Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says it will take up a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, opening the way for a ruling that could set off a vigorous new campaign to roll back state and local gun controls across the nation.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 30/9/2009 by Mirthful Me]

Another atrocity on our consitution and to our freedom is on the docket with the supreme court and newly appointed Judge Sotomayor. This makes my skin crawl that these people have the audacity to decide how we can and cannot protect ourselves and our loved ones and homes from intruders.

Who will help? In time that is. The Police? LOL please these guys can barely get it right anyways, especially if a minority is involved. Just to state fact, i am a white male and have seen friends that are in minority groups get their beans busted by police and treatyed much different than i ever have. And they expect uis to trust them.PLEASE!

If they ban or "roll back" guns laws as they put it, they will be contested hotly and to be honest it's not going to stop me or any other firearm enthusiast from owning them.

I wonder if they ever stopped to think that the only reason that guns get a bad rap is because eevry time we hear about them it's b y some moron that used it in a crime, inappropriately or was neglagent with the firearm. Their are more responsible owners and users out there that have no problems handling them. Think about that.

Same thing with marijuana, you only hear about the idiots, not the people just chillin at home watching tv and smokin a J causing no harm to anyone. Anyways had to get that off my chest.

Namaste

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 30/9/2009 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by PjZ101


No both your vents are quite legit. Like I ask people you hear about someone getting shot in the city what comes to mind? Now same question but in a rural area? Gun rights are heavily scrutinized and misunderstood. How many people really know the limits on free speech? Sadly most people go by what they were told as kids...

Same thing with marijuana, you only hear about the idiots, not the people just chillin at home watching tv and smokin a J causing no harm to anyone.

I agree they shouldn't have the right to ban either, but unfortunately they've criminalized one and are sure to do the same thing to the other. Idiots ruin it for everyone.



[edit on 9/30/2009 by TheAntiHero420]

All I can say is that a lot rides on this case.

I don't think that I'm alone in defining my country by the Bill of Rights.

It's good that some of the old decisions are getting a review, because they have made the nation less safe and have helped criminals of both political and the street variety to ravage our cities.

A lot of people will be watching this closely.

A mini hand held cannon is simply a really cool device to have fun with. I dont even own any, other than an antique that will never be fired. Its just ashame that irresponsible people have access and dont understand right from wrong, or have any morals.

It's a little late to ban guns in my opinion. The criminal element already has what they need to make life miserable for the rest of us and we can rest assured they ain't agonna turn them in.

Speaking of handguns, I've been thinking of buying one but don't know which kind to buy. I know it's off topic so please U2U me if you can give me sound advice.

Thanx!

I_R

Originally posted by idle_rocker
It's a little late to ban guns in my opinion. The criminal element already has what they need to make life miserable for the rest of us and we can rest assured they ain't agonna turn them in.

Criminal element. You mean like the po-lice?

And so it begins. Now they are trying to disarm us! Man I am so angry about everything right now that I don't even like to sleep. I feel like our time is quickly running out. I hope that's just my paranoia talking.

reply to post by FatalGreenthumb


Um no.

You need to read the article.

This is a review of whether the states and cities have the RIGHT to impose strict gun laws.

If they rule that they DO, then nothing changes. States and cities can ALREADY do this.

If they rule that they do NOT. Then strict laws are then in the process to become void.

I highly doubt this will take effect anytime soon. People will go bezerk over this. Some will want the laws that exists to stay existing and the other side will want the change.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by buni11687]

reply to post by FatalGreenthumb


Read these and calm down.

www.google.com...

www.latimes.com...

/ycevu7y

This is an important case because it will determine if the current restrictive gun-control laws are constitutional.

It needs to be done and now is a good time.

Let us pray that the court will uphold the Second Amendment as a Constitutionally protected individual right at the federal level.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by FatalGreenthumb

 

Um no.

You need to read the article.

Yes, a star for you as I was about to post the same. At least you comprehend the text before you rather than trying to spin it into another one of those "omgz, the liberals are trying to disarm us" freeper rants. It is a review on the constitutionality of certain restrictions or outright bans themselves.

