District of Columbia v. Heller - Page 2

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-18-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

This is a common misconception, although it is true it is not the entire truth. The framers believed that man has a God given unalienable right to self defense. A government which has the power to grant a right has the power to revoke the same -- including the right of free speech, free assembly, free press, etc. On the other hand, a God-given right will be much more secure. Our framers believed that these rights are not given by the government, but protected by it. Since the unalienable right of self-defense is given by God, it cannot be revoked or weakened by government. As long as there is evil in the world, and there are evil people using guns, the right to have arms will be necessary to secure one's self-defense. Whether that defense is against a tyranical government or a home invader makes no difference.

That is debatable. What the 2nd amendment means is not set in stone and understood in the same way by all. While you say, and I agree with you, that some framers believed that firearms are necessary to the right to defend ones self that sentiment is not explicitly pointed out in the words written. And while I don't think it is wrong to take the assumed feelings of the framers into account when making these decisions, it isn't required and may actually do harm.

Some think, with very credible arguments, that the firearm rights are only in relation to the states right to a militia. And if you take the words literally and directly associate the preamble with the "no law" part then I must say I find it hard to argue against that perspective. Because if there is no militia does the right still exist for individuals? Do militias need .38 specials? (I think the fact we have no militia is at least a sad failure of our states to uphold the American ideal.)

Of course you say yes it does. But that is simply because you believe it does.

Besides.

I think I heard that the DC law in question does not ban all firearms, just those that are concealable. How does that prevent people from defending themselves?

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

No, but the absence of the right to self defense makes a community safer for criminals.

I don't see how the presence of firearms makes it more likely they will be arrested so I can only assume you mean it makes them physically safer. I don't see how that is true. As many have said you can kill with a baseball bat or a knife or any other of the different instruments available in day to day living.

If you mean it makes it easier to kill or injure the criminal then sure. But then you also have to admit that accident are more likely to injure or kill innocents. Or a in domestic dispute it is easier injure or kill by accident during the passion play.

It seems to me that firearms a pretty much a zero sum game. For every benefit there is a drawback. Maybe, just maybe, once real danger is encountered that is best countered with firearms or you HAVE to hunt for food to survive then the benefits out way the risk.

Until then I think the only thing that really sets the firearm as essential to American life is the threat they pose to the government. And that includes the police, ATF, FBI and even the standing military.

**Switchcraft** · 03-18-2008, 01:08 PM

I'm listening to the oral arguments right now, it's fascinating.

Gringo, the DC law's issues go a lot farther than just banning certain classes of weapons...much of the problem people have with them are how they are applied.

A plain reading of DC statutes could lead you to beleive that while you can own a rifle, you can't legally bring it from the store to your house. When it is at your house, it has to be locked, and unloaded. And you are only allowed to even LOAD it for "lawful recreational purposes," which makes self-defence kind of impossible.

Elwenil · 03-18-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

I think the fact we have no militia is at least a sad failure of our states to uphold the American ideal.

Actually, some states do still have militia units that are entirely separate from the State's National Guard. For example, we in Virginia have the Virginia Defense Force: http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/ And no, they are not a bunch of shotgun wielding rednecks. Most are retired military or VMI students or similar, and they actually train on the local military bases. I am not positive, but I was told that some states have laws that make it illegal to have a militia, which is ridiculous in my opinion.

As for the guns make things safer bit, I will have to say based on my experience doing things when I was young that was not exactly legal that when you commit a crime, you typically take into account the risk involved and decide if the end result is worth it. If the intended idea is to mess around with someone who you suspect carries a firearm, the risk goes up considerably and that is enough to prevent a lot of crimes. Naturally the argument is escalation and that if people carry firearms that the criminals will simply carry something more like full auto weapons but if anyone has read a newspaper since the 1920s, criminals have had those in varying degrees for a long time. The thing that I can't help but think about, especially knowing people who are VA Tech students or graduates, which is only about an hour and 15 minutes from me, is the lives that could be saved if trained individuals carrying weapons acted and fought back. No one wants to see open gun battles in their hometown, but I would much rather see that than another massacre that only ends when the gunman runs out of ammo or kills himself.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-18-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

I'm listening to the oral arguments right now, it's fascinating.

Gringo, the DC law's issues go a lot farther than just banning certain classes of weapons...much of the problem people have with them are how they are applied.

