DC Gun Case Opinion Now Due

[Okla-homey]

SCOTUS has one week left before Summer vacation. I expect an opinion within the next 24-36 hours.

Stay tuned.

In other news, they ruled today the ginormous border fence can continue notwithstanding damage to desert habitats for desert critters and such. Therefore, the gubmint is cleared to continue to waste money on something that isn't going to keep anyone out, but makes some folks feel better that "something is being done."

[yermom]

is it due, or do they just have that long to provide a ruling? can't they basically rule on it by just letting it drop off?

i'm thinking Terri Schaivo

[Okla-homey]

is it due, or do they just have that long to provide a ruling? can't they basically rule on it by just letting it drop off?

i'm thinking Terri Schaivo

I bet they'll rule.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

In other news, they ruled today the ginormous border fence can continue notwithstanding damage to desert habitats for desert critters and such. Therefore, the gubmint is cleared to continue to waste money on something that isn't going to keep anyone out, but makes some folks feel better that "something is being done."

Diana Lucio and her husband run Fort Brown Memorial Golf Course, which will be left on the south side of the fence.


"The fence, as it is designed, would leave two thirds of my land on the Mexican side," Dorothy Irwin said. "We believe the border fence belongs on the border, not a quarter mile or up to a mile or more away from the border."

[...some people just don't understand government-style solutions]

[yermom]

heh

[StoopTroup]

I've never thought about carrying a gun in DC...

I'm guessing you'll need one if they rule.

[Jerk]

SCOTUS blog thinks that Scalia is writing the majority opinion, because he has yet to write a majority opinion for this session.

If that's true, you better sell any legally-held registered class III machine guns, because they're about to go waaaay down in value.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

If that's true, you better sell any legally-held registered class III machine guns, because they're about to go waaaay down in value.

I'm sorry for being dense here, this means what? He is for uncontrolled gun ownership or he is for tight controls on certain weapons?

Should I be worried I haven't been in country to take my Concealed Carry test yet?

[Jerk]

I'm sorry for being dense here, this means what? He is for uncontrolled gun ownership or he is for tight controls on certain weapons?

Should I be worried I haven't been in country to take my Concealed Carry test yet?

It was my way of saying that Scalia is going to flush gun control down the toilet. In reality, I don't think a lot of current regulations will be effected if they rule in favor of Heller. But, what it will do is establish the 2nd as a civil right and make future gun bans almost impossible.

We'll see, though.

[Jerk]

Oh. and to explain my first post, congress banned the transfer of NEW machine guns made after 1986. So, there are only so many in circulation that are registered under the National Firearms Act. This cap in supply made the prices go through the roof. For example, an M-16 can cost close to $20,000. Imagine where the prices of these firearms would go if you could buy new ones, again. (Not that I think that will happen even with a favorable ruling)

[Frozen Sooner]

SCOTUS blog thinks that Scalia is writing the majority opinion, because he has yet to write a majority opinion for this session.

If that's true, you better sell any legally-held registered class III machine guns, because they're about to go waaaay down in value.

Hell, if Scalia is writing the opinion, machine guns may go up in price as he may possibly make ownership mandatory.

[Curly Bill]

Hell, if Scalia is writing the opinion, machine guns may go up in price as he may possibly make ownership mandatory.

This would be teh awesome! :D

[Rogue]

And get ready to pay out the wazzoo for ammo from now on since it will have to be laser-coded to identify it. :rolleyes:
Damn liberal anti-gun nuts! ;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Reloaders... UNITE!

[Frozen Sooner]

This would be teh awesome! :D

He's also likely to opine that shooting bits off of people with said machine gun doesn't constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" so long as it's done to garner information as opposed to being an actual judicial sentence.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I hereby sentence you to getting "bits shot off of you with said machine gun."

Kinda rolls off the tongue, don't it?

[MR2-Sooner86]

For example, an M-16 can cost close to $20,000. Imagine where the prices of these firearms would go if you could buy new ones, again. (Not that I think that will happen even with a favorable ruling)

That's why you get an AR-15 and get the M-16 trigger group ;)

Of course that is hard to do but it can be. However, it is highly illegal, just a little FYI to anybody who tries to do it.

[John Kochtoston]

I bet they'll rule.

They will. They're much like me in that respect.



















:D

[GottaHavePride]

In other news, they ruled today the ginormous border fence can continue notwithstanding damage to desert habitats for desert critters and such. Therefore, the gubmint is cleared to continue to waste money on something that isn't going to keep anyone out, but makes some folks feel better that "something is being done."

http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/images/getfuzzy2008062174662.jpg

Heh.

[StoopTroup]

Will the illegal Messicans be able to wield a gun in DC?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jLewis/Studs/Minors/Cindy-Scalia.jpg

Antonin's gun is loaded. You da man!!!

[StoopTroup]

So...why isn't this more important than a little ole oil spill? :D

[Okla-homey]

They wanted to make it more exciting. This is the first 2d Amendment ruling in 70 years.

