Legalities

Someone once suggested that we should be able to have all the guns we want, as long as they're all muzzle-loaders. I think that would take care of everything.

Whether a person agrees or disagrees with guns is not the point. This is about the government trampling our constituitional rights to serve their own interests. The key phrases are, "people," "right to bear arms," and "shall not be infringed."

DC knows that if they can get the courts to rule in their favor, any city or state can ban firearms, making the ammendment completely meaningless. The biggest distinction is the word "people." By definition, if people were malitia members, then only malitia members could be counted as people. You see how absurd this is?

A malitia is now a state organization that can be federalized. If only federalized soldiers could carry firearms, what's the point of having a 2nd ammendment? How do we defend ourselves from an oppressive government during a civil war if all firearms belong to the government?

The courts don't have the power to nullify ammendments. That would be anarchy. It requires a 2/3 vote and state ratification. The constituition is designed so that the people have the final say; not the courts. I hope DC gets blasted over this.

Someone once said that journalistic writing should be limited to printing presses. I think that would take care of everything.

That is like saying there is freedom of press as long as they only use print media, as that was all that was available back then.

The freedoms granted by the constitution are absolute, so law abiding citizens should be allowed any weapon as long as they don't break the law with them.

The question is about choices, do you want to be able to defend yourself and loved ones or do you want to pretend nothing of a violent nature will ever happen to you.The second admendment entitles you to the right "To keep and bear arms" Personally I have made the choice that I will not be a victim and will use deadly force if necessary to defend myself and my family.

I was a victim of armed drug robberies 3 times in Dallas pharmacies. There would have been a 4th time; however, the guy walked down an isle hiding all but his head and shoulders. He looked around and asked if I were alone. I answers "just me and Sam Colt here while drawing my .45 Colt semi-automatic pistol. The wouldbe armed robber nearly knocked my door off the hinges escaping. NO shots fired. This is why we need to have NON felon citizens be able to protect themself and families in their homes and businesses.

If gun control worked, there wouldn't be any shooting deaths in DC.

I was a victim of armed drug robberies 3 times in Dallas pharmacies. There would have been a 4th time; however, the guy walked down an isle hiding all but his head and shoulders. He looked around and asked if I were alone. I answers "just me and Sam Colt here while drawing my .45 Colt semi-automatic pistol. The wouldbe armed robber nearly knocked my door off the hinges escaping. NO shots fired. This is why we need to have NON felon citizens be able to protect themself and families in their homes and businesses.

Someone needs to inform Justice Breyer that no where near 80,000-100,000 people are killed each year from handguns.

Economic Strife .. Being used as a Weapon .. To Eliminate a Democracy ..Replaced with a
Totalitarian Dictatorship - Enforced with a Nazi (Fascist) Rule against ..
The Populace of the United States and the Rest of The World

The New World Order - Under Thumb of : The Bush Nazi Crime Regime
Criminal Corporate Nazi America

Do they really think this is going to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals? Don't we have a right to protect ourselves? What happened to land of the free? Somewhere we have lost everything.

I have no problems with the Government saying that they want to check if I am a felon or mental. It is clear that the civilians in my home town of DC, deserve the same rights that I have in Virginia. It was proven in a court case that the DC police have no responsibilities for any ones protection. So, allow the people of the District the ability to protect themselves.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm the people so the nation will continue to be the land of the free.

Today DC, tomorrow NYC, San Francisco next week. Freedom and democracy may return to America after all.

Don't recall who made the comment today, but it was exactly on point - saying its ok to ban one class of guns because another is available (handguns/machine guns vs shotguns) is like saying its ok to ban books if you allow newspapers.

Not that I expect you to actually challenge a liberal justice, but is there any chance you could ask Justice Breyer where his"80,000 to 100,000 people killed every year by handguns" statistic came from? Even the anti-gun NY TImes puts the number at less than 30,000 in 2004?

