US court hearing key gun law case

[Praxius]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7302179.stm

The United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a landmark case about the country's gun laws.


It is the first time in nearly 70 years that Americans' right to keep and bear arms is being debated in court.

The nine justices will decide whether to uphold or overturn the handgun ban in Washington DC, but their decision could have a national impact.

A ruling is expected by the end of June, and may well become an issue in November's presidential election.

As the session began, several dozen demonstrators supporting opposing sides of the gun law argument gathered outside the Supreme Court building.

Washington DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States.

Second Amendment
Since 1976, there has been a ban on the private possession of handguns in the capital, as well as a requirement to have rifles or shotguns locked or dismantled.


These rules are now being challenged by a federal building security guard, Dick Heller.
He argues that if he is allowed a handgun at work, he has a constitutional right to have one at home for self-defence.

DC city council argues than the ban is justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia".

The debate, which has raged for many years, is centred on whether the Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, or simply a collective right for an armed militia.

The case before the Supreme Court is being closely watched and has attracted dozens of briefs from outside groups arguing their point of view.

"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to interpret an important provision of our Constitution unencumbered by precedent," Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett told the Associated Press.
Hate crimes

The country - including the Bush administration - is split on the issue.


US Solicitor General Paul Clement has argued that while individuals may have the right to own a gun, they are still subject to reasonable government intervention.

Others, including Vice President Dick Cheney and John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, are urging the court to take a stronger stand in favour of gun rights, and overturn the Washington ban.

Organisations also backing gun rights include groups as diverse as Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, as well as the powerful gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).

"More anti-gay hate crimes occur in the home than in any other location," the Pink Pistols argued in their brief to the court, arguing that guns should be allowed in the home for self-defence.

The groups on the other side of the argument include law enforcement agencies, the American Bar Association, and coalitions against domestic violence.

They fear that easing access to handguns will lead to a rise in murder rates.

"Women are killed by intimate partner, husbands, lovers, ex-husbands or ex-lovers, more often than by any other category of killer," said the National Network to End Domestic Violence.
BBC Washington correspondent James Coomarasamy says that the Supreme Court's ruling could have reverberations across the US.

Back at it again.... well my official stance is that the constitution allows for arms for the formation of a Militia in the time of defending the country (As I read it) not for protection from everything under the sun in which anybody seems to be able to personally interprete.

But other's differ of course, so this should be interesting

 

[Colpy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7302179.stm



Back at it again.... well my official stance is that the constitution allows for arms for the formation of a Militia in the time of defending the country (As I read it) not for protection from everything under the sun in which anybody seems to be able to personally interprete.

But other's differ of course, so this should be interesting

First of all, this should be reasonably for the Justices to figure out......if they can read. Look at the wording:

[SIZE=+1]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.[/SIZE]

Now, any competent English teacher would tell you that the first phrase "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" does not in ANY way modify the second primary phrase...."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" Simple as that. The right is garaunteed in the second part of the sentence......

One needs to study historical documents in the light of the intent of the writers. It is clear that those that penned the Bill odf Rights intended the right to be individual, not collective...........do not forget the first battle of the Revolutionary War was fought against British troops heading into the countryside to seize arms from the people.......

The Bill of Rights is a declaration of individual rights in the face of State power.......that is why it exists. Why in the world would there be a declaration of the right of the State (to raise militias) be included? Simple answer: IT ISN'T!

BTW, private ownership of handguns has increased greatly in the USA in the last 20 years..........and 34 states now allow private citizens to carry handguns concealed with only a minimum of training............yet the murder rate in the USA has declined radically from what it was 20 years ago.......

The ban in DC is unconstitutional, as are most US gun laws, and it needs to be thrown out.

 

[Praxius]

Then if that is what it is supposed to mean, then why bring up Militia to begin with if nobody is required to form into a militia and can just own a firearm for what it seems, any reason they feel is justified for their own defence?

Besides that, it states "Bear Arms" not "Firearms" if one wanted to get technical about it.... therefore there is no real protection towards firearms in paticular, but weaponry for defense in general. (Be that a Gun, Sword, Baseball Bat, RPG, Tank.)

For me, you should have the right to own a firearm so long as you agree that in a time of need, you would form with the militias of those who are protecting the Constitution, not the Government.

And although your statistics (Which any statistics change depending on source) line up, there is no actual proven connection between the handguns reducing the murder rate. For all we know, medical practices helped save more lives which would have normally been murders.... not enough information provided either way from what you supplied.