Here's what I think it'll be...we'll see if I'm close tomorrow.

They'll strike down the DC law that says DC peeps may not keep a functional gun in their homes. I predict they will only address the right to "keep" firearms. They won't address your right to "bear" arms.

I will be shocked if they state any standard of review for laws infringing on folks right to keep guns, but I bet it'll be "rational basis" if they do. IOW, a law infringing on your right to keep a gun in your home must be rationally linked to a legitimate government purpose. That means, other than striking down this DC ordinance because they will find it NOT rationally linked to a legitimate governmnet purpose, nothing much will change on the constitutional front as applied to guns. In short, the NRA will remain in business.;)

Now, if they go further and declare an intermediate scrutiny standard of review of laws infringing on your right to keep guns, or, the "holy grail" ruling hoped for by all us gun nuts -- "strict scrutiny" of such laws, I'll get drunk and bark at the moon tomorrow night. :D

That's because that "strict scrutiny" standard of review would mean laws infringing on your right to keep guns would have to be "necessary for a compelling government purpose" which would mean curtains for about any state or federal law infringing on your right to keep guns.

[JohnnyMack]

If they do that, then can I go buy me an MG-42?

[Curly Bill]

Now, if they go further and declare an intermediate scrutiny standard of review of laws infringing on your right to keep guns, or, the "holy grail" ruling hoped for by all us gun nuts -- "strict scrutiny" of such laws, I'll get drunk and bark at the moon tomorrow night. :D


...or get drunk and shoot that sum bitch. :D

[Okla-homey]

If they do that, then can I go buy me an MG-42?

I would be absolutely flabbergasted if they ever ruled Joe Sixpack has a right to own a belt-fed machine gun. In fact, I doubt they would allow citizens to own any machine gun. That's simply too much to ask. I'd settle for striking down any state or local law that limits semi-automatic or bolt-action firearm possession by 18 y/o non-felons who are otherwise mentally competent. I also wish all states were required to issue a concealled carry permit to any such person who applies for one.

[mdklatt]

They'll strike down the DC law that says DC peeps may not keep a functional gun in their homes.

Would that make them activist judges who are undemocratically overturning the will of the people?

[47straight]

Would that make them activist judges who are undemocratically overturning the will of the people?


No. Being an activist judge kicks in a few sentences after the words "penumbra"

[Jerk]

I have a bad feeling. I think Kennedy is going to screw us.

We should know in 4.5 hours.

It will be 5-4 decision, win or lose, with Kennedy being the swing vote.

I guess if Heller loses, nothing really changes anyway. I bet the NRA will pick up another million members.

[olevetonahill]

I have a bad feeling. I think Kennedy is going to screw us.

We should know in 4 hours.

It will be 5-4 decision, win or lose, with Kennedy being the swing vote.

A KENNEDY ? Naw never happen

[Jerk]

A KENNEDY ? Naw never happen


To add a little salt in the wound, they could cite international law as a reason for siding with D.C.

LOL for some reason that makes me snicker.

(they actually did last year in a death penalty case)

[Jerk]

If they do that, then can I go buy me an MG-42?

http://www.brookings.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/davy6.jpg

I'm getting a recoiless rifle with a nuclear warhead.

[olevetonahill]

Would that make them activist judges who are undemocratically overturning the will of the people?

Only IF the Will Of the People, In ALL of this United STATES OF AMERICA Vote NO Guns !
When Seconds Count , Your Local PoPos are Just minutes away:eek:

[olevetonahill]

http://www.brookings.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/davy6.jpg

I'm getting a recoiless rifle with a nuclear warhead.

Good Jorb !

[Widescreen]

It's in. SCOTUS struck the DC law down. W00t!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.brookings.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/davy6.jpg

I'm getting a recoiless rifle with a nuclear warhead.

That would rule!

Can you help me put a railgun in my front yard?

[GrapevineSooner]

Cheers to people being able to defend themselves in our nation's capital.

[soonerinabilene]

It's in. SCOTUS struck the DC law down. W00t!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Does this mean the Wizards can change back to the Bullets?

[Fugue]

Another 5-4 ruling. Gun rights are on borrowed time with this Court. Stevens in dissent has the nerve to bring up elected officials wishes after the child rape crap they pulled in yesterdays ruling. At least Obama and McCain both had the sense to condemn that one.

[Soonermagik]

I'm just glad to finally see this question raised to the highest court.

I think it is insane to allow any state to prohibit gun rights. I would like to see all states be forced to allow citizens to have the right to CCW. I love the fact that Florida just ruled that no business can deny your right to concealed carry.

We should all have the right to defend ourselves.

[yermom]

DC isn't a state

[olevetonahill]

Well **** , Will the Resident Lawyers we Have here weigh in ?
Is this Just another ****ed up court opinion. or is there any thing Definitive ?
Other than DC cant Say NO to Guns ?

