Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[cbraver]

Anyone else been watching this? I know there are a good number of gun owners and concealed carry members on here...

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=221034

The right of Americans to keep and use guns, an issue that has divided the political landscape for centuries, was taken up by the Supreme Court Tuesday for the first time in nearly 70 years.

Lawyers challenged the US capital's restrictions on gun ownership, which aim to clamp down on murders and street violence, saying those laws infringed on the right of citizens to use weapons at home for self-defense.

The nine justices argued during the hearing over whether the right to "keep and bear arms," as described in the constitution, is an individual or a collective right, and whether the capital's regulations on gun-carrying were "reasonable."

The conservative-leaning court's decision, which is not anticipated for several months, is expected to have a far reaching impact on laws on the use and control of guns.

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" asked Chief Justice John Roberts, who along with conservative Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly interrupted the lawyers with questions about the legitimacy of the ban.

The city of Washington passed its gun ban in 1976. The law requires any rifles or shotguns in the home to be disassembled or kept under trigger lock and prevents private citizens from carrying handguns in most cases.

Scalia implied that the capital's laws -- some of the most stringent in the nation -- all but prevent citizens from using guns for self-defense.

"If you have time, when you hear somebody crawling in your -- your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Scalia asked.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, argued the gun ban violates the second amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"Self-defense is the heart of the second amendment right," said Alan Gura, lead attorney for the plaintiff, **** Heller, a federal building guard who carries a handgun on duty and wanted to keep it at home for self-protection.

However, defense attorney Walter Dellinger argued that the amendment has a clear "militia relatedness aspect," meaning that "Heller's proposed use of a handgun has no connection of any kind to the preservation or efficiency of a militia and therefore the case is over."

The court has not ruled since 1939 on the interpretation of the second amendment to the US constitution, but even that ruling was unclear and left opposing sides claiming it supported their views.

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the more liberal justices, brought up crime rates -- 200-300 people killed annually in the capital and 1,500-2,000 people wounded mainly as a result of handgun violence -- that the mayor's office has argued made the ban necessary.

"In light of that, why isn't a ban on handguns, while allowing the use of rifles and muskets, a reasonable or a proportionate response on behalf of the District of Columbia?" Breyer asked.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said after the hearing that "the court is struggling with the argument that perhaps it (Washington's gun ban) goes too far. I think they are having a hard time figuring out how to draw the line."

Interest in the landmark case, originally brought in 2003, has built steadily around the country.

Hundreds of banner-waving pro- and anti-gun advocates gathered outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Tara Henigan, 42, a resident of Falls Church Virginia, stood outside the court wearing a sticker that read: "Guns Don't Die, People Do."

"I'm fascinated how people can think it is an individual right. A 'well-regulated militia' means 'military service,'" she said.

Following the hearing, both sides claimed victory was imminent.

"We are 100 percent focused on winning this case," said Mayor Adrian Fenty, maintaining that "handguns today represent a disproportionate number of crimes," and the ban has "significantly curtailed" criminal activity.

But Heller told reporters he was confident in his case.

"It is a basic issue of constitutional rights when the right to self-defense has been violated," he said. "As a security officer I carry a gun to protect government officers, but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes."

Another article...
Supreme Court Revisits Second Amendment


Even though it's just about Washinton DC, this case could have some pretty historic impact. It's interesting that in the presidential election the 2nd amendment has been largely avoided (or, at least it seems to me, but maybe I just missed it? There have been an obnoixious amont of debates.). The Democrats don't want to loose too many votes, as (according the a Newsweek article I read last week) 2 out of 5 people in the US own a gun.

 

[Mort Corey]

2 out of 5 people in the US own a gun.

I'd wager that it's more than two of five.....and of those it's not "a" gun. These mamby pamby jurists will find a way to weasel out of any meaningful decision. They're political appointees afterall You'd think that after two hundred freaking years that the meaning of a couple of plain English sentences would have been agreed upon.

On the other hand, some people are still confused about the definition of "is".

Mort

 

[Halon451]

I've said it before and I will say it as many times as I have to - gun control laws will only take guns out of the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens. It does nothing to reduce the crime rate, and in fact in some cases (where similar bans have been implemented) makes it worse.

I just don't get people...

 

[aberkowitz]

It does nothing to reduce the crime rate, and in fact in some cases (where similar bans have been implemented) makes it worse.

I'd love to see some supporting evidence of this, particularly to separate the causation/correlation problem. I'm not disparaging your viewpoint, but I just personally believe that gun ownership and crime rates are relatively unrelated. Crime rates tend to be directly related to poverty levels and the quality and innovative tactics of local police forces.

New York City is an interesting example. Here we have one of the safest big cities in the US (and the #1 safest of the mega cities), and I'd postulate that gun ownership here is actually quite low among most of the population- I don't have specific backup here, but I'm basing this on the general political leanings and issue support of people who live here. In fact, NYC has recently passed even more restrictive gun-ownership and purchase laws as compared to the rest of the country- including an interesting one that requires gun dealers to file bi-annual inventory reports with the NYPD.

