21.jpg



More Guns, Less Crime (3rd Edition, 2010)
If experience is any guide, Chicago’s crime rate will now go down – not up.


Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/28/supremes-say-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-to-guns/#ixzz0sAYbaFt8

HonestChieffan
06-28-2010, 11:47 AM
My bad. I didn't think of that. Yes, that is a valid concern then.

Why is this a concern? No one is advocating that felons get guns and the restrictions on full autos has been around for years.

banyon
06-28-2010, 11:59 AM
Given that the majority has bent over backwards to say several times in their opinions that this does not remove reasonable gun restrictions, I don't think this is a big concern at all. If states can not ban felons from having automatic weapons, then you really have no meaningful regulation. In that case, they would have just come out and said the right was absolute with no exceptions.

Scalia has said that in his concurrence in Heller, but Alito already has opinions on the books where he sought to strike down automatic weapons bans (in Rybar by virtue of his interpretation of the interstate commerce clause).

banyon
06-28-2010, 12:01 PM
But,but,but,but,but,but,but,but.....Mayor Daly says we'll turn into the wild west if people have more access to guns!! /Lefttard.

Here is a good article by Stossel on the subject.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/28/supremes-say-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-to-guns/

June 28, 2010 10:48 AM UTC by John Stossel

Supremes Say “Yes” To Guns
The Supreme Court just ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Justice Alito wrote in the majority opinion and concluded:

“The 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment right… to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to keep and bear arms, but that case only applied to DC, and other federal property. This new case, McDonald vs. Chicago, challenged all gun bans. On my FBN show last week (video here) I interviewed Otis McDonald, the plaintiff suing for his right to own a gun in Chicago, and his attorney Alan Gura.

“Common sense tells me that we should be able to defend ourselves,” Gura told me. “Government cannot take away your right to defend yourself with the tool… most commonly used for that purpose.”

But Chicago's Mayor Daley said that if his gun ban is struck down:

"Access to guns will destroy America faster than any other war. Take Europe. Take Japan and other countries that don't have access to guns. They don't have the amount of killings."

They don’t. But they also have different cultures. Just look at Switzerland, where all men are expected to keep a machine gun at home -- they have a far lower murder rate than the United States.

Comparisons across countries aren't very helpful, because there are many reasons why crime rates differ. It's more important to look at what happens before and after bans.

Here's what happened after DC passed its handgun ban:

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/files/2010/06/DC1.jpg

Ratio of DC's murder rate to the murder rate in the other 48 largest cities. Source: More Guns, Less Crime (3rd Edition, 2010)
And after it was repealed:

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/files/2010/06/DC21.jpg



More Guns, Less Crime (3rd Edition, 2010)
If experience is any guide, Chicago’s crime rate will now go down – not up.


Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/28/supremes-say-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-to-guns/#ixzz0sAYbaFt8


Why is there a 20 year gap between the charts? That always causes me to raise a skeptical eyebrow.

Also, Heller was decided in June, so shouldn't the second chart's dip start halfway between 08 and 09, and not at the beginning of 09? *edit* also the 2nd chart for some reason applies different criteria, limiting it to the "first 6 months of the year", where the first is the overall rate.

banyon
06-28-2010, 12:10 PM
DC homicides (total)

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
143 186 181 169 196 198 248 262 232 242

1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990
241 260 301 397 361 399 454 443 479 472


http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,561242,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C.asp

this data makes clear why they chose the gapped charts.

By leaving out 1990-2005, they don't show the overall trend has nothing to do with the heller case and that the 08-09 data my be statistically irrelevant when placed in the larger set of data.

HonestChieffan
06-28-2010, 12:24 PM
Correlation is a lousy statistical measurement in any case. Its Monday and didn't rain. Must not rain on Monday ever.

alnorth
06-28-2010, 12:26 PM
Scalia has said that in his concurrence in Heller, but Alito already has opinions on the books where he sought to strike down automatic weapons bans (in Rybar by virtue of his interpretation of the interstate commerce clause).

Well, sure but the supreme court has 9 justices. I presume this country would have seen some pretty enormous change over the last couple decades if Clarence Thomas were the only supreme court justice.