[Fugue]

Scalia explains the 2nd Amendment and rips Stevens a new one at the same time. :D

[olevetonahill]

Scalia explains the 2nd Amendment and rips Stevens a new one at the same time. :D

Then give me the DRunk Cliffs Note version ok ?
:D

[Fugue]

Then give me the DRunk Cliffs Note version ok ?
:D


You can do some front porch sittin' with your gun and defend yourself all day long. :texan:

[Soonermagik]

VICTORY!!!!! They have ruled, and it is good.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Americans have a right to own guns... but left intact the licensing of guns.

Yes, They got it right.

[olevetonahill]

You can do some front porch sittin' with your gun and defend yourself all day long. :texan:

With MY shine ?
;)

[Fugue]

With MY shine ?
;)


no, that's still illegal. :P

[olevetonahill]

no, that's still illegal. :P

Them Bastages !:mad:

[Okla-homey]

Then give me the DRunk Cliffs Note version ok ?
:D

OK.

While I'm somewhat disappointed in the fact no standard of review was announced, I'm somewhat pleased I predicted there would be none.

Heller in a nutshell: absolute bars on keeping guns at home by non-felons who are of sound mind are unconstitutional. Thus, the NRA stays in bidness. ;^)

Love,

Yer pal and fellow shooter,

Homey

[olevetonahill]

OK.

While I'm somewhat disappointed in the fact no standard of review was announced, I'm somewhat pleased I predicted there would be none.

Heller in a nutshell: absolute bars on keeping guns at home by non-felons who are of sound mind are unconstitutional. Thus, the NRA stays in bidness. ;^)

Love,

Yer pal and fellow shooter,

Homey

So where does that Leave Me ?

[Okla-homey]

So where does that Leave Me ?

try to get that felony conviction pardoned.

and on the mental thingy, as long as you have not been adjudicated as nuts (no certificate suitable for framing from a judge), you are good to go.:D

[olevetonahill]

try to get that felony conviction pardoned.

and on the mental thingy, as long as you have not been adjudicated as nuts (no certificate suitable for framing from a judge), you are good to go.:D

Cool
I aint been convicted of anything yet :D :cool:
Plus it was all dropped to Misdemeaner stuff
so the PTSD aint gonna Ham string Me ?

[Widescreen]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

If by "people" she means "crooks", she's right on.

[Okla-homey]

Cool
I aint been convicted of anything yet :D :cool:
Plus it was all dropped to Misdemeaner stuff
so the PTSD aint gonna Ham string Me ?

a diagnosis is one thing. Being adjudged mentally insane is another.

as an aside, it prolly should be wider than that, but privacy rights generally preclude that sort of thing.

As an example, that VaTech shooter was able to buy the guns he killed with because he had not been legally declared insane. Mind you, his shrinks thought he was batsh1t, but that information was privileged on the basis of his right to privacy as it pertains to his medical records.

[Okla-homey]

If by "people" she means "crooks", she's right on.

great point. In fact, nationally, burglars are statistically more likely to be killed by the homeowner than being convicted of the crime.

[Jerk]

Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'
High court strikes down Washington D.C. law in ruling that could have implications for similar 1982 Chicago Weapons Ordinance

Melissa Patterson and Jeff Coen | Chicago Tribune reporters
2:34 PM CDT, June 26, 2008



These guns were displayed as Mayor Richard Daley unveiled a package of gun legislation proposals in February. (Tribune file photo by Heather Stone / February 19, 2008)

An angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court's overturning of the Washington D.C. handgun ban "a very frightening decision" and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago's ban.


That challenge was not long in coming. Hours after the high court's ruling was made public Thursday, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sued the city and the mayor in an effort to overturn Chicago's quarter-century ban on handguns.

City officials expressed confidence the city would prevail in any court challenge, asserting, among other things, that the 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government and does not apply to state and local governments.

"It's a big blow to those of us who believe in common sense gun laws," Gov. Rod Blagojevich said during an appearance at a West Side community agency to announce a summer jobs program. "And as a result, it's the wrong decision."



Earlier, Daley expressed outrage at the 5-4 court decision.

"Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?" Daley asked while speaking at a Navy Pier event. "If they [the Supreme Court] think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets if that's they're thinking."

"We think we're such an improved society," he added. "The rest of the world is laughing at us."

In finding Washington D.C's law against handgun ownership unconstitutional, the high court determined that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense and hunting.

It was the first time in nearly 70 years that the court had taken up broad questions about the 2nd Amendment's protections of the right to bear arms. The city of Chicago, which has had its own ban on handgun ownership since 1982, had filed a brief with the court in support of the ban in January.

City legal officials respond
Even before the suit was filed challenging the Chicago Weapons Ordinance, city officials said they believed the Chicago law did not fall under the Supreme Court ruling.

"We are confident that this does not invalidate Chicago's ordinance at this point," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city Law Department.