20 years ago NYC was one of the most dangerous cities in the country. There are a variety of reasons as to why the place improved, all of them have been debated in the area over the past few years (particularly as Giuliani has tried to take credit for all of them ), but none of the cited reasons has been increased gun ownership. I can't any supporting statistic for this, but I wouldn't doubt that gun ownership has dropped over time among honest law-abiding citizens.

 

[aberkowitz]

Just wanted to quickly add that I personally have no problem with citizens owning guns- I don't think a total ban improves or worsens matters enough to support it. My biggest pet peeve is with the types of guns that normal, law-abiding citizens are allowed to buy on a daily basis. I will never understand why anybody outside of the military needs to own an automatic weapon.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Just wanted to quickly add that I personally have no problem with citizens owning guns- I don't think a total ban improves or worsens matters enough to support it. My biggest pet peeve is with the types of guns that normal, law-abiding citizens are allowed to buy on a daily basis. I will never understand why anybody outside of the military needs to own an automatic weapon.

I agree. By the same token, only the military and law-enforcement have a valid use for handguns. The best gun strictly for self-defense is a shotgun.
Keeping guns unloaded and/or disassembled is not about preventing crime, it is about protecting children from fatal accidents.

 

[cbraver]

Mort, you are probably right... at least in my experience you are.

Halon, I agree completely.

My biggest pet peeve is with the types of guns that normal, law-abiding citizens are allowed to buy on a daily basis. I will never understand why anybody outside of the military needs to own an automatic weapon.

At risk of sounding like a weirdo, on the high level it's a governmental check. But more immediately, there are hobbyist gun owners that just want them because they are fun to shoot. The automatics are put into trusts or corporations, so that they never don't have a owner. I've never heard of a case of someone with a legally owned machine gun committing a crime with it (although I have heard stories of people protecting themselves with them, because that's all they had handy). There are also people who buy them as investments and lock them away in a safe. Investing in a machine gun last year would have been significantly better than investing in a bond, CD or money market. As long as you don't shoot it, haha, because ammunition costs will outweigh that investment pretty quick at ~10 rounds per second depending on the gun. I completely understand the scary factor, but as a whole automatics are a non-issue.

 

[Davemcc]

Considering DC is one of the most dangerous places in the nation, it would seem that the gun ban in place since 1976 has had no effect whatsoever on crime and has quite possibly made DC a more dangerous place over the years than it otherwise might have been.

As for the militia aspect, the intent of the founders was that a well armed militia was necessary to overthrow the government when it began to oppress it's citizens. That line is directed against the gov't in Washington. Remember Thomas Jefferson: "A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (1787) He was, in fact, referring to the then-newly constituted government of the United States being overthrown at some point. To most closely follow the intent of the founding fathers, DC should be the most heavily armed city in the nation so that the gov't feels the impending threat of armed revolution every time they infringe upon the citizens' civil liberties. The intent of the authors of the Consititution is supposed to be considered when deciding constitutional challenges or amendments. In modern times, self-defence seems to be the primary argument, but it misses the real intent of the authors, i.e. a government that does not rule for the benefit of the people rules in contempt of the people and should be removed.

 

[aberkowitz]

I've never heard of a case of someone with a legally owned machine gun committing a crime with it (although I have heard stories of people protecting themselves with them, because that's all they had handy). There are also people who buy them as investments and lock them away in a safe. Investing in a machine gun last year would have been significantly better than investing in a bond, CD or money market. As long as you don't shoot it, haha, because ammunition costs will outweigh that investment pretty quick at ~10 rounds per second depending on the gun. I completely understand the scary factor, but as a whole automatics are a non-issue.

I didn't realize the investment value... that's interesting. However, that's never as excuse used by the NRA lobby when they are fighting for the continued legalization of automatic weapons. They argument tends to be around protection and hunting.

 

[Halon451]

I'd love to see some supporting evidence of this, particularly to separate the causation/correlation problem.

Adam, you axed for it... I've been down this road once already on this site, but I'll gladly put it out there again...

Australian Gun Ban

The following is a synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association. The entire interview is available as "Surprise, Surprise" in the "Archive News" section

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in...

A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm" whoa... scary isn't it, the similarities?
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

 

[Matt34]

I agree. By the same token, only the military and law-enforcement have a valid use for handguns. The best gun strictly for self-defense is a shotgun.
Keeping guns unloaded and/or disassembled is not about preventing crime, it is about protecting children from fatal accidents.

So instead of carrying my sub-compact pistol(concealed) I should have my mossberg 500 12ga straped to my back while running errands?

Anyways, I don't think we will see a decision on this from the SC.

 

[Halon451]

I agree. By the same token, only the military and law-enforcement have a valid use for handguns. The best gun strictly for self-defense is a shotgun.
Keeping guns unloaded and/or disassembled is not about preventing crime, it is about protecting children from fatal accidents.