So, I'm just adding my "I agree" to the mix but I need more than one line.

reply to post by hangedman13


guns and free speech is potatoes and fishing

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Star for you for starring him...

Every time they bring up this topic and I hear the words

Supreme Court my skin crawls.

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by hangedman13

 

guns and free speech is potatoes and fishing

Are you saying they don't go together? Personally, they seem to me more like fish and chips, water and earth, sharing a common line on the pentagram of five elements, two things necessary to reap a harvest. Hehe.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by FatalGreenthumb

 

Um no.

You need to read the article.

This is a review of whether the states and cities have the RIGHT to impose strict gun laws.

If they rule that they DO, then nothing changes. States and cities can ALREADY do this.

If they rule that they do NOT. Then strict laws are then in the process to become void.

I was little confused with this one too. It looks like they are questioning the constitutionality of Chicago's ban on handguns.

On the surface, it would seem that striking down Chicago's ban would be a victory for the 2nd amendment, but in reality I think it's a little more sinister.

What this would be telling us is that the federal government has the right to overstep the laws of their member states. Something they have tried and succeeded at in countless cases. I think it sets a precedent, not so much for the freedom of the citizens of a state, but for tightening the stranglehold on state's rights. When my state tells me I can't have a handgun, the Feds don't have a right to tell me I can. We can't have it both ways, folks.

Do we want the feds in charge, or do we want to maintain the crumb of state sovereignty we have left?

It may seem inconsequential that this is being questioned in Chicago, a place where they don't need guns to kill each other, but I don't think they are wasting their effort here. Everything happens for a reason.

By throwing a carrot at lovers of the 2nd amendment, the Feds save face without really impacting anything, except drawing the states further into constriction. They did the same thing with national parks. They KNOW how many guns are out here. I really don't think this has anything to do with the constitution. They're just buying time.

reply to post by KSPigpen


A very popular response I'm sure. Except states aren't completely sovereign as mi compadre Andrew Jackson warned before the Civil War and their laws cannot usurp the constitution. It's quite clear that the 2nd amendment doesn't state "congress shall make no law..." as the 1st amendment does but rather that the right "...shall not be infringed...".

edit: correct my wording

[edit on 9/30/2009 by EnlightenUp]

People who actively support gun bans should be imprisoned.

They are a threat to us all.

*This is just my opinion.

I personally don't feel a current need to go around packing a firearm, so I don't own one. (And yes, I have trained with one as required during prior military service. Qualified 9mm for pier security/watch duty, as that rotation came up. So I am aware of both the power and hazards they entail, rather than just simply being afraid of them.) Yet I don't feel they should be banned either. Those that are going to break the law will break the law regardless, and in this case that just leaves those that would abide by it at a disadvantage. Besides, there are also other existing laws that cover negligence and reckless discharge, so it's not like the law abiding firearm owners are leaving them sitting out unsecured or going around town shooting nilly-willy.

Also why not look at places where firearm bans have been effectively established? (Such that almost none at all get into a controlled area.) Does it completely deter and end crime? Last I heard, knifing is a problem in the U.K. And then what, ban knives? So then you get people beating others with bats and crowbars, or stabbing with other implements like screwdrivers... And if you somehow manage to ban those, there will be things like a cosh made from a sock full o' pennies, or even plain ol' bare fists. Criminals will be criminals and commit assaults or crimes under the threat of assault regardless of what weapons the law allows them access to.

Region-wide firearm bans are somewhat pointless. If you need to implement a ban, that should be determined by the property owner (such as an apartment landlord or restaurant/club owner) or as rules for access to the grounds of a public facility or institution. Otherwise you should at least have the right to defend your own life and property, since there is evidence a city or similar governing body cannot effectively secure and police all of its domain continuously. Besides, there's a good reason why they thought of the 2nd Amendment back when they made this country.

I think the 2nd amendment should prevail (such that you can lawfully have a firearm), but a city may still get to decide what constitutes proper carry (and with what permits, such as concealed or visibly holstered, otherwise defaulting to secured) within their jurisdiction and while outside of a private property or established firing range. It seems to work well for most places, and still respects the rights of citizens to have a firearm and possibly defend themselves with it if need ever arises.