Benna Solomon, deputy corporation counsel for the city, asserted that the Supreme Court decision applies only to the federal government. Washington D.C., she said, is part of the federal government, but Chicago is an independent home-rule unit of Illinois.

"The court notes that it is not required to consider whether the 2nd Amendment also applies to state and local government, and therefore it does not consider that question," Solomon said. "The court had previously held on three occasions the 2nd Amendment does not apply to state and local government, and it does not reconsider or even address that issue in this opinion."

"We are prepared to aggressively litigate this issue and defend this ordinance," Hoyle added.

In railing against the Supreme Court ruling, Daley stressed the danger of private gun ownership, especially for the children of gun owners.

"We've shown time and time again how many children have been killed in their homes by guns," he said. "Parents are away, they get the gun. Parents are away, the child takes the gun, runs out in the street and has an argument, comes back and shoots somebody."

He also pointed to the high medical and social costs associated with gun violence.

District of Columbia vs. Dick Heller began as a group of plaintiffs suing over D.C.'s local gun ordinances, including one barring the registration of handguns by private individuals. Heller was a security guard at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington who could have a handgun at work but not at home, and his lawyers argued the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right of handgun ownership.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling that had dismissed Heller's suit, finding that the 2nd Amendment did protect an individual's right to bear arms. The Supreme Court took the case and heard oral arguments in March.

In Chicago's brief, lawyers argued that state and local rules regulating firearms are constitutional and have had popular support. Chicago's ordinances resemble those of D.C., lawyers for the city acknowledged.



"Chicago, like other big cities, has a compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms," the brief states.

Chicago Police Department statistics show that from 2004 to November 2007 there were 43,685 firearms-related violent crimes in the city.

Chicago's top cop responds
"From a law enforcement perspective, this [the Supreme Court decision] will no doubt make a police officer's job more challenging than it already is," Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis said, "particularly since a firearm is used in 75 percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago."

Richard Pearson, spokesman for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said gun-rights advocates are excited about the ruling and believe it will have a wide impact.


"I think that's going to impact the de facto Chicago gun ban greatly," he said, as well as other ordinances across the state. "Those ordinances will either need to be changed or will be in jeopardy from legal challenges."

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the five-judge majority said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

John McGinnis, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law who specializes in constitutional law and served in the office of legal counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, called the decision "a complete victory" for those who advocate for the rights of individuals to own guns, though it leaves some ground open for a legal battle.

McGinnis said the court clearly stamped approval on the rights of citizens to own "ordinary guns that are in common use," including handguns.

McGinnis said he expects a local challenge to the Chicago ban will again head up to higher courts. He estimated that it could take months for a local challenge to play out.

Staff reporters David Mendell and Hal Dardick and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8184/simpsonsnelsonhaha2an7.jpg

[Curly Bill]

Why do the anti-gun peeps have to be so damn hysterical about everything?

[Jerk]

Why do the anti-gun peeps have to be so damn hysterical about everything?

The article says the mayor thinks that it will be like the old west again. That's what they said when all of the concealed carry laws were being passed, and voila, crime went down.

They're full of wind and emotion, but no logic.

They just can't stand it that the average plebian has any power at all.

[Jerk]

And...

You know what?

This has nothing to do with guns.

It is simply the right to defend your life, or "self-preservation." I am amazed that 4 judges could ignore the plain meaning and rule otherwise. Fugg em.

[Curly Bill]

...but guns are mean and nasty

...there'll be blood running in the streets

...it'll be like the old west were it was gun against gun

...our perfect modern society is doomed to ruin

...oh whoa is us, whatever will we do

...may God take pity on us

[Curly Bill]

And...

You know what?

This has nothing to do with guns.

It is simply the right to defend your life, or "self-preservation." I am amazed that 4 judges could ignore the plain meaning and rule otherwise. Fugg em.

The thing I always find so amusing is how all these high-powered elite have armed bodyguards to protect them but they would deny us Joe Commoners the right to do the same.

Remember Rosie O'Donnel and her rant against guns, then soon thereafter she's packing an armed bodyguard?

[Rogue]

I'm hoping this brings prices down again.
THAT's where the gun sellers try to fan the flames of hysteria.

[Curly Bill]

So, at what point can the citizenry of D.C. go buy their handguns and legally possess them? Does that become effective immediately?

[Jerk]

I'm hoping this brings prices down again.
THAT's where the gun sellers try to fan the flames of hysteria.

Gun banners have helped sell more guns than every gun ad ever made.

I remember going to gun shows before the Clinton ban and you rarely saw so-called "assault weapons." After the ban, the gun shows were packed full of AK's, ARs, FALs, SKS's, etc.

[Curly Bill]

Gun banners have helped sell more guns than every gun ad ever made.

I remember going to gun shows before the Clinton ban and you rarely saw so-called "assault weapons." After the ban, the gun shows were packed full of AK's, ARs, FALs, SKS's, etc.