Bull***t... not about protecting our children, but that we should only be allowed shotguns for self-defense. I'll tell you that the first thing I'll grab when I hear a window breaking in the middle of the night is a fully loaded .45, rather than waste time reaching under my bed, opening the case on my Mossberg, unlocking it, putting the shells in, etc. By that time, if the intruder has enough malice (which you never know) both my wife and I are dead. He who shoots first, lives longer, IMHO.

People need to employ good old fashioned common sense when children are introduced into the picture, for obvious reasons.

 

[aberkowitz]

Adam, you axed for it... I've been down this road once already on this site, but I'll gladly put it out there again...

Australian Gun Ban

The following is a synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association. The entire interview is available as "Surprise, Surprise" in the "Archive News" section

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in...

A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm" whoa... scary isn't it, the similarities?
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

Halon- you may want to check out this link at snopes.com- http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

The site makes a lot of the cases I was going to make about statistics, particularly around correlation vs. causation, the danger of using 1 year of stats, and the lack of viewing broader trends and other contributing factors. MOST importantly, in the first few years since the ban was incurred, the rates of armed robberies dropped drastically.

Along the lines of crime rates, it's important to note that the stats that you quoted (as snopes point out) are measuring crime in absolute terms, not in rates. The homicide rate for Australia actually dropped in the years immediately following the gun ban. Since the population of Australia was expanding, measuring the absolute # of crimes is not accurate- you have to measure the number of crimes vs. the total population (which was growing pretty quickly).

Also important- Australians never had a constitutional right to own firearms. The buyback affected a very small group of people and didn't even take away all of their guns.

More stats, taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, show the latest crime data from 2005. A few excerpts:


In 2005 the victimisation prevalence rate for household crime was 6.2%, compared to 8.9% in 2002. Comparisons with 2002 for all selected types of household crime showed statistically significant decreases in the prevalence rates for:

* break-in, where the victimisation rate in 2005 was 3.3% compared with 4.7% in 2002
* attempted break-in, where the victimisation rate in 2005 was 2.6% compared with 3.4% in 2002
* motor vehicle theft, where the victimisation rate in 2005 was 1.0% compared with 1.8% in 2002.

The attempted break-in victimisation prevalence rate for Australia decreased to 2.6% in 2005 from 3.4% in 2002. Across the states and territories, decreases occurred in:

* New South Wales (2.7% in 2005 compared with 3.7% in 2002)
* Queensland (2.9% in 2005 compared with 3.8% in 2002)
* Western Australia (3.0% in 2005 compared with 4.4% in 2002)
* Tasmania (2.1% in 2005 compared with 3.3% in 2002).

Here's the link to the data- http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/productsbyCatalogue/669C5A997EAED891CA2568A900139405/

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I'll tell you that the first thing I'll grab when I hear a window breaking in the middle of the night is a fully loaded .45, rather than waste time reaching under my bed, opening the case on my Mossberg, unlocking it, putting the shells in, etc.

How is keeping the pistol fully loaded and in easy reach any different than keeping the shotgun fully loaded and in easy reach?
The advantage of the shotgun is not having to aim carefully.

 

[Davemcc]

How is keeping the pistol fully loaded and in easy reach any different than keeping the shotgun fully loaded and in easy reach?
The advantage of the shotgun is not having to aim carefully.

That sounds so much safer for the children.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

So instead of carrying my sub-compact pistol(concealed) I should have my mossberg 500 12ga straped to my back while running errands?

This discussion has thus far only been about defense at home. Carrying a weapon (especially concealed) outside the home is an entirely different can of worms, and probably deserves its own thread.

 

[Halon451]

How is keeping the pistol fully loaded and in easy reach any different than keeping the shotgun fully loaded and in easy reach?
The advantage of the shotgun is not having to aim carefully.

Well I have both, so please feel free to break in anytime you want and pick your destiny...

 

[Johnd]

Well I have both, so please feel free to break in anytime you want and pick your destiny...

Ouch!

 

[rnatalli]

Just wanted to quickly add that I personally have no problem with citizens owning guns- I don't think a total ban improves or worsens matters enough to support it. My biggest pet peeve is with the types of guns that normal, law-abiding citizens are allowed to buy on a daily basis. I will never understand why anybody outside of the military needs to own an automatic weapon.

I agree with this statement as well. People should have to right to arm themselves especially for reasons of defense.

If the government started to oppress its citizens and Thomas Jefferson's words ring true, automatic weapons are not hard to find.

 

[rnatalli]

This discussion has thus far only been about defense at home. Carrying a weapon (especially concealed) outside the home is an entirely different can of worms, and probably deserves its own thread.

If you live in MA like me, you have no defense at home other than jumping out a window. Shoot someone who broke into your home and you could be facing jail time. You're supposed to assess the situation and try and find an exit all at 3am in the morning. How stupid is that?