If you play the "Well sure this court wont do that, but what if 4 justices die and are replaced with..." game, you can apply that to everything. You can worry about that when it happens.

alnorth
06-28-2010, 12:31 PM
DC homicides (total)

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
143 186 181 169 196 198 248 262 232 242

1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990
241 260 301 397 361 399 454 443 479 472


http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,561242,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C.asp

this data makes clear why they chose the gapped charts.

By leaving out 1990-2005, they don't show the overall trend has nothing to do with the heller case and that the 08-09 data my be statistically irrelevant when placed in the larger set of data.

Wow, that is... laughably dishonest of them to say the least. I guess this is part of the reason why I don't watch Fox News at all anymore, they seem to be propaganda machines on the right attempting to out-do the perceived propaganda machines on the left, rather than trying to honestly report news without spin.

Fish
06-28-2010, 01:02 PM
But I thought Obama was going to take all of our guns from us?

I'm glad all the paranoid republicans that were spreading that idea went out and stocked up on arms and ammo, raising the prices and lowering the supply for everyone else. Thanks jerks. Now we have reduced restrictions, but high demand, and high prices.

Make me load my own damn ammo...

HonestChieffan
06-28-2010, 01:05 PM
But I thought Obama was going to take all of our guns from us?

I'm glad all the paranoid republicans that were spreading that idea went out and stocked up on arms and ammo, raising the prices and lowering the supply for everyone else. Thanks jerks. Now we have reduced restrictions, but high demand, and high prices.

Make me load my own damn ammo...

A Dillon Press speeds things up

Chief Henry
06-28-2010, 01:17 PM
4 supreme court justices ruled against this...how sickening !

Brock
06-28-2010, 01:18 PM
But I thought Obama was going to take all of our guns from us?

I'm glad all the paranoid republicans that were spreading that idea went out and stocked up on arms and ammo, raising the prices and lowering the supply for everyone else. Thanks jerks. Now we have reduced restrictions, but high demand, and high prices.

Make me load my own damn ammo...

This is twice in a couple of years that the Second Amendment has been affirmed by a razor thin margin, and you feel good about it?

2bikemike
06-28-2010, 01:22 PM
Wow, that is... laughably dishonest of them to say the least. I guess this is part of the reason why I don't watch Fox News at all anymore, they seem to be propaganda machines on the right attempting to out-do the perceived propaganda machines on the left, rather than trying to honestly report news without spin.


Nothing different than what the Brady campaign or the VPC does. Cherry pick information to get their particular point across.

Of course it's not limited to 2A issues either. Happens all the time with the health care, Immigration, You name it debates.

Taco John
06-28-2010, 01:23 PM
It's dumbfounding to me that there were 4 votes against this. How is it that four people could get on the bench who have absolutely no concept of the constitution?

2bikemike
06-28-2010, 01:26 PM
I haven't gotten my permit.......yet. I plan on getting it this year as a Christmas gift as well as I'm looking at a handgun to go with it. Any suggestions? :)

Kimber Ultra CDP II

Radar Chief
06-28-2010, 01:35 PM
Kimber Ultra CDP II

Very nice, though pricey, piece.

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2010, 01:39 PM
But I thought Obama was going to take all of our guns from us?

I'm glad all the paranoid republicans that were spreading that idea went out and stocked up on arms and ammo, raising the prices and lowering the supply for everyone else. Thanks jerks. Now we have reduced restrictions, but high demand, and high prices.

Make me load my own damn ammo...

Lets see, Osama nominates that fucking cunt Sotomayor who hates guns and this misses by only a single vote with her in there. If anyone is concerned about their constitutional right to bear arms though they're paranoid in your eyes? Wow

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2010, 01:40 PM
It's dumbfounding to me that there were 4 votes against this. How is it that four people could get on the bench who have absolutely no concept of the constitution?

I think we all know where Sotomayor and Osama are on this subject as well as our constitution.

HonestChieffan
06-28-2010, 01:47 PM
Very nice, though pricey, piece.

Will have a Kimber 45 in a raffle in February

Radar Chief
06-28-2010, 01:49 PM
Will have a Kimber 45 in a raffle in February

O really? Let me know when.
I’d buy a ticket for a chance to win a Kimber.