I belive that there are two purposes to the second admendment right of an individual to bear arms. The first is to protect a person and his property. The second is to protect the citizens against the govement. The framers of the constitution were fresh from overthrowing the British rule of the colonies. They did so with farmers and hunters who owned their own guns and knew how to use them. The framers of the constitution wanted to preserve that right if and when the goverment they formed trampled indiviual rights as the British did. Having peacefull elections and transistions of power means that the citizens are still in control of the goverment. If that ever stops happening we have the right to tear things down and start from scratch again.

I don't own a gun and don't plan to but I believe that our constitutional right to bear arms should be upheld. One of the first things Hitler did was take the guns out of the hands of the people. With their means of protection out of the way, he paved the way for the Holocaust. Passing laws restricting or banning guns only keeps the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens because criminals will always find ways to get them.

I always knew that the gun ban was unconstitutional. I just figure that there were too many people that lived in cities that were mentally unstable or otherwise dangerous. But now I know that even if there are large numbers of unstable people that live in cites, there are still many responsible people that can and should be able to take care of themselves and their communities with the same right that everyone else has to have a gun. An informed decision needs to be made and it cannot be dictated by whatever the city happens to want. The gun ban clearly has not worked so get rid of the gun ban. At the same time, put various safety measures in place along with education that would prevent accidental shootings keeping in mind that a gun will be of no use if it cannot be quickly accessed.

Maybe tearing things down and starting from scratch is not such a bad ideal.

I cant believe liberals, after 8 years of GW Bush trashing our freedom they want the police and government to be the ones with the guns, As far as I am concerned every citizen in god standing should be REQUIRED to have an M16 and 1000 rounds of amunition!

Anyone who does objective research on the history of the 2nd Amendment can come to no other sincere conclusion than that the Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is a lot of misinformation on both sides of this issue, but even liberal scholars like Sanford Levinson are forced to admit that. (See his "The Embarassing Second Amendment")

I believe that a "well reguated" militia was meant to say an effective militia, not "regulated" IN THE WAY WE THINK OF IT TODAY

"Someone once suggested that we should be able to have all the guns we want, as long as they're all muzzle-loaders. I think that would take care of everything."

My response:

I suggest that the 1st Amendment should be limited to hand-cranked presses and soapboxes. No assault media like automated presses, television, radio, or Internet. Those media are too modern and dangerous. I think that would take care of everything.

I find the argument against armed citizens to ba totally morally bankrupt, the moral equillivent to a bag of garbage.

Get your facts straight ABC!

The total number of firearms deaths in the US, per year, is around 25,000...and about half of those are suicides.

"80,000 to 100,000" is not correct...not for handguns, not for rifles, not for shotguns, not for machine guns, NOT for all of those combined.

Joe - nobody ever massacred a bunch of college students with media. Guns kill people.

Who cares what the founding fathers believed? They've been dead for 200 years. Are we not capable of governing ourselves and making sane, rational new decisions based on current technologies and circumstances? We need a national Constitutional referendum on current gun laws to let BOTH sides have their say. We shouldn' let ourselves be held hostage by 17th century thinking.

James Burke - I agree. Who are these people that think they need guns to protect themselves? What kind of lifestyles are they leading? I've never had a need or known anyone with a need for a gun in my life either. I think that only low-class people own guns.

Why do these gun nuts think that small arms are enough to stand up to a tyrannical government? Unless you gun nuts start stocking up on tanks, attack helicopters and heavy aritllery, you guys will be toast if you ever go up against a modern military unit. You're just a bunch of delusional nutjobs with a hobby that kills other people. Give it up.

Jennifer - Very true. I find that most of these gun rights' types are basically trailer trash with no education. Decent, educated people don't waste their time on guns - and we are going to take our country back from these backwoods trash who are endangering all of us with their silly hobby.

To: Walleye Pike Man

Crimanals kill people.
They use guns, but they use other weapons too. If is futile to attempt to control criminals with laws. By definition that is what makes them criminals.
Take away the laws, and give them a real reason not to be criminals.
Anyone who believes that you can control the bad guy is living in a fantasy world.
There are plenty of countries that prove this both ways:
UK baned guns, crime went way up.
Scandinavian countries have large gun ownership, and no gun crime.
This is the tend, not just rare examples. You can't deny reality...