Nothing makes peeps want something more then to be told they can't have it, or they're not supposed to have it, or that someday soon they might not be able to have it.

[Curly Bill]

Who of us did not stock up on high-cap mags before the manufacture of new ones was banned however many years ago during Willie's presidency?

[Sooner_Havok]

I have to ax a quick question to you gun nuts. I enjoy my guns, I got em more for sport than protection, but that is beside the point. What are your feelings on stuff like background checks and waiting periods? Me, I have never walked into a store with the urgent need to buy a gun right then, but have you guys? I know you walk in, and you see that one gun you want, but do you really mind waiting a week or so to get it?

[mdklatt]

I have to ax a quick question to you gun nuts.

The preferred term is "flying dickwheels". :D

[Sooner_Havok]

The preferred term is "flying dickwheels". :D

I so don't get that BTW :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Jerk]

I have to ax a quick question to you gun nuts. I enjoy my guns, I got em more for sport than protection, but that is beside the point. What are your feelings on stuff like background checks and waiting periods? Me, I have never walked into a store with the urgent need to buy a gun right then, but have you guys? I know you walk in, and you see that one gun you want, but do you really mind waiting a week or so to get it?

I'm in favor of background checks.

But I think waiting periods are pure bs.

[Curly Bill]

I have to ax a quick question to you gun nuts. I enjoy my guns, I got em more for sport than protection, but that is beside the point. What are your feelings on stuff like background checks and waiting periods? Me, I have never walked into a store with the urgent need to buy a gun right then, but have you guys? I know you walk in, and you see that one gun you want, but do you really mind waiting a week or so to get it?

Background check = fine

Waiting period = unnecessary and useless hassle. The reason I say this is criminals don't usually get their guns through legal channels anyway.

I have a CCP so I haven't waited a week to get a gun in a long time.

[Sooner_Havok]

I'm in favor of background checks.

But I think waiting periods are pure bs.

It takes time to do those background checks doesn't it?

[Sooner_Havok]

Keep in mind that I support background checks alright.

The GD government needs to fund local PDs so they can adequately perform the background checks in an accurate and timely manner!

[Rogue]

Both are analagous to the ridiculous airport security measures regarding hand sanitizer and toothpaste, IMO.

The background check, I spose, can rule out most felons, NONE of those adjudicated mentally incompetent, and the waiting period has resulted in not one safer person EVAR.

[47straight]

"It's a big blow to those of us who believe in common sense gun laws," Gov. Rod Blagojevich said during an appearance at a West Side community agency to announce a summer jobs program. "And as a result, it's the wrong decision."

...
"Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?" Daley asked while speaking at a Navy Pier event. "If they [the Supreme Court] think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets if that's they're thinking."

"We think we're such an improved society," he added. "The rest of the world is laughing at us."

Dardick and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8184/simpsonsnelsonhaha2an7.jpg



That's a pretty terrible understanding of how the supreme court works.

[soonerscuba]

But I think waiting periods are pure bs.
BUT I'M ANGRY NOW!!!!

I favor gun rights, but both sides of the issue are represented by pure loony bins. One side says that the only thing keeping us from a crime-free utopia is gun control, the other says that the Wild West is being held back by gun control.

I feel that like most tools, there is a good and bad side. The things that make handguns good for home protection, the quick availability, light weight, versatility, and the simplicity are the same things that make it easy for your 3 year-old accidentally put one in him/herself (which is far more likely to happen than it killing an intruder). So while I favor people's ability to have guns, I discourage them from doing so, this concept also applies to having children.

[Sooner_Havok]

Both are analagous to the ridiculous airport security measures regarding hand sanitizer and toothpaste, IMO.

The background check, I spose, can rule out most felons, NONE of those adjudicated mentally incompetent, and the waiting period has resulted in not one safer person EVAR.

I am only in favor of a waiting period so that the background checks can be done thoroughly. I wouldn't be appose to requiring all gun owners to have a license though. Just like the driving test, you take a written test, then you go to the gun rage and take a firing test (accuracy will not be required). After that, you tell them any mental conditions you might have (you have to admit to diabetes and bad eyesight for the driving test after all), they check your background, make sure you are clean, and you get yourself a gun license.

[Curly Bill]

I am only in favor of a waiting period so that the background checks can be done thoroughly. I wouldn't be appose to requiring all gun owners to have a license though. Just like the driving test, you take a written test, then you go to the gun rage and take a firing test (accuracy will not be required). After that, you tell them any mental conditions you might have (you have to admit to diabetes and bad eyesight for the driving test after all), they check your background, make sure you are clean, and you get yourself a gun license.

...yeah but there's no Constitutional right to own a car, so we're comparing apples and oranges.

edit...and yep, licensing is the first step to confiscation. If you know where all the guns/gun owners are it makes it easier to go round them up...and I know some say this could never happen, but as a student of history I know it could, and if we're not vigilant it someday will.