HonestChieffan
06-28-2010, 01:50 PM
O really? Let me know when.
I’d buy one for a chance to win a Kimber.


Ive already got a list so you are on

alnorth
06-28-2010, 01:58 PM
It's dumbfounding to me that there were 4 votes against this. How is it that four people could get on the bench who have absolutely no concept of the constitution?

Well, I don't agree with the argument, but I understand it.

It is basically whether the right should be incorporated to the states under the 14th amendment. One thing people don't understand is that state laws are not automatically a subset of federal laws. In many cases the constitution says that the feds cant restrict right X, but the states can if they feel it is appropriate in their area.

We don't force every word of the constitution onto all the states, for example the states are not forced to indict you for a capital crime. (5th amendment, SCOTUS has repeatedly refused to fully incorporate it to the states, so the states are free to ignore the use of grand juries) They can follow the federal process described in the constitution if they want, but they don't have to because the SCOTUS has ruled that way. Similarly, Illinois was arguing that although the constitution doesn't allow for a federal ban, this 2nd amendment right shouldn't be incorporated to the states because they may have overwhelming public safety issues with the 2nd amendment.

5 justices disagreed, and it came down to just how core this right is. Is it trivial enough (like grand juries in capital cases) to just use it at the federal level (4 justice minority dissent), or is it so core and fundamental that it must be incorporated under the 14th amendment? (5 justice majority opinion)

mlyonsd
06-28-2010, 02:05 PM
When the AZ immigration law makes it to the SC wanna bet how the 4 decented on this case will vote?

I'm guessing all of a sudden State and Local authorities won't have the right to pass laws that are in line with the constitution, let alone step over it.

Chief Henry
06-28-2010, 02:09 PM
When the AZ immigration law makes it to the SC wanna bet how the 4 decented on this case will vote?

I'm guessing all of a sudden State and Local authorities won't have the right to pass laws that are in line with the constitution, let alone step over it.

I'm guessing you will be 100% accurate on this.

Taco John
06-28-2010, 02:14 PM
Well, I don't agree with the argument, but I understand it.

It is basically whether the right should be incorporated to the states under the 14th amendment. One thing people don't understand is that state laws are not automatically a subset of federal laws. In many cases the constitution says that the feds cant restrict right X, but the states can if they feel it is appropriate in their area.

We don't force every word of the constitution onto all the states, for example the states are not forced to indict you for a capital crime. (5th amendment, SCOTUS has repeatedly refused to fully incorporate it to the states, so the states are free to ignore the use of grand juries) They can follow the federal process described in the constitution if they want, but they don't have to because the SCOTUS has ruled that way. Similarly, Illinois was arguing that although the constitution doesn't allow for a federal ban, this 2nd amendment right shouldn't be incorporated to the states because they may have overwhelming public safety issues with the 2nd amendment.

5 justices disagreed, and it came down to just how core this right is. Is it trivial enough (like grand juries in capital cases) to just use it at the federal level (4 justice minority dissent), or is it so core and fundamental that it must be incorporated under the 14th amendment? (5 justice majority opinion)


I don't understand it at all.

What's the point of having a constitution if it's not the law of the land?

alnorth
06-28-2010, 02:18 PM
quick follow-up after some research to my last post re: incorporation of constitutional rights, which I found interesting. There's a few more rights that the states are currently free to ignore.

In the 3rd amendment (freedom from quartering of soldiers): this has been incorporated only in the states under the 2nd circuit of appeals.

(So, I guess in the rest of the states you could be forced to house the national guard, but I imagine that would quickly get shut down by SCOTUS if it actually happened. We have bases now, so not really even a need to fix this loophole)

In the 5th amendment (right to indictment by grand jury): already mentioned earlier, not incorporated at all.

In the 7th amendment (right to jury trial in civil cases): not incorporated at all. You can get a jury if sued civilly in federal court, but you have no constitutional right to a jury trial if someone sues you in state or local courts.