A plain reading of DC statutes could lead you to believe that while you can own a rifle, you can't legally bring it from the store to your house. When it is at your house, it has to be locked, and unloaded. And you are only allowed to even LOAD it for "lawful recreational purposes," which makes self-defence kind of impossible.

Did not realize this, thanks for the info.

Actually, having a unsecured loaded gun in the house is pretty stupid. At least that was how I was brought up.

Elwenil · 03-18-2008, 01:29 PM

That's a matter of circumstance. For example, I live in my own house that I own, along with my girlfriend. There are not kids here or even any pets. If I want to keep a loaded pistol on my nightstand, that should be my business. There shouldn't be a law the prohibits something simply because someone else has kids and is an idiot. A gun without bullets is about as useful as a car with no engine.

War.mongeR1 · 03-18-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Actually, having a unsecured loaded gun in the house is pretty stupid. At least that was how I was brought up.

And to me, having a secured unloaded gun in the house is pretty stupid. What good is a gun for self-defense, if it's locked up in a safe in your closet with a gun lock on the weapon and no bullets in it? Let's say an armed robber breaks into your house. It's gonna be hard to ready your weapon in the dark and in a short period of time. Oh yeah, and since it wouldn't be considered recreational use, would be illegal any how. That's the problem here. Their current laws only hinder the law-abiding citizens of D.C., while the armed robbers have free reign to do as they please since they aren't exactly following the law either way. EXACTLY why my brother got mugged there last summer, as I had previously stated.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-18-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elwenil

That's a matter of circumstance. For example, I live in my own house that I own, along with my girlfriend. There are not kids here or even any pets. If I want to keep a loaded pistol on my nightstand, that should be my business. There shouldn't be a law the prohibits something simply because someone else has kids and is an idiot. A gun without bullets is about as useful as a car with no engine.

I didn't say it should be illegal and it is your business. But, still I was taught that was stupid to do that. That was what my criminal father, redneck elders and NRA taught me.

If for nothing else you don't want a thief stealing your expensive firearm that is just lying on your nightstand.

And if you are proficient with your firearm you should be able to un-secure and load it within seconds. But that is just my opinion.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-18-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

And to me, having a secured unloaded gun in the house is pretty stupid. What good is a gun for self-defense, if it's locked up in a safe in your closet with a gun lock on the weapon and no bullets in it? Let's say an armed robber breaks into your house. It's gonna be hard to ready your weapon in the dark and in a short period of time. Oh yeah, and since it wouldn't be considered recreational use, would be illegal any how. That's the problem here. Their current laws only hinder the law-abiding citizens of D.C., while the armed robbers have free reign to do as they please since they aren't exactly following the law either way. EXACTLY why my brother got mugged there last summer, as I had previously stated.

If you have to have a loaded gun laying beside you ready to pop a cap in somebody any second now you are probably operating on the wrong side of the law with shady characters. Or you are just in love with firearms. Or are nuts and believe everybody is out to get you.

I guess you could be some sort of law enforcement person that has made enemies and must be constantly on guard.

So be it.

But for the vast majority of people keeping an unsecured loaded firearm in the house is way more dangerous than a forced entry into the home. It is simple. And if you think differently you are wrong.

I don't advocate laws being written to stop this behavior. But I will speak out against it.

**Switchcraft** · 03-18-2008, 02:07 PM

The locking thing is more draconian than that. The law as written would mean you couldn't take the lock off even if you wanted to clean it. I'm not saying you should keep unsecured loaded firearms laying around, but I am saying that I believe I should be able to take my gun from one room in my house to another without having to wonder if I've just broken a law on illegal carrying of firearms.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-18-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

The locking thing is more draconian than that. The law as written would mean you couldn't take the lock off even if you wanted to clean it. I'm not saying you should keep unsecured loaded firearms laying around, but I am saying that I believe I should be able to take my gun from one room in my house to another without having to wonder if I've just broken a law on illegal carrying of firearms.

I am in no way saying that there should be a law like that. That is just stupid and doesn't, in anyway, promote responsible gun ownership.

But everything you bring up makes me think that this case is not really about the second amendment. I don't know what it is about. What is it about?

An outright ban would be, for me, less worrisome than what DC is doing.

