High Court Strikes Down Gun Ban

[pepper24]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

Also, here's some reaction to the decision.........

(AP) Reactions to the Supreme Court striking down the DC gun ban

By The Associated Press

Some reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday that Americans have a
right to own guns for self-defense and hunting:
___
"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home." _
Dick Heller, who sued the District of Columbia after it rejected his
application to keep a handgun at his home for protection.
___
"More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun
violence." _ Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty.
___
"The president strongly agrees with the Supreme Court's historic decision today
that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of Americans to keep
and bear arms. This has been the Administration's long-held view. The President
is also pleased that the Court concluded that the DC firearm laws violate that
right." _ White House press secretary Dana Perino.
___
"While it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself
acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable
regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's
ruling ... will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the
country." _ Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
___
"This is a great moment in American history. It vindicates individual Americans
all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth
protecting." _ Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle
Association.
___
"They (Supreme Court justices) live in safe neighborhoods. They don't have
this. ... Until it's their family member, they're going to keep voting that
way." _ Annette Nance-Holt, whose son was shot in Chicago as he rode a bus home
from school in May.
___
"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of
government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this
important right." _ Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
___
"We're shown time and time again how many children have been killed in their
homes by guns. ... The only thing it's gonna do is increase your taxes. More
police. More hospitalization. More victims of violence." _ Chicago Mayor
Richard Daley.
___
"I think this is a long overdue decision; I don't think the precedent has been
seriously reaffirmed in decades." _ Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
___
"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of
whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of
precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great
country will be less safe because of it." _ Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
___
"Let's be honest about it. This is an actual, enumerated right in the
Constitution." _ Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
___
"This decision's going to say to these guys that it's OK to have guns _ that's
the message the street gets from this ... If you take this ruling the wrong
way, everybody and their mother's going to go out and get a gun." _ Tio
Hardiman, of the Chicago violence prevention group Cease Fire.
___
"Today's ruling is a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect
themselves and their families. The Supreme Court sent a clear message to local,
state, and federal governments that this individual right cannot be
unreasonably infringed." _ Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.
___
"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology
ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This
decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees
and will continue to do so in the future." _ Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
___
"In the most significant victory for the Second Amendment in recent memory, the
Supreme Court today reaffirmed our citizens' constitutional right to keep and
bear arms. ... This decision should send a clear message to opponents of the
Second Amendment. The Constitution plainly guarantees the solemn right to keep
and bear arms, and the whims of politically correct bureaucrats cannot take it
away." _ House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
___
"While this is a clear victory for those who live in Washington, D.C., it's my
hope what was decided here today projects a powerful new precedent for judges
to follow across the country." _ Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
___
"As someone who works in Washington during the week, I'm relieved that I can
now defend myself in my own apartment without fearing a knock on the door from
the local police," Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga.

[Related Stories]

[Gozer]

It's called a Constitution yo!

[pepper24]

From a Canadian perspective, the whole second ammendment right to bear arms thing seems a bit out of date and unnecessary. Only being around guns for hunting I still cannot make sense out guns for protection.

I can see the side that you cannot touch the constitution but with such high crime in most major US cities linked to guns you have to wonder if a gun ban or better controls would help decrease crime rates.

[Displaced Flames fan]

The extemism on both sides is mindboggling. On one hand you have right wing gun nuts who think it is their inalienable and constitutional right to possess any arms they deem necessary. Any intrusion on that right is unconstitutional and will lead to the impotence of citizens. (the ol' slippery slope).

Then you have the anti-gun lobby nuts saying that this is telling street gangs that its ok to have guns. Go get some.

Both are total crocks.

I agree with the decision, but not because of the constitutionality of it (that's up for debate IMO). Washington, DC is one the most violent cities in the civilized world. If you ban handguns you get compliance from law abiding citizens. Bad guys who would use handguns for bad things don't care if they are banned or not. They can still get them and they will still use them.

At least let citizens protect themselves because clearly DC cops (among others in this country) ain't getting the job done!

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by pepper24

From a Canadian perspective, the whole second ammendment right to bear arms thing seems a bit out of date and unnecessary. Only being around guns for hunting I still cannot make sense out guns for protection.

I can see the side that you cannot touch the constitution but with such high crime in most major US cities linked to guns you have to wonder if a gun ban or better controls would help decrease crime rates.

possible, but people will just find others ways to whack each other

[Nufy]

The problem is that banning guns only keeps them out of the hands of lawful people.

The criminals will still have theirs....

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The extemism on both sides is mindboggling. On one hand you have right wing gun nuts who think it is their inalienable and constitutional right to possess any arms they deem necessary. Any intrusion on that right is unconstitutional and will lead to the impotence of citizens. (the ol' slippery slope).

Then you have the anti-gun lobby nuts saying that this is telling street gangs that its ok to have guns. Go get some.

Both are total crocks.

I agree with the decision, but not because of the constitutionality of it (that's up for debate IMO). Washington, DC is one the most violent cities in the civilized world. If you ban handguns you get compliance from law abiding citizens. Bad guys who would use handguns for bad things don't care if they are banned or not. They can still get them and they will still use them.

At least let citizens protect themselves because clearly DC cops (among others in this country) ain't getting the job done!

you have to be right wing to be a gun nut?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

you have to be right wing to be a gun nut?

I didn't say that. Are you saying that?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I didn't say that. Are you saying that?

have right wing gun nuts

Seems to me you implied it, anyways lets move on!

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

you have to be right wing to be a gun nut?

Based on the quotes, most who disagree with the decision are democrats and victims. Those who agree are republicans and NRA folks.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

"This is a great moment in American history. It vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting." _ Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

Of all the freedoms being eroded in the US, this is the one worth protecting? Go America...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Seems to me you implied it, anyways lets move on!