That said, that is not what the arguement should be about. Its about constitutionality, and that's why its at the SUPREME COURT. Gun laws undermine the foundation the country was built on, and thus the legal system of this country, and thus they are self contridictory.

You can scream "guns kill" all you won't but that doesn't change te fact guns save, and they are currently saving your life right now....

I think what Walleye Pike Man is trying to say is don't make college campuses so attractive to punks and deranged gunmen. You don't want the government to pass gun laws that guarantee these predators that the campuses will be shooting galleries full of defenseless victims.

Remember the "carnage on the streets" that second amendment opponents warned us of if concealed weapon permit laws were expanded? The new laws DECREASED gun violence by decreasing car jackings.

Just because you personnaly don't feel you need protection, who are you to prevent someone who does.
They aren't taking away the things you value.
I pray you never wake up to an intruder standing in your bedroom...but at that point it will be too late to change your mind.
And I think we all know that that can happen anywhere, even your suburban dreamland perfect nieghborhood

Sinecure - so you think it's a better idea to arm students and create a dangerous crossfire? That's stinkin' thinkin'. Guns don't belong in the hands of kids.

That's what need, personal responsability, not feel-good gun laws!

That's what we need, personal responsability, not feel-good gun laws!

Gun permits to responsible adults, Bert.

So college students are kids, not American citizens?

It wouldn't be a crossfire if your "deranged gunmen" got taken down while waiting for the police to stroll in...

I am not a gun nut, dont own one.
I live in military gated housing, with guards, but somebody can still brake into my house. IT CAN HAPPEN.

Kent - I teach college and, yes, most college students are sill kids and shouldn't be carrying guns. You're just being irresponsible like all gun nuts.

Lastdance48; your unread and utterly ridiculous tirade comparing the Bush Administration to the Nazi regime is so much nitwittery. If, it was as you would so whimsically suggest, wouldn't the administration just eliminate the Supreme Court or cast an edit mandating the elimination of all guns instead of encouraging the Constitution to be followed? You really should put down the Rosie O' magazines and read some REAL news for a change.

Kent - your paranoia will not impress me, either. LOL

Ms. Hong, this country used to be a lot less dangerous, until liberal ideas took over and we began to lock our doors, metal detect our schools and otherwise pay the price. In what kind of neighborhood did Sharon Tate live? A gun at that home may have saved several lives.

Gun violence can happen anywhere and in any city and in any suburb, no matter how influential or well off the area is. I think it's naive that people think that gun violence is left to the urban city etc. Felons can break into your homes in those nice suburbs and if they knew better, that's where they would go to get the good stuff!

I think most of you already nailed it on the head as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned. The founding fathers were merely constructing the constitution to fit around the needs that served their purpose at the time. Meaning that at the time, individual right to own a gun was necessary to raise a militia and to protect one's property. The way it is written was for the times. The constitution is an evolving doctrine, and always has been. And for that I'm glad.

thank-you rick. some of us appreciate sanity!

I know plenty of college students that have legally obtained and trained concealed carry permits that would be glad to stop your school shootings for you.

Kent - and I know plenty more college students who should be nowhere near firearms. Seems to me you live in a fantasy world of wishful thinking and no unintended negative consequences. Grow up.

Once again, not a gun nut.
I just choose to acknowlege reality.
My neighboorhood isn't filled with bad guys, but all it takes is one to kill you.
I believe you'll find most actual gun owners aren't scared, they are prepared.
Once again I live in a very safe neighboorhood, my house already had an alarm in it. I don't have a gun, but I wouldn't dream of trying to tell someone else they couldn't, when home in the nearby areas have had intruders that kill people. Once again, I wish nobody had to deal with that situation, but it is IGNORANT to turn a blind eye to it.
Hopefully I said IGNORANT loud enough.