In the 8th amendment (protection against "excessive" bail and "excessive" fines): not incorporated at all. Most states constitutions have some sort of protection for this to a greater or lesser degree, but this 8th amendment right does not apply in state and local courts.

alnorth
06-28-2010, 02:20 PM
I don't understand it at all.

What's the point of having a constitution if it's not the law of the land?

Doesn't make sense to us now given we grew up in this legal environment, but this whole incorporation issue is only fairly recent in US history, after the 14th amendment to force southern states to give former slaves some basic rights. In the 1800's there were apparently a lot of decisions which firmly (at the time, before civil war and later SCOTUS reversals) stated that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government, not to the state government.

banyon
06-28-2010, 02:59 PM
In the 3rd amendment (freedom from quartering of soldiers): this has been incorporated only in the states under the 2nd circuit of appeals.

(So, I guess in the rest of the states you could be forced to house the national guard, but I imagine that would quickly get shut down by SCOTUS if it actually happened. We have bases now, so not really even a need to fix this loophole)

Huh, I didn't realize the 3rd amendment had ever come under court review. You learn something every day I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey

Chiefshrink
06-28-2010, 03:00 PM
more like why presidential elections are important. The Kagan hearings are irrelevant, she's an ultra-liberal replacing another ultra-liberal.

Even if a moderate or conservative was being replaced, Obama would simply nominate someone who did a much better job of concealing their philosophy. You cant stop a liberal president from getting liberal judges confirmed, and you cant stop a conservative president from getting conservative judges confirmed. When an election is lost, this is the consequence. Hopefully the 5 on the other side eat right and wear their seatbelts until after the next election or two.

Totally agree but here is why it is not just a "casual" changing of the guard situation 'this time'.

I see 1 or maybe 2 more retiring during Obama's 1 term and he knows his healthcare and other BS legislation he has forced down our throats will eventually reach the SC for potential repeal.

petegz28
06-28-2010, 03:07 PM
Ironically Justice Sotomayor stated in her nomination hearings that she said the opposite of how she voted today.

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2010, 03:07 PM
Totally agree but here is why it is not just a "casual" changing of the guard situation 'this time'.

I see 1 or maybe 2 more retiring during Obama's 1 term and he knows his healthcare and other BS legislation he has forced down our throats will eventually reach the SC for potential repeal.

You're paranoid.

banyon
06-28-2010, 03:13 PM
Totally agree but here is why it is not just a "casual" changing of the guard situation 'this time'.

I see 1 or maybe 2 more retiring during Obama's 1 term and he knows his healthcare and other BS legislation he has forced down our throats will eventually reach the SC for potential repeal.

Ginsburg will retire. She is in failing health. Obama could replace her with Dennis Kucinich, though and it wouldn't alter anything.

2bikemike
06-28-2010, 09:48 PM
Very nice, though pricey, piece.

Yeah it was a little pricey. However I think you can get the Ultra Carry II for about $850 it too is a pretty nice handgun.

Pitt Gorilla
06-28-2010, 10:08 PM
But,but,but,but,but,but,but,but.....Mayor Daly says we'll turn into the wild west if people have more access to guns!! /Lefttard.

Here is a good article by Stossel on the subject.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/28/supremes-say-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-to-guns/

June 28, 2010 10:48 AM UTC by John Stossel

Supremes Say “Yes” To Guns
The Supreme Court just ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Justice Alito wrote in the majority opinion and concluded:

“The 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment right… to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to keep and bear arms, but that case only applied to DC, and other federal property. This new case, McDonald vs. Chicago, challenged all gun bans. On my FBN show last week (video here) I interviewed Otis McDonald, the plaintiff suing for his right to own a gun in Chicago, and his attorney Alan Gura.

“Common sense tells me that we should be able to defend ourselves,” Gura told me. “Government cannot take away your right to defend yourself with the tool… most commonly used for that purpose.”

But Chicago's Mayor Daley said that if his gun ban is struck down:

"Access to guns will destroy America faster than any other war. Take Europe. Take Japan and other countries that don't have access to guns. They don't have the amount of killings."

They don’t. But they also have different cultures. Just look at Switzerland, where all men are expected to keep a machine gun at home -- they have a far lower murder rate than the United States.

