DC gun law decision

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I don't follow this issue all that closely but I know I should. One thing puzzles me: why is it assumed that greater restrictions on guns will lead to less crime? Are criminals in DC buying their weapons legally? Are there any stats on this? I find it hard to believe that these weapons are obtained by legal means.

[conley]

criminals will steal guns from law abiding folks...fewer law abiding folks with guns = few criminals with guns = fewer guns all around = fewer dead people

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

criminals will steal guns from law abiding folks...fewer law abiding folks with guns = few criminals with guns = fewer guns all around = fewer dead people

I know some studies have shown that the more law abiding folks with guns the less crime.

[conley]

criminals will steal guns from law abiding folks...fewer law abiding folks with guns = few criminals with guns = fewer guns all around = fewer dead people

I know some studies have shown that the more law abiding folks with guns the less crime.

reasonable...but somehow they have to figure out a way to keep those guns in the hands of those folks and not have little kids or criminals get their hands on em

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

criminals will steal guns from law abiding folks...fewer law abiding folks with guns = few criminals with guns = fewer guns all around = fewer dead people

I know some studies have shown that the more law abiding folks with guns the less crime.

reasonable...but somehow they have to figure out a way to keep those guns in the hands of those folks and not have little kids or criminals get their hands on em

I don't disagree. Like I said, I don't follow this closely and don't give it much thought. It's an issue that motivates lots of people.

[SDML]

criminals will steal guns from law abiding folks...fewer law abiding folks with guns = few criminals with guns = fewer guns all around = fewer dead people

That is the silliest thing I've read all morning.

That aside, I rather like the court's decision to toss out the "collective right" status of the 2nd amendment 9a stupid idea to begin with, since the framers were very specific) and now view it as an individual right....again.

[Vermouth]

I was suprised to hear that this is the first time the 2nd amendment has come before the Supreme Court.

[SDML]

Second time, if I'm not mistaken. They heard a case regarding shotgun barrel length back in 1939, I think.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

i think sdml is right with regard to the barrel length.  this debate before the court seeks an interpretation of the second amendment.  if this case is in anyway upheld by the court gun owners beware.

[wow]

These laws have NOTHING to do with criminals possessing a gun.
These laws are pertaining to one thing, law abiding citizens owning a gun.
If someone attached a provision that read "There will be a mandatory 50 year sentence (No parole) for crimes committed using a gun", then I would have a different opinion.
The nay sayers may offer "But our prisons are full". My response, leave my guns alone and deal with your own dead end philosophy!
 

[conley]

criminals will steal guns from law abiding folks...fewer law abiding folks with guns = few criminals with guns = fewer guns all around = fewer dead people

That is the silliest thing I've read all morning.

That aside, I rather like the court's decision to toss out the "collective right" status of the 2nd amendment 9a stupid idea to begin with, since the framers were very specific) and now view it as an individual right....again.

why is that silly? guns get stolen all the time

you think criminals buy their guns from the local gun store after waiting for the background check to process? and have permits?

[Peter1469]

Based upon the comments of the Justices during oral arguments, the Supreme Court seems to be ready to rule that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that the federal, state, and local government can place reasonable regulations on gun ownership.
 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VG4TBG2&show_article=1

 I believe that this is the first time that Court is going to rule on the issue of whether the Second Amendment is an individual right vice a collective right.  The 1939 case (US v Miller) mentioned in an earlier post considered the issue of whether a sawed-off shotgun is a weapon suited to the military (militia).  The court held that it was not, and therefore the government could ban the sawed-off shotgun.   http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

Miller does have interesting language about what a militia was at the time of the Founding. 

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

***

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should 'contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....'

This would suggest to me that the Miller Court was writing its opinion with the premise that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right- perhaps it was so clear they felt that there was no need to bring it up. 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

criminals will steal guns from law abiding folks...fewer law abiding folks with guns = few criminals with guns = fewer guns all around = fewer dead people

  on second thought 

[Vermouth]

Interesting. My interpretation is that it's an individual right.

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.

But insofar as the rationale for males owning firearms was the readiness of the militia, what is the relevance now that we don't have or use a militia? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State is no longer accurate. The US government is not going to call us up to report to duty with our rifles. It is no longer relevant to the security of the nation.

So I guess the main issue now is how reasonable are the restrictions put in place by individual states.

[spunkloaf]

I agree.  Guns are permitted to be owned by all US law abiding citizens.  I don't like them personally, but it's a right.

Guns are only accessories to some crimes, not the cause of them.