I used the phrase right wing gun nuts. That doesn't imply that all right wing people are gun nuts or that all gun nuts are right wing. It refers more to the militia groups who are both.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Based on the quotes, most who disagree with the decision are democrats and victims. Those who agree are republicans and NRA folks.

I get it, i am not a republican or a member of the NRA and i agree with it, thanks to points already made above.

Laws don't apply to criminals, so making a law banning guns won't do jack. Sending away criminals who commit crimes with guns for longer periods, may be a better option. But even if you remove guns from the street totally - people will still find ways to harm other people...it could decrease crime, who knows...i doubt it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

Of all the freedoms being eroded in the US, this is the one worth protecting? Go America...

The NRA gives gun owners a bad name. Unfortunately many of them don't realize it.

[worth]

The right to bear arms is fundamental to a truly free society. More guns in the hands of lawful competent citizens is better for everyone. When you ban guns, the only people who have them are criminals. Anyone who is law abiding will turn them in, otherwise they too are a criminal. So how does that help any situation?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding and moreover an ideal in some peoples minds that by somehow taking guns away from responsible people, this will stop the shootings. Focus on taking the guns away from criminals and there will be less crime. If you focus on taking guns away from law abiding citizens, there will be more crime and more victims of crime that could have prevented such an eventuality in the proper circumstances.

[Flashpoint]

Here's the problem with handguns in an urban setting (I have no issue with hunters).

For every law abiding citizen that uses their handgun to defend themselves, there are 52 people who are killed accidentally. I got that number from a Time magazine article I read about 15 years ago. I can't cite it for you (I was a teenager at summer camp), but I remember it vividly. The article listed every gun fatality in the US over the course of 1 week, and showed a picture of every person who died.

EDIT - found the article (link) - 464 deaths in a week, with 14 being self defense - so 33 deaths for every self defense death.


If people have access to guns, they use them and people die. If they don't have them, less people die. Last year DC had the lowest gun fatality rate in 20 years - 168. This year it is up to 180. That's from a BBC article I read yesterday. The cop in the article had words to the effect of "when someone makes a mistake with a trigger in hand, it usually results in fatality".

Less handguns = better society in my opinion.

You want to defend your home? Get a dog.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Here's the problem with handguns in an urban setting (I have no issue with hunters).

For every law abiding citizen that uses their handgun to defend themselves, there are 52 people who are killed accidentally. I got that number from a Time magazine article I read about 15 years ago. I can't cite it for you (I was a teenager at summer camp), but I remember it vividly. The article listed every gun fatality in the US over the course of 1 week, and showed a picture of every person who died.

If people have access to guns, they use them and people die. If they don't have them, less people die. Last year DC had the lowest gun fatality rate in 20 years - 168. This year it is up to 180. That's from a BBC article I read yesterday. The cop in the article had words to the effect of "when someone makes a mistake with a trigger in hand, it usually results in fatality".

Less handguns = better society in my opinion.

You want to defend your home? Get a dog.

Its a valid point, but it applies to more than just guns...
less swimming pools, less cars, less motorbycles etc.. all equal less people dying. The common denominator here is people. I understand the need to protect people from their own stupidity, so if you are going to do it for one item, just do it for all. Not practical.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

You want to defend your home? Get a dog.

Dogs are loud and messy, not to mention the added responsibilty. Guns are quite (when not in use) and easy to store.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Here's the problem with handguns in an urban setting (I have no issue with hunters).

For every law abiding citizen that uses their handgun to defend themselves, there are 52 people who are killed accidentally. I got that number from a Time magazine article I read about 15 years ago. I can't cite it for you (I was a teenager at summer camp), but I remember it vividly. The article listed every gun fatality in the US over the course of 1 week, and showed a picture of every person who died.

If people have access to guns, they use them and people die. If they don't have them, less people die. Last year DC had the lowest gun fatality rate in 20 years - 168. This year it is up to 180. That's from a BBC article I read yesterday. The cop in the article had words to the effect of "when someone makes a mistake with a trigger in hand, it usually results in fatality".

Less handguns = better society in my opinion.

You want to defend your home? Get a dog.

The old teenager at summer camp excuse eh?

Any chance that was 20 years ago or so? I remember an article (much less vividly) that I used in an extemporaneous speaking competition my senior year in high school that was of a similar vein. The part I remember compared gun deaths in the UK, Japan and the US (among other nations) and the numbers were startling. Sound like the same article?

Home invasion robberies are all the rage these days, I'm afraid a dog doesn't really protect your family from an intruder with a gun. Trust me, most people in bad neighborhoods have dogs. They die pretty easily when shot.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by worth

The right to bear arms is fundamental to a truly free society. More guns in the hands of lawful competent citizens is better for everyone. When you ban guns, the only people who have them are criminals. Anyone who is law abiding will turn them in, otherwise they too are a criminal. So how does that help any situation?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding and moreover an ideal in some peoples minds that by somehow taking guns away from responsible people, this will stop the shootings. Focus on taking the guns away from criminals and there will be less crime. If you focus on taking guns away from law abiding citizens, there will be more crime and more victims of crime that could have prevented such an eventuality in the proper circumstances.

I might agree with you if life was like a western movie..but its not. How many times do you hear of a law abiding family or citizen successfully thwarting an attack because they pulled out their home gun and had good old fashion shootout with some kind of criminal attacker. I've heard of very few cases. Actually I can't remember any off hand.

And how many times do you hear about accidental gun deaths related to having guns in the home. Or guns being stolen from law abiding homes. Or a law abiding citizen going psycho and resorting to using that home gun, or his kids going psycho and using that gun at school.

I agree with Flashpoint, more guns in general equates to less safety.