 

[Colpy]

Then if that is what it is supposed to mean, then why bring up Militia to begin with if nobody is required to form into a militia and can just own a firearm for what it seems, any reason they feel is justified for their own defence?

Because back in the day, everyone was part of the Militia......today US law defines the Militia as every male citizen 16 years or older.............and to make it clear that the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting or targety shooting, it is about resistence to tyranny.

Besides that, it states "Bear Arms" not "Firearms" if one wanted to get technical about it.... therefore there is no real protection towards firearms in paticular, but weaponry for defense in general. (Be that a Gun, Sword, Baseball Bat, RPG, Tank.)

You have to look at the intent of those that wrote the Amendment, and it is clear........if not, you play a dangerous game.....does "freedom of speech" mean only spoken words are protected, and political writing of opinion is banned? Don't start splitting hairs........you'll get bit.

For me, you should have the right to own a firearm so long as you agree that in a time of need, you would form with the militias of those who are protecting the Constitution, not the Government.

No such oath required......America trusts her citizens to do what is right for democracy......what a unique idea!

And although your statistics (Which any statistics change depending on source) line up, there is no actual proven connection between the handguns reducing the murder rate. For all we know, medical practices helped save more lives which would have normally been murders.... not enough information provided either way from what you supplied.

I was not trying to prove any correlation betweebn the number of handguns and the right to carry and dropping murder rates.....I'll leave that to the experts......I simply set out to show there is OBVIOUSLY NO CORRELATION between number of guns and murder.....if so, the murder rate would have RISEN.

It is best, then, to err on the side of Liberty.......another unique idea!

 

[I think not]

I'm surprised it even went that high up the courts.

I imagine the Supreme Court accepted to hear the argument only to confirm the inevitable verdict.

 

[Praxius]

Colpy:

Of course... sounds logical and all. But everybody was a part of the Malitia at that time? Who decided who was in the malitia and what loyalty did that said malitia own? There would have to be some level of organization for it to work properly, and technically, if everybody was a part of the malitia, then doesn't that become more messy when you're given the right to bear arms against your fellow citizen for home invasions and other crimes commited by your fellow citizen/malitiamen/woman? Then the headache of who shot who in what constitutional right comes into play for which person. I mean one person could claim it was a home invasion, while it could have just been an invite of someone you knew and hated, then shot, claiming it was your constitutional right to defend yourself.

I'm sure that argument could be explained away as well, but as an example, there seems to be too many questions and not enough certainty, not just in how it was worded in the constitution, but the existing laws today. For me personally, having the right to bear arms seems logical, so long as it is against the government's oppression or an invading force into your nation..... not against your fellow citizen, even if one can interprete "Forign or Domestic" in that way in which it labels one citizen commiting a crime.

Then the other aspect is actually how useful the 2nd admen. is.... considdering other nations have restrictions/bans on firearms (or certain kinds) and although direct connections between crime rates in those countries and the gun laws/restrictions can also not be proven easily, when comparing the overall crime/murder rates of those nations with restrictions to nations with very few, the one with more restrictions on firearms seem to have a lot less crime then the one which gives the right to bear arms.

"As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada."

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Granted, I am aware that this is a sorta biased report from a gun control web site, so I don't hold too seriously to what is mentioned here, but is an example of how what one statistic states, another can shed a different light on the same subject.

 

[DontQuoteMe]

So you trust people to vote in the person who has their hands on a button that ends all life on earth, despite they fact that it often boils down to a big PR campaign "popularity contest"

But then don't think that person can own a device that sends a bit of metal fast out one end without being a criminal?

If you have to assume someone is a criminal before they commit a crime, then why not switch the whole legal system to "Guilty until proven Innocent"

 

[Praxius]

If you have to assume someone is a criminal before they commit a crime, then why not switch the whole legal system to "Guilty until proven Innocent"

They already did that in Guantanamo Bay silly.

 

[Colpy]

Colpy:

Of course... sounds logical and all. But everybody was a part of the Malitia at that time? Who decided who was in the malitia and what loyalty did that said malitia own? There would have to be some level of organization for it to work properly, and technically, if everybody was a part of the malitia, then doesn't that become more messy when you're given the right to bear arms against your fellow citizen for home invasions and other crimes commited by your fellow citizen/malitiamen/woman? Then the headache of who shot who in what constitutional right comes into play for which person. I mean one person could claim it was a home invasion, while it could have just been an invite of someone you knew and hated, then shot, claiming it was your constitutional right to defend yourself.