It's been my experience that most advocates for so-called "gun rights" are deeply immature and irresponsible people.

It would seem that people forget the police are not required to protect you from violence. (DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989))

Who are we to rely on for our protection, if the police aren't required to do so, and you don't think we should protect ourselves?

Do you want us to go back to the days of the biggest bully on the block being in charge?

For what it's worth, the "people" are the people, each and every one of us, in all the places it is used in the Constitution.

Thankfully, this has finally been addressed by the Supreme Court.

One Eyed Luddite - so what's your solution? The biggest gun wins? How is that any better? Gimme a break.

Some men need a gun to feel like a real man.

Well, the Gov't doesn't think I'm too nutty enough to operate a nuclear reactor in a multi-billion dollar submarine by myself.
But then again I'm no college professor.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. One other point. If past studies were to go deeper, I'll venture and say the victims of armed robberies were unarmed. I'm sure the outcome would be much different if the proposed victim was armed. In Texas, concealed weapon permits are issued to those who pass an extensive background check. You can not convince me or my family that to unarm me is in my best interest.

Looks like I need to rephrase.

If the gun haters actually get a "ban on guns", WHO are you going to have go get them???? Who are you going to have go door to door and collect the civilians weapons?

Kyle, you do know that it already is a gun-fueled bloodbath, even with the gun "ban" in existance, right?

The current leadership in D.C. believes that crime will get worse with guns made legal again. But I can't see how. Right now, all the criminals have guns anyway. Allowing law abiding citizens access to guns isn't going to worsen the crime rate.

I am a college educated, independent individual. I live in an apartment in a nice area and have seen little violence. I have worked all of my adult life, payed my bills, and I am pursing a Master's degree in computer science. I own guns. I believe that if you choose not to own guns, thats your choice. You don't have the right to tell me I can't own guns. It is spelled out clearly in the 2nd amendment. Do I fit your stereotype of a gun owner?

In 1776 a gun was a visible item. Those flintlock, later percussion rifles were 5-6’ long. And although the bearer’s intentions might not always be known, at least you could usually determine there was a gun, and at some distance. This remains generally true of rifles and shotguns, perhaps giving you a choice of fight or flight. Not the case with concealed handguns and an element of surprise. It’s a matter of always being prepared offensively, so as never to become defensive. I think there may actually be some argument, or some grounds, for restrictions on concealed handguns, that is outside the home and perhaps outside of an automobile. I really have no problem with a restriction on fully automatic weapons, sawed-off or riot type shotguns and in some cases magazine capacities…that is outside of the home. At home, to protect my life, my family’s life, my property, you may expect the worst!

Thanks Scott.
Mature, level-headed stable people can exerise personal responsibility.
And most of the time, you would never know someone is a gun owner.
To those saying all the gun owners they know are nuts, know a lot more gun owners than they realize.

Let's remember that crimes involving guns are committed by CRIMINALS. They aren't really interested in the law...including the one that says they cannot have that .38 or 12-gauge shotgun. Where does that leave the law-abiding citizen who is now...unarmed? They will take my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

To: Micheal Basham
It is very moving and persuasive of you to use a personnal attack on an individual as a means of arguing the validity of your standpoint on the issue.
Do you have anything new or noteworthy to contribute to this debate?

There are three points I would like to make in response to this DC gun issue. First, if the Second Amendment read "...the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms...", then the argument could be made that the Amendment deals specifically with state militias. It does NOT say that. It states, "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You cannot assume that the Second Amendment is only intended for militias because it mentions militias as part of its purpose. And we cannot confuse the term "militia" as it was understood in 1789 with the common interpretation of "militia" in the 21st century. The militia of 1789 was defined as "ALL able-bodied males ages 18-45 who are called together in times of emergency." Participation in the militia was always voluntary, even though you were a member. In the current interpretation of "militia" - meaning, the National Guard - if you are a member, you MUST deploy when your unit is called; there is nothing voluntary about that! Thus, the National Guard is not a militia according to the original definition, but rather another branch of the Armed Services. And in 1789 people who did not fall into the "able-bodied male 18-45" category, meaning young boys, older gentlemen, and women, ALSO had the right to keep and bear arms in their own defense; hence the careful wording of the Amendment.

Second, those who argue the point about state militias see the militia, taken as a whole, as a check and balance against a strong and corrupt federal government exercising unjust control over a community, state, or group of states. However, those who view the Amendment as protecting individuals' rights consider such abuse of power down to a much smaller level - that of the individual home. This is precisely why the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires that law officers present valid search warrants before entering upon and searching private property. Without such warrants, individual property owners would be within their rights to resist such intrusions to any extent necessary, even by killing those officials who are abusing their powers - ASSUMING, of course, that these property owners had the means (arms) at their disposal to protect themselves. Without the right of individuals to own firearms, corrupt officials could intrude upon any property owner's domain, without fear or restraint, and do whatever they pleased.

The third point that must be made is that the freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution do not change just because the times change - not unless, and not until, the change in the times requires a change in the Constitution. Even though the Second Amendment was ratified at a time when our technology was far less advanced than it is today, and our way of life was almost completely different than it is today, this Amendment has neither been rescinded nor further amended; hence, it is as much in force today, in its original wording, interpretation and intent, as it was when ratified by the original thirteen states. Thus, any law passed in today's world that affects our ownership of firearms must not infringe upon this Constitutional right. And some rights and freedoms do not require a Constitution, but are inherent in us as individuals, such as the right to defend ourselves and our neighbors. Such rights not only imply, but demand, that we must also have the right to possess the means to defend ourselves and our neighbors. Any change in the Constitution that negates our natural born rights cannot be allowed to stand by a society that wishes to remain free.

interesting

I have been in several situations that if I didn't have a gun I may not have survived. One situation that could happen to anyone was when I was on my way to Florida for a family vacation, we stopped at a rest stop in Georgia. My wife and I alternated going to bathroom while the other stayed in the car with my 1 year old daughter. I went to the bathroom and noticed that a man was stalking me and he rushed into the rest room and when he saw that there were 3 other men in the restroom he backed off and left the restroom. When I returned to the car my wife went the restroom. The guy showed up again. He came around the corner and came right at me. I was packing my pistol in my pocket. He stopped and probably realized that I was going to be more trouble than it was worth. He was right. If he would have pulled his weapon from his back pocket or any other aggressive act I would have dropped him. Anyone who isn't prepared to defend their family may end up losing them or they may lose you. This scumbag was going to attack me with my 1 year old daughter sitting in the back seat of my car.

Joe - exactly and it's only going to get worse thanks to you irresponsible gun nuts making it even easier for criminals to carry guns. Nice job, genius!

I live in DC and I think this is a disaster! I'm retired and not in very good health. I already fought my war and I don't have the strength or the energy to go around constantly carrying a gun to keep myself safe from all these armed young punks. I am afraid that if the Supreme Court knocks down the DC gun ban that they've signed my death warrant. I am a veteran and I am afriad to walk the streets because of all the guns and gangs. We need to fix our gun laws now.

What liberals lack in constructive debate they compensate with insults. I notice a lot of insults.

My sister was killed 11 years ago by a stray bullet shot by a man trying to fight back against a carjacking. The man was killed and my sister died for nothing. Guns are terrible and I hope and pray that we ban them soon. Too many innocent people are dying every day.

Jim - what makes you say that the insults are all from liberals? I think the gun debate cuts across the political spectrum on both sides. If you ask me, ad hominem attacks on "liberals" are just silly. Grow up.

Kyle C.: Yeah...

Because now that handguns are legal, criminals will say "Hey! Handguns are legal now! Let's go do some crime! I've always thought about a life a crime, but those gun laws held me back. To break those laws was immoral. Now that guns are legal, I'm not hindered by that problem, so I'm free to commit crimes, whereas I wasn't in the past. You know... because I would have been breaking a gun law."

Yep. That's the criminal thought-process. You should write a book or something. You've got it all figured out.

Jim - sounds to me like you're having paranoid episdoes in public restrooms. This kind of thing doesn't happen to normal people. Also, what kind of parent carries a loaded gun around thier kids? I call total BS!

Haden

I say that based on the comments made.

Wake up.

gb8898 - Not every criminal is a career criminal and making guns easier to obtain makes it easier for casual criminals and wannabes to arm themselves with the same deadly hardware as the career criminals. How hard is that for you to understand?

Jim - no, I think you based that on your prejudices. Grow up.

Sharon J - that's heartbreaking, but you can't blame your sister's death on guns. You need to understand that it was an irresponsible criminal who caused your sister's death, not guns or gun laws. In a free society, some people have to die to preserve our freedoms.

The National Guard is not the militia which still has statutory basis and consists of citizens who keep firearms in their homes so that they can respond to an external threat to the nation or to an overreaching government. To be able to respond effectively they have to be trained or, in the linguistic usage of the 1700's, "regulated" in the use of said firearms. The right to self-defense is separate, not limited to firearms, and is much older than the right to bear arms as stipulated in the 2nd amendment. It is rooted in, besides common sense, established British jurisprudence. Unless your state has written the castle doctrine into law, you may be within your rights in that state to keep an arsenal in your home but face legal sanctions if you use deadly force to defend your home against intruders.

My son was killed with a gun when he was only 15. There was no reason for it and I grieve every day. We need to take the guns off the streets now.

Kyle C.

I provided a real life story as an example of what could happen to anyone. Thank you for your constructive analysis. The guy came at me twice it wasn't just in the bathroom

Further, I don't carry loaded guns around my children all the time. If you did a little analysis on reality you would know that people are often car jacked or robbed at rest stops and I was just being cautious. I did the right thing. Anyway the kind of Man that would carry a loaded gun around their children is one that won't stand and watch them murdered by criminals or allow ones self to be sacrificed in order to follow some false idealogy.

Kyle C.: If someone was contemplating committing a crime (let's say rape), they wouldn't let a GUN LAW prohibit them from acquiring a gun illegally (which is really easy to do).

How hard is that for YOU to understand?

Rapists don't sit around thinking "I'd sure like to rape someone, and it would be a lot easier if I could use a gun, but gun laws make it hard to get a gun. So I give up."

Seriously, if this is your idea of logic, just stop trying to argue.

Kent: I was responding to someone else directly. Not attacking anyone. Aas for noteworthy comments, scroll back to my earlier posting. Don't forget to take your meds.

Y'all, play nice now. Don't be hate'n.

Beth, I'm not sure how to interpret your comment about the Constitution: "The way it is written was for the times. The constitution is an evolving doctrine, and always has been."

I agree that it is an "evolving" document. But it does NOT "evolve" on its own, meaning that you cannot take a passage of the Constitution that was written in one era, and because times have changed and the definitions of key terms have changed from the way they were originally understood, reinterpret that passage today to mean something entirely different than what the founding fathers intended.

The way the Constitution "evolves" is through the Constitutionally prescribed process of AMENDMENTS, of which there are currently a total of 27 - including the first 10 called the Bill of Rights. Of those 27 amendments, the only one dealing with the subject of firearms is, of course, the Second Amendment. Thus we are obliged to interpret and accept that amendment according to its ORIGINAL wording, interpretation and intent, since there have been no subsequent amendments to change it. You can't just say "We have a National Guard which is our MILITIA of today, so the Second Amendment no longer applies, or doesn't apply to individuals." The "...right of the people to keep and bear arms..." STILL applies to everyone - THE PEOPLE.

Sorry I just can’t help it! I’m so passionate in my beliefs! And Jim it is your right to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen!

I can't believe those that don't believe in the 2nd amendment of an individual to keep and bear arms. I have served in the USMC, I have served as a Police Office. I do well and earn over $200k... yet some how I am a low life ? (I pay for some of your liberal crap like unemployment, food stamps, county medical, and w