[Rogue]

The problem with "mental conditions" disclosure is the high prevalence of anxiety and depression being misunderstood. Many many many cops have PTSD and anxiety from the work they do. Many of them are scared to death to get help for fear of jeopardizing their livelihood.

That's where the "adjudicated mentallly incompetent" bit is actually more meaningful.

[Frozen Sooner]

I wouldn't be appose to requiring all gun owners to have a license though.

I sure as hell would be opposed to this. I can think of a couple of bad unintended consequences right off the bat.

However, I wouldn't be opposed to someone getting a pre-background check done.

[Sooner_Havok]

...yeah but there's no Constitutional right to own a car, so we're comparing apples and oranges.

Eh, not totally. The only people you would limit from buying or owning guns then would be:

1) Very lazy people

2) The people who shouldn't own a gun anyway by law (felons, mentally unstable folks)

I mean, we have a right to vote, but we still have to register to vote. Granted, you don't take a test to vote, but you do have to fill out your card thing.

[Sooner_Havok]

I sure as hell would be opposed to this. I can think of a couple of bad unintended consequences right off the bat.

However, I wouldn't be opposed to someone getting a pre-background check done.

Enlighten as to what the drawbacks are. I just pulled the idea out of my ***, so I haven't thought it through all the way yet.

[Curly Bill]

Eh, not totally. The only people you would limit from buying or owning guns then would be:

1) Very lazy people

2) The people who shouldn't own a gun anyway by law (felons, mentally unstable folks)

I mean, we have a right to vote, but we still have to register to vote. Granted, you don't take a test to vote, but you do have to fill out your card thing.

Licensing leads to eventual confiscation, maybe soon, maybe way down the road, but it would happen. I will not get a license to own a gun.

[Sooner_Havok]

The problem with "mental conditions" disclosure is the high prevalence of anxiety and depression being misunderstood. Many many many cops have PTSD and anxiety from the work they do. Many of them are scared to death to get help for fear of jeopardizing their livelihood.

That's where the "adjudicated mentallly incompetent" bit is actually more meaningful.

Right, but you don't know you have the diabetes for sure till your doc says, "You got the diabetes." If you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, then you is, no gun for you.

[Sooner_Havok]

Licensing leads to eventual confiscation, maybe soon, maybe way down the road, but it would happen. I will not get a license to own a gun.

Why would it lead to confiscation?

[Curly Bill]

Why would it lead to confiscation?

Throughout history governments have had a tendency to reach for evermore power. One of the ways they have habitually done this is to disarm the civilian populace, leaving the civilian populace less able to stand up against the whims of those in power. The founding fathers were quite aware of this and so blessed us with the 2nd Amendment.

I know that we in this country like to think that the things that have happened in other places throughout history could never happen here, but I dare say that those peeps probably thought the same thing during their haydays as well.

[Frozen Sooner]

Enlighten as to what the drawbacks are. I just pulled the idea out of my ***, so I haven't thought it through all the way yet.

Well, sure.

1. As much as we like to dismiss people who think they're going to hold off an Abrams tank with a .45 as nutjobs, the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment is to keep guns in the hands of those opposing civil government. Requiring a license to own a gun puts all the gun owners in a nice little database.

2. Lists of people who own guns would be easily obtainable through FOIA requests-which could help potential criminals identify non-gun-owning homes.

[Sooner_Havok]

Well, sure.

1. As much as we like to dismiss people who think they're going to hold off an Abrams tank with a .45 as nutjobs, the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment is to keep guns in the hands of those opposing civil government. Requiring a license to own a gun puts all the gun owners in a nice little database.

2. Lists of people who own guns would be easily obtainable through FOIA requests-which could help potential criminals identify non-gun-owning homes.

Well, there you go.

Back to your pre-background check. You think that is something that should have a time limit. 1 year, 5 years?

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes, it should certainly either have a time limit or be something that is instantly checked against a database cross-referenced with other ID-which, of course, has the same problems as requiring a license, but at least would be voluntary.

I guess pre-background doesn't work very well in practice without a database-I could get my background check done, have it expire in a year, and within six months commit a bunch of felonies. Without the database, no way to catch that.

Hmmm.

[Sooner_Havok]

Hmmm.

Indeed. I am all for having guns, but I don't like the thought of some insane ******* being able to get one just as easily as me. There has to be some way of limiting that, and the best seems to be day of background checks that could take a while to perform thoroughly. :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Curly Bill]

Indeed. I am all for having guns, but I don't like the thought of some insane ******* being able to get one just as easily as me. There has to be some way of limiting that, and the best seems to be day of background checks that could take a while to perform thoroughly. :confused: :confused: :confused:

...but what are the chances someone insane is going to go through legal channels to get a handgun?

...sad but true, but most of these "gun controls" do a lot to inconvenience law abiding folks, but do little to curtail criminal activity.

[Rogue]

The "instant background check database" really isn't a hard thing to pull off.