Comparisons across countries aren't very helpful, because there are many reasons why crime rates differ. It's more important to look at what happens before and after bans.

Here's what happened after DC passed its handgun ban:

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/files/2010/06/DC1.jpg

Ratio of DC's murder rate to the murder rate in the other 48 largest cities. Source: More Guns, Less Crime (3rd Edition, 2010)
And after it was repealed:

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/files/2010/06/DC21.jpg



More Guns, Less Crime (3rd Edition, 2010)
If experience is any guide, Chicago’s crime rate will now go down – not up.


Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/28/supremes-say-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-to-guns/#ixzz0sAYbaFt8Really? That's a "good" article?

Lzen
06-29-2010, 07:53 AM
While researching a quote, I found this article. Interesting and pretty fair, IMO. Just something to think about.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

Fish
06-29-2010, 12:02 PM
Lets see, Osama nominates that fucking cunt Sotomayor who hates guns and this misses by only a single vote with her in there. If anyone is concerned about their constitutional right to bear arms though they're paranoid in your eyes? Wow

I believe you were one of those who were claiming our society would be relieved of our weapons by now right?

Do you remember this post:

Two words Joyce Foundation. BO would love nothing more than to take all citizens guns away.

Or this:

So it doesn't matter what a man stands for or how extreme his views are? I guess it only matters what you believe he can get through if elected? WOW, that's all I have to say about that. This country deserves what it's about to get if they elect this guy. It doesn't matter that he has belonged to an extremist church for over 20 years featuring reverend Farakhan. It doesn't matter that he has been on the board the Joyce foundation for over 8 years that has spent over 40 million trying to eliminate civilian ownership of all firearms. It doesn't matter that he wants to make race the basis for government jobs & college education. It doesn't matter that he has extreme socialist big government values or that he blatently lies to us about how he going to raise the money for these programs. It doesn't matter that he wants to negotiate with muslim extremists and treat them like they are actual world leaders, hell he might even be good at it considering he is an extremist himself. You guys are unbelievable. What will it take to bring you out of the trance? I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone.

You claimed over 2 years ago that Obama wants to take all civilian guns away, and that he wants to negotiate with muslim extremists, and may be an extremist himself.

That sounded like paranoia at the time. And here we are with our guns well into BO's term. :shrug:

Iowanian
06-29-2010, 02:12 PM
That sounded like paranoia at the time. And here we are with our guns well into BO's term. :shrug:

In all fairness, the 5 judges who determined this outcome were not Obama nominees, and his only 1 to date voted against the legal gun owners of Chicago.

go bowe
06-29-2010, 02:24 PM
Damn close vote 5-4 and why these Kagan hearings are so important.kagan is replacing a liberal so there will be no change in the court's compostion...

if anything, kagan is likely to be more moderate than the justice she is replacing...

go bowe
06-29-2010, 02:29 PM
more like why presidential elections are important. The Kagan hearings are irrelevant, she's an ultra-liberal replacing another ultra-liberal.

Even if a moderate or conservative was being replaced, Obama would simply nominate someone who did a much better job of concealing their philosophy. You cant stop a liberal president from getting liberal judges confirmed, and you cant stop a conservative president from getting conservative judges confirmed. When an election is lost, this is the consequence. Hopefully the 5 on the other side eat right and wear their seatbelts until after the next election or two.actually kennedy is more of a moderate than a reliable conservative...

and he is 73...

if the president gets reelected and kennedy has to leave the court, a liberal replacement for him changes the court back to a 5-4 majority the other way...

the rest of the conservatives on the court are all young men who won't be replaced for another hundred years, so it all boils down to when kennedy leaves...

go bowe
06-29-2010, 02:43 PM
Lets see, Osama nominates that ****ing **** Sotomayor who hates guns and this misses by only a single vote with her in there. If anyone is concerned about their constitutional right to bear arms though they're paranoid in your eyes? Wowsotomayor replaced a very liberal souter...

no change in the court's compostion...

same as before she became a supreme, 5-4 for the conservatives...

expect more of these sensible decisions coming down the pike...

roberts scalia and alito are brilliant jurists and thomas is a reliable vote...

kennedy is the swing guy, and he is *edit* actually conservative on almost all issues *edit*...