I'm sure that argument could be explained away as well, but as an example, there seems to be too many questions and not enough certainty, not just in how it was worded in the constitution, but the existing laws today. For me personally, having the right to bear arms seems logical, so long as it is against the government's oppression or an invading force into your nation..... not against your fellow citizen, even if one can interprete "Forign or Domestic" in that way in which it labels one citizen commiting a crime.

Then the other aspect is actually how useful the 2nd admen. is.... considdering other nations have restrictions/bans on firearms (or certain kinds) and although direct connections between crime rates in those countries and the gun laws/restrictions can also not be proven easily, when comparing the overall crime/murder rates of those nations with restrictions to nations with very few, the one with more restrictions on firearms seem to have a lot less crime then the one which gives the right to bear arms.

"As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada."

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Granted, I am aware that this is a sorta biased report from a gun control web site, so I don't hold too seriously to what is mentioned here, but is an example of how what one statistic states, another can shed a different light on the same subject.

Switzerland requires every male between the ages of 18 and 45 to keep a MACHINE GUN in his home with 200 rounds of ammunition, and encourages people to own guns. Not that long ago, a Swiss citizen was required to qualify with his rifle before he could vote. Want to know why Switzerland, despite being in the centre of Europe, has not been in a war in 200 years? Nobody dares invade the place. BTW, the Swiss murder rate is about the same as that in Canada.....between 2 and 3 per 100,000.

In Israel, people are also encouraged to carry guns.....yet the murder rate is about the same as in Canada........despite terrorism and ethnic tensions between Arab and Jew.

Jamaica has the highest murder rate on earth...........Jamaica's gov't seized every legal gun in the late 70s and dumped them into the sea........in Jamaica you can get life for possesion of a bullet........

Oddly enough, the highest rates of murder in the USA are in big cities......especially those with tough gun control. Washington DC is one of the worst..........guns are essentially banned there.

So, last year I got all caught up in this argument, and decided to try a REAL comparison.....two places with equivalent populations, both in size, culture, ethnicity.....one with strict gun control, one without.

Canada Provincial Population - 2002 American State Population - 2003
(rounded down to the nearest 1000)
Manitoba 1,151,000...............Montana 917,000
Saskatchewan 1,000,000........ North Dakota 633,000
Alberta 3,056,000................ Minnesota 5,059,000

MURDER RATES PER 100,000 POPULATION
Year...................2000.....2001.....2002.....2003.....2004
Manitoba.............2.61.....2.95......3.12.....3.70......4.27
Saskatchewan.......2.58.....2.70......2.71.....4.12......3.92
Alberta................1.96.... 2.29...... 2.25.... 2.03..... 2.69
Montana..............1.80.....3.80......1.80......3.30.....3.20
North Dakota........0.60......1.10..... 0.80......1.90.....1.40
Minnesota............3.10......2.40......2.20......2.50.....2.20

If you extrapolate these figures out to total rates, you discover some fascinating things..........not only are the murder rates lower just across the border in the US "wild west", they are DROPPING there, while they are INCREASING in Canada.

BTW, the Canadian provinces have Canadian gun laws.....touted by our leaders as some of the toughest in the world.

The States listed have practically NO gun laws, NO registration of long guns OR handguns, no licensing of gun owners, and YES you can own (and many DO own) so called "assault weapons" with 30 round magazines........they all are rated at "D" or "F" on the Brady website......

The worst murder rate in all Canadiabn provinces, territories, and US States?

The NorthWest Territories.

In Canada.


Canada's systenm of Gun control is the biggest con yet passed over on the Canadian people. It is a waste of billions of dollars..........and completely useless.

 

[Colpy]

One last word........those Americans who don't like the liberty awarded them in the Second Amendment should cease trying to subvert the Bill of Rights and take the only honest, forthright course available to them.......working to pass an amendment removing the right to keep and bear arms.......there is a formula to do just that.....a proposistion ratified by the legislatures of 2/3 of the states, then ratified by a 2/3 vote in both houses, and approved by the President.

Good luck with that.

Or they should STFU.

 

[Praxius]

Fair enough, just raising questions here. What the US does with their laws on gun control really make no difference to me, but I figured some here may find the topic interesting and I'd raise a few questions I had on the matter that to me seemed contradicting.