Here's the ideer:
If you want the instant version, cough up $25 for an ID.
Meanwhile, some schmuch gubmint employee like me populates the database with all felons.

If you don't want to pay for the convenience, keep your $25 and pay it each time the current check is done.

The way it is now it's kind of a racket. And it's fairly fast too.

[Sooner_Havok]

...but what are the chances someone insane is going to go through legal channels to get a handgun?

By that logic, what prevents people like you and me from going through illegal channels to get a gun if Obama is elected president?

[Curly Bill]

By that logic, what prevents people like you and me from going through illegal channels to get a gun if Obama is elected president?

Absolutely nothing beyond the fact I, and probably you too, wish to reamain a law-abiding citizen.

edit...this is why these gun control schemes don't work. They disarm, or at least hamper the law-abiding, while the criminals go on being criminals.

[Sooner_Havok]

2. Lists of people who own guns would be easily obtainable through FOIA requests-which could help potential criminals identify non-gun-owning homes.

I just thought, nothing keeps non-gun owning folks from getting a license. Like those folks what put security signs out in front of their houses, but don't got no security.

Plus, if the government wanted a list of folks who own guns, I am sure they could create one with about 75% of the people packing heat presently on there.

[Frozen Sooner]

I just thought, nothing keeps non-gun owning folks from getting a license. Like those folks what put security signs out in front of their houses, but don't got no security.

Plus, if the government wanted a list of folks who own guns, I am sure they could create one with about 75% of the people packing heat presently on there.

True. But that other 25%?

REALLY heavily armed.

[Sooner_Havok]

Absolutely nothing beyond the fact I, and probably you too, wish to reamain a law-abiding citizen.

edit...this is why these gun control schemes don't work. They disarm, or at least hamper the law-abiding, while the criminals go on being criminals.

I wouldn't say hamper. If I go into the pawn & gun and pick up the WWII Mauser I have been eye ballin' for a while and they say it will take a week for me to clear and actually get the gun, I am only mildly inconvenienced.

It might not stop Jose from getting a gun to cap Philippe for wearing the wrong color, but it might stop the punk *** kid who wants pot money from holding up the 7-11 down the street.

[Sooner_Havok]

True. But that other 75%?

REALLY heavily armed.

Other 75%, damn no wonder I didn't last as a meteorologist, I only thought there was 100% :D

So then the government wouldn't screw with them, even if they knew they had teh guns :texan:

[Curly Bill]

but it might stop the punk *** kid who wants pot money from holding up the 7-11 down the street.

I'm not in favor of curtailing Constitutional freedoms on the basis of mights.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Why would it lead to confiscation?

Ask English citizens if they thought it would lead to confiscation.

Now here's a way off example but it's true. Anybody remember in Red Dawn when the Cuban soldiers went to the sporting goods store and looked at the gun owners data base? The soldiers were able to find out who had a gun, go to their house, and round them up.

So what's the problem with the government knowing which of it's citizens has a gun? Well as we saw in England and Australia they went door to door and said "cough it up or you're getting arrested."

[Frozen Sooner]

Other 75%, damn no wonder I didn't last as a meteorologist, I only thought there was 100% :D

So then the government wouldn't screw with them, even if they knew they had teh guns :texan:

I have a gun. I don't need math.

[jkjsooner]

Throughout history governments have had a tendency to reach for evermore power. One of the ways they have habitually done this is to disarm the civilian populace, leaving the civilian populace less able to stand up against the whims of those in power. The founding fathers were quite aware of this and so blessed us with the 2nd Amendment.


That's fine in theory. In practice who decides when the government's power has been abused to the level that warrants an armed response to the government?

I know someone answered my question earlier by saying, "the one with the gun." I'm assuming there's sarcasm there but if not do we really want everyone making up their own mind about that?

I imagine plenty of nutjobs who went crazy against our police probably rationalized it as an act of defense against a tryanical government. (No, I am not equating you all to that but merely asking who gets to draw the line?)

I just hope most people with this opinion understand that an armed reaction is only appropriate in the most extreme cases and that if the country does not agree with them they might just end up with a lethal injection.

[Curly Bill]

I just hope most people with this opinion understand that an armed reaction is only appropriate in the most extreme cases and that if the country does not agree with them they might just end up with a lethal injection.

I think it would only be appropriate in extreme cases as well, and with the weapons at the disposal of the US gov (as someone said: we're talking M-1 tanks versus civilian arms) it would certainly be something not to be embarked upon lightly, but that being said one can't overlook that this is why the founding fathers put in place the 2nd Amendment.

I don't know who gets to draw the line, but I know with an armed civilian populace they have a means to have some input into that, as opposed to a completely disarmed and sitting duck populace.

[Jerk]

.... but merely asking who gets to draw the line?)


When they come to take our guns.

[Rogue]

Not to mention, an armed populace can also protect the gubmint from the monthly coups the likes of which our intrepid reporter Chuck Bao reports on.

[Jerk]

I'm going to bed, and I'm going to sleep well.