War.mongeR1 · 03-18-2008, 02:27 PM

I sleep with a loaded shotgun next to my bed at home, and a pistol here at my hotel in West Texas. No, I don't deal with shady characters. No, I don't have any enemies. I'm not law-enforcement. I am a fully law abiding citizen. I don't think anyone's out to get me. However, I don't want to be caught with my pants down if I ever got robbed or attacked.

Did you not read what I said earlier? I'll repeat it for the 3rd time. My brother got mugged last summer in D.C.. Here's what happened. He was sleeping IN his hotel room, next thing he knew he awoke while his door clicked open, he was held up while the robber took EVERYTHING important and valuable he had with him. Thankfully, he was not hurt, but he was pissed as hell that he couldn't do a damn thing about it without his gun as HE was following D.C.'s STUPID laws. I am not acting like everyone's out to get me, but these things DO happen! People DO get mugged. And it would seem much more so in these gun hating states.

ScratchMonkey · 03-18-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section-8

lolololol....ahhh...good one.

See...this kind of nonsense makes me think you are serious.

...are you? Don't you see the world out there?

Please don't ridicule the opposition, no matter how much you think their arguments might be ridiculous. We should ferret out exactly how people come to hold the positions we disagree with, and counter their strongest arguments, not their weakest. Ridicule simply drives others silent, and we never learn from that.

I watch Torchwood, a BBC scifi show based on Doctor Who. It starts out by saying that Torchwood is "outside the government, beyond the police". I get the impression that the British see their government as the ultimate authority, and their rights as created, not protected, by that government. It's a very different philosphy, no matter how much it appears similar to the US on the surface. It doesn't surprise me to see citizens of the crown argue against individualism.

**Switchcraft** · 03-18-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

I am in no way saying that there should be a law like that. That is just stupid and doesn't, in anyway, promote responsible gun ownership.

But everything you bring up makes me think that this case is not really about the second amendment. I don't know what it is about. What is it about?

An outright ban would be, for me, less worrisome than what DC is doing.

It is about the 2nd Amendment precisely because DC claims the ability to enact such laws on an interpretation that the 2nd Amendment provides no individual right to keep and bear arms. If the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right, (that is, a right not soley based on membership in a standing militia) then the argument against the nonsense is that DC by enacting such draconian provisions is unconstitutional.

DC claims it's not a gun "ban" since you "just need a license." But they choose not to issue the licenses most of the time.

What makes the case great, though, is that the Court will hopefully answer the question as to the meaning of the amendment. In previous cases about stuff like the inability to take a gun from one room to another without a license to carry was addressed individually, but the larger question was punted. Either there is a Constitutional right in our country for people to keep and bear arms, or the right only applies to people who could conceivably serve in a militia, or the right only applies to people who are in the National Guard, or whatever. If they answer the question, then it can have a far broader scope than just DC.

ScratchMonkey · 03-18-2008, 02:56 PM

I have a small locking gun case with an interesting fast-access combination lock. I'm sure those of you who own handguns have seen this. It's got 5 buttons in a row. You press a combination of buttons, and then another combination of buttons, twist a knob a 1/4 turn, and the case unlocks. No turning of dials, no need to see the buttons. You can operate it by touch with one hand and have it open in under a second. There are keyholes cut in the base, so you can bolt the box to something heavy (like the floor or a big cabinet or even your bed frame) to keep a thief from walking away with the box.

Here's a photo

http://www.deansafe.com/vli-2912-s.html

ScratchMonkey · 03-18-2008, 03:02 PM

Some interesting British history about the definition of "militia" here (with citations):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...tion#Precedent

The Talk page includes the US Code defining "militia":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Se...tution#Militia

03-18-2008, 01:08 PM	#17 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 30 Posts: 905	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller I'm listening to the oral arguments right now, it's fascinating. Gringo, the DC law's issues go a lot farther than just banning certain classes of weapons...much of the problem people have with them are how they are applied. A plain reading of DC statutes could lead you to beleive that while you can own a rifle, you can't legally bring it from the store to your house. When it is at your house, it has to be locked, and unloaded. And you are only allowed to even LOAD it for "lawful recreational purposes," which makes self-defence kind of impossible.

03-18-2008, 01:29 PM	#20 (permalink)
Elwenil Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Covington, VA USA Age: 34 Posts: 1,226	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller That's a matter of circumstance. For example, I live in my own house that I own, along with my girlfriend. There are not kids here or even any pets. If I want to keep a loaded pistol on my nightstand, that should be my business. There