5-4 for quite awhile, probably...

go bowe
06-29-2010, 02:52 PM
When the AZ immigration law makes it to the SC wanna bet how the 4 decented on this case will vote?

I'm guessing all of a sudden State and Local authorities won't have the right to pass laws that are in line with the constitution, let alone step over it.if the issue is just the constitutionality of the law on its face, i'd guess that some of the liberal judges will vote to uphold it, since it has language that specifically requires probable cause and prohibits stops based solely on race or nationality...

it would be a shocker, but i really think it's possible...

Fish
06-29-2010, 03:12 PM
In all fairness, the 5 judges who determined this outcome were not Obama nominees, and his only 1 to date voted against the legal gun owners of Chicago.

I don't see how that changes the fact that many people were paranoid that Obama was going to be very active in trying to totally disarm the US. And that paranoia unnecessarily raised prices and reduced supply for firearms and ammo.

The only argument is that Obama appointed a liberal judge that took the place of a former liberal judge. Which.... WTF else did anybody expect? Obama hasn't made the dramatic effort that was predicted by many, and nobody has had any guns taken away. But the fear of that still raised the prices for everyone. That's the only point I was trying to make.

2bikemike
06-29-2010, 03:28 PM
I don't see how that changes the fact that many people were paranoid that Obama was going to be very active in trying to totally disarm the US. And that paranoia unnecessarily raised prices and reduced supply for firearms and ammo.

The only argument is that Obama appointed a liberal judge that took the place of a former liberal judge. Which.... WTF else did anybody expect? Obama hasn't made the dramatic effort that was predicted by many, and nobody has had any guns taken away. But the fear of that still raised the prices for everyone. That's the only point I was trying to make.

IMHO thats because his plate has been pretty full with Health Care and all the other stuff he has been dealing with. I don't doubt for one minute that given the chance he would try his best to rid the world of the evil firearm.

HonestChieffan
06-29-2010, 03:59 PM
I don't see how that changes the fact that many people were paranoid that Obama was going to be very active in trying to totally disarm the US. And that paranoia unnecessarily raised prices and reduced supply for firearms and ammo.

The only argument is that Obama appointed a liberal judge that took the place of a former liberal judge. Which.... WTF else did anybody expect? Obama hasn't made the dramatic effort that was predicted by many, and nobody has had any guns taken away. But the fear of that still raised the prices for everyone. That's the only point I was trying to make.


I do like the new guns I've bought. I may name my new Glock Barak

go bowe
06-29-2010, 08:34 PM
I do like the new guns I've bought. I may name my new Glock Barakwell that certainly shows an unexpected degree of respect for the president, naming your baby after him and all...

there's hope for you yet...

alnorth
06-29-2010, 09:34 PM
actually kennedy is more of a moderate than a reliable conservative...

and he is 73...

if the president gets reelected and kennedy has to leave the court, a liberal replacement for him changes the court back to a 5-4 majority the other way...

the rest of the conservatives on the court are all young men who won't be replaced for another hundred years, so it all boils down to when kennedy leaves...

That pretty much reinforces my point. The confirmation hearing stage is too late in the game, you have to win the election. If Kennedy died this year, the GOP could yell, scream, denounce, cry, and hold rallies till the cows come home. They might even Bork a nominee, but eventually Obama would get a liberal justice to swing the court 5-4 the other way.

Iowanian
06-29-2010, 10:02 PM
Give the asshole time.

I don't see how that changes the fact that many people were paranoid that Obama was going to be very active in trying to totally disarm the US. And that paranoia unnecessarily raised prices and reduced supply for firearms and ammo.

The only argument is that Obama appointed a liberal judge that took the place of a former liberal judge. Which.... WTF else did anybody expect? Obama hasn't made the dramatic effort that was predicted by many, and nobody has had any guns taken away. But the fear of that still raised the prices for everyone. That's the only point I was trying to make.

HonestChieffan
06-30-2010, 05:44 AM
well that certainly shows an unexpected degree of respect for the president, naming your baby after him and all...

there's hope for you yet...

Im starting to come around.