On a slight side note in this topic, I have heard the Canadian Govt. complain that our gun related crimes are connected to smuggled weapons from the US border, while at the same time, the US has been trying to blame Canada for a good % of the drug trade that comes passed their border..... the US wanted us to scrap any idea of legalizing marijuana or they'd tighten up the borders (which they already did after 9/11) yet if the tracing of the firearms related in crimes here in Canada can be linked to the US..... then technically shouldn't the US place restrictions on their firearms to suit our best interests since we did the same thing for them in relation to drugs? Or logically since I know they wouldn't do that to begin with, shouldn't we just re-decriminalize marijuana as we originally planned and call it even, since we'd both be accused of fueling crimes in the other country by our conflicting laws?

That's sort of a rhetorical question, but crossed the mind still.

Back to topic then... if the US wants the law to be as it currently stands, as you explained it.... then perhaps they should revised the constitution to word it more detailed and specific in order to remove this problem in the future.

 

[Colpy]

I would not expect the USA to truncate their Bill of Rights and restrict firearms to suit our tender sensibilities.....although going down there and demanding they do so is Jack Layton's idea of a response to the miniscule "gun problem" in Canada......Damn that man is an idiot.

YES, we should de-criminalize marijuana.....over the protests of the US.

 

[Praxius]

Seems balanced to me. It'd make a spike in tourism in Canada.

Come to Canada, smoke your brains out in a green cloud listening to The Tea Party or I Mother Earth, realize some fool put PCP in your weed, get all Pizzed off, head down to the US and check out their massive gun selections and determine which would be best to suit your murdering needs.... come back to Canada, get hot boxed at the border and forget why you have the gun in the first place or why you went to the US to begin with...... then you get busted at the border by both sides for being under the influence and possesion of an unregistered firearm.... lol.

 

[MikeyDB]

Disarming the population has served the purposes of many fine governments over human history......

 

[Praxius]

Disarming the population has served the purposes of many fine governments over human history......

True, but when one really needs a weapon, there are always ways of obtaining it.

 

[Colpy]

True, but when one really needs a weapon, there are always ways of obtaining it.

True......and that makes a strict gun control strategy sort of a waste of time, doesn't it?

 

[MikeyDB]

Praxius

You may be right and let me tell you something that I discovered that I simply don't understand at all....

Anyone can purchase gunpowder and the components used in reloading pistol and cartridge cases without any special kind of permit at all..... To buy ammunition you have to have a PAL or a POL or some "permit" from the gov...to buy the components from which a bomb could be easily made....NOPE don't need no permit fer that....

How secure can Canadians feel about the uselessness of the gun-registry when coupled to the lack of oversight needed to purchase components?

How stupid are Canadian gun laws...?

 

[Praxius]

Praxius

You may be right and let me tell you something that I discovered that I simply don't understand at all....

Anyone can purchase gunpowder and the components used in reloading pistol and cartridge cases without any special kind of permit at all..... To buy ammunition you have to have a PAL or a POL or some "permit" from the gov...to buy the components from which a bomb could be easily made....NOPE don't need no permit fer that....

How secure can Canadians feel about the uselessness of the gun-registry when coupled to the lack of oversight needed to purchase components?

How stupid are Canadian gun laws...?

To you and Colpy:

Well I always kinda considdered the registry a load of crap from day one.... laws before that at the time seemed to make sense, but the registry I always considdered just a money scam.

towards Colpy:

if one can always obtain a firearm regardless of the laws restricting it, then yes, they don't make much sense.... but I'm also one of those fair deal sorta guys... which is why I brought up the drug situation. There's plenty of laws for that too, yet I can get anything I want at the touch of a phone call or visit..... they're pretty useless there too.

I just figure if the US is going to give the right to bear arms for obvious reasons then they should also drop the war on drugs because it's equally contradicting.

Same with Canada.... if we're talking about legalizing certain drugs, then guns would have to follow suit..... logically to me.

 

[Just the Facts]

If you have to assume someone is a criminal before they commit a crime, then why not switch the whole legal system to "Guilty until proven Innocent"

Switch? :lol:

 

[Colpy]

To you and Colpy:

Well I always kinda considdered the registry a load of crap from day one.... laws before that at the time seemed to make sense, but the registry I always considdered just a money scam.

towards Colpy:

if one can always obtain a firearm regardless of the laws restricting it, then yes, they don't make much sense.... but I'm also one of those fair deal sorta guys... which is why I brought up the drug situation. There's plenty of laws for that too, yet I can get anything I want at the touch of a phone call or visit..... they're pretty useless there too.

I just figure if the US is going to give the right to bear arms for obvious reasons then they should also drop the war on drugs because it's equally contradicting.

Same with Canada.... if we're talking about legalizing certain drugs, then guns would have to follow suit..... logically to me.

Ah, Praxius, it seems you are a Libertarian in the raw.....so to speak.