D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

It makes sense to limit based on what would be appropriate for a common man's militia. so we get rifles, handguns, shotguns...that kind of shit. stinger missiles, f-22s, and M1A1 main battle tanks can stay under govt regulation/control. I'd say even most NRA people believe this as well.


The part where people are going to get pissed is about licensing and background checks and permits and shit. That's where it's going to get interesting.

exactly.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

exactly.

it's easier for me to explain a point through examples.......here we go.


today, if my wife takes the kids and goes to her mother's and calls the police and says "he threatened to kill me" then the police will show up and take my gun/license and I'll never get them back. I'll also never legally own another gun.

does anyone think the SC decision will affect that?

[motivez]

I read through the transcript today.. I get the impression from the questioning, even by people like Scalia.. that they'll affirm an individual right to own and carry, but say it's subject to reasonable regulation, and I think the DC ban will continue, maybe even if modified a bit.

I didn't see Thomas ask one question in the entire transcript, Thorgrim or anyone who reads them more frequently than I do, is that a common occurrence?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

I read through the transcript today.. I get the impression from the questioning, even by people like Scalia.. that they'll affirm an individual right to own and carry, but say it's subject to reasonable regulation, and I think the DC ban will continue, maybe even if modified a bit.

I didn't see Thomas ask one question in the entire transcript, Thorgrim or anyone who reads them more frequently than I do, is that a common occurrence?

yes

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by motivez

I didn't see Thomas ask one question in the entire transcript, Thorgrim or anyone who reads them more frequently than I do, is that a common occurrence?

I don't think Thomas has asked a question in something like 2 years.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I don't think Thomas has asked a question in something like 2 years.

He didn't even say anything in Boumediene...even though you know he is going to have a raging right-wing opinion

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

reasonable regulation, ........the DC ban will continue,

DC currently has nearly a complete ban.

I don't understand how "complete ban" jives with "reasonable regulation."

[hsmith]

I wish I could buy a machine gun for less than $3,000

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

DC currently has nearly a complete ban.

I don't understand how "complete ban" jives with "reasonable regulation."

Who gets to determine what is reasonable? I bet they say local government.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Who gets to determine what is reasonable? I bet they say local government.

I can't wrap my head around

-the constitution says it's your right to have guns
-the supreme court agrees that's what it says, but adds "reasonable regulation"
-local authorities determine "reasonable regulation" means "no locals can have guns"

so your right to have a gun has been removed, by "reasonable regulation"

it doesn't add up.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

I can't wrap my head around

-the constitution says it's your right to have guns
-the supreme court agrees that's what it says, but adds "reasonable regulation"
-local authorities determine "reasonable regulation" means "no locals can have guns"

so your right to have a gun has been removed, by "reasonable regulation"

it doesn't add up.

Well that's not what the law says. They banned hand guns. You can own rifles, shotguns, etc. They didn't ban all guns. It's a tough call. Would you want someone outside of your community coming in to tell you what is reasonable for your community?
I think it would have to be agregious for the feds to step in and overturn a local ordinance for something like this. The DC gun ban might be, it certainly approaches the line of the 2nd ammendment. I'm not sure which side of the line it's on.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Well that's not what the law says. They banned hand guns. You can own rifles, shotguns, etc. They didn't ban all guns. It's a tough call. Would you want someone outside of your community coming in to tell you what is reasonable for your community?

After 30 years of banned handguns resulting in the highest death-by-gun rate in the country it seems to me someone from outside the community is REQUIRED to go tell them what's reasonable.

I think it would have to be agregious for the feds to step in and overturn a local ordinance for something like this. The DC gun ban might be, it certainly approaches the line of the 2nd ammendment. I'm not sure which side of the line it's on.

egregious

IMO it's on the side of unreasonable.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

After 30 years of banned handguns resulting in the highest death-by-gun rate in the country it seems to me someone from outside the community is REQUIRED to go tell them what's reasonable.


egregious

IMO it's on the side of unreasonable.

Well as for the effectiveness of the ban you won't get any arguement from me.

I suck at spelling.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Well as for the effectiveness of the ban you won't get any arguement from me.

And looking at it the other way, states that have brought back concealed-carry have all seen a drop in crime.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

And looking at it the other way, states that have brought back concealed-carry have all seen a drop in crime.

I'm not sure about that arguement. I don't believe that there is a corralation. The crime may have just been displaced or the CCW law may have been implemented with other reforms. Guns don't cause crime or prevent it. Drugs, poverty, and lack of opportunity/education cause crime. Guns are incidental.

[Thorgrim]

"more guns less crime" and its author were both discredited

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm not sure about that arguement. I don't believe that there is a corralation. The crime may have just been displaced or the CCW law may have been implemented with other reforms. Guns don't cause crime or prevent it. Drugs, poverty, and lack of opportunity/education cause crime. Guns are incidental.

correlation

I could fill this page with references demonstrating that you're wrong and you could wipe them all away with one "I don't believe........" so I won't bother.

The crime may have just been displaced or the CCW law may have been implemented with other reforms.

Displaced is fine with me. Displace it enough and eventually it's got nowhere to go. "Maybe they implemented other reforms"...so you're guessing?

Guns don't cause crime or prevent it. Drugs, poverty, and lack of opportunity/education cause crime. Guns are incidental.

Hmm...while I agree that drugs, poverty, and lack of opportunity/education cause crime, the entire point I'm making with the CCW/crime drop correlation is that they DO prevent crime. When a state passes CCW and crime drops, "guns" (in effect) prevented crime.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

DC currently has nearly a complete ban.

I don't understand how "complete ban" jives with "reasonable regulation."

It's not a complete ban, it's a ban on hand guns, you are still permitted to have a shotgun or rifle in your home for protection in DC.

The questions from the transcript tended to be pointed in a way that said, well, if it's reasonable to restrict machine guns (even Scalia said he didn't want machine guns and cop killer bullets), why isn't it reasonable for a local legislature to impose restrictions they feel best suit the needs of their city

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not a complete ban, it's a ban on hand guns,

So it's a complete ban on guns used for self protection. Last I checked nobody carries a .30-06 for personal protection.

The questions from the transcript tended to be pointed in a way that said, well, if it's reasonable to restrict machine guns (even Scalia said he didn't want machine guns and cop killer bullets), why isn't it reasonable for a local legislature to impose restrictions they feel best suit the needs of their city

Reasonable is the key. You don't need a machine gun for personal protection so it's reasonable to ban them. But you can't carry a shotgun for personal protection so it's unreasonable to ban handguns.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 7960

DC currently has nearly a complete ban.

I don't understand how "complete ban" jives with "reasonable regulation."

It does not. That is the whole issue. It treats "all" citizens as potential criminals if they own a firearm.