I hope that Senator Fienstien has nightmares about "peasants with pitchforks."

[MR2-Sooner86]

I think it would only be appropriate in extreme cases as well, and with the weapons at the disposal of the US gov (as someone said: we're talking M-1 tanks versus civilian arms) it would certainly be something not to be embarked upon lightly, but that being said one can't overlook that this is why the founding fathers put in place the 2nd Amendment.

Well look at it this way. We're having a hell of a time in Iraq right now with civilians with nothing more than sand to work with.

Anybody remember Vietnam? We had an army that had far better resoures that was defeated (no thanks to Washington) from a bunch of rice farmers.

So don't think an organized militia made up of this country's civilians wouldn't be a force to not take lightly.

[Curly Bill]

Well look at it this way. We're having a hell of a time in Iraq right now with civilians with nothing more than sand to work with.

Anybody remember Vietnam? We had an army that had far better resoures that was defeated (no thanks to Washington) from a bunch of rice farmers.

So don't think an organized militia made up of this country's civilians wouldn't be a force to not take lightly.

Oh I don't minimize at all what a determined bunch of folks armed however well, or un-well, they might be could do. I'm just saying armed revolt is something not lightly done.

[jkjsooner]

When they come to take our guns.

So if my free speech rights are violated I can't fight back. If I'm subjected to illegal search and seizure I can't fight back. But if they try to take my gun, I can.

That's kind of the root of the problem as I see it. G Gordon Liddy encourages gun owners to fight the ATF when they come after their guns (somehow ignoring the fact that we have other means - the courts - to address our problems). If my phone lines were tapped I doubt he would encourage me to fight back.

I'm not saying you all prescribe to Liddy's viewpoint on these matters. It's just after McVeigh I became very intolerant of these ideas. I'm also not equating anyone to McVeigh, it's just that McVeigh drew a line somewhere as well. (And I recognize his weapon of choice was not a gun.)

I just don't get it why the 2nd ammendment is put on such a pedistal.

I understand that maybe the theory is that it is the one right that allows you to protect all other rights. Still, that is just not satisfying to me.


I also find it ironic the people here talking about how the liberals are scared of an armed populace like conservatives haven't done their own job of destroying our liberties.

[jkjsooner]

I just want to bring up one more point. The argument is that a well armed citizenry allows more freedoms and security. Yet, Somalia and Afghanistan show you that a society where almost everyone is armed with AK-47s can be chaotic and freedoms can be severely curtailed.

At some point it degrades to the biggest mob rules. Just sayin...

[MR2-Sooner86]

I just want to bring up one more point. The argument is that a well armed citizenry allows more freedoms and security. Yet, Somalia and Afghanistan show you that a society where almost everyone is armed with AK-47s can be chaotic and freedoms can be severely curtailed.

At some point it degrades to the biggest mob rules. Just sayin...

Then I'll tell you to turn around and look at Switzerland where everybody owns a gun, including many machine guns, and their gun crime is nonexistant.

[jkjsooner]

Then I'll tell you to turn around and look at Switzerland where everybody owns a gun, including many machine guns, and their gun crime is nonexistant.

Or most of Europe with strict gun laws and very little violent crime - on orders of magnitude lower than our's.

I'm not saying places like Switzerland don't exist. I'm merely pointing out that a well armed citizenry does not guarantee the polite society.

[Rogue]

The principle behind the 2nd is part of the key to it's popularity.

The notion of the people being able to say, "no thanks, that's enough of this government" and not being overrun by sheer force because they've been disarmed is an important cornerstone of our democracy.

For Joe Six Pack and the Flying Dickwheels like me (not to say that all of them are because I'm a pretty liberal FD) who has a smaller voice because we aren't rich, don't control any huge lobbying groups or PACs, and pretty much get to vote, attend a few local meetings, and the closest we come to our leaders is every 4 years when they roll through town in a rockstar bus, I'd like to reserve to right to ensure that there is an understanding at the end of the day. That understanding is that if many of us get fed up with an oppressive regime we won't be sitting idly by throwing dirt clods. It may not deter oppression-minded types from trying to take over, but it gives me some peace of mind to know that the framers and many of my well read contemporaries from far left to far right understand that we don't have to roll over and take it in the keester because we can't do anything about it. We can, we just normally choose to lube up and realize that the representative gubmint is still working, warts and all.

[Rogue]

I'm looking forward to a few years of lower gun prices.

[StoopTroup]

Listen...

Americans have become some of the best killers on the face of the Earth.

Why?

Because we get tired of the folks who controlled our lives in other Countries.

Now...Please list the other Countries who allow folks to settle in their country in mass numbers.

America was the last one.

The folks who run things here in America are out of control. Crazy with power and influence.

That will need to change in order for us to stay in control of the other Countries who would like to see us fail.

Our strength is our People.

Weaken the people...then you weaken the Country.

Take away the guns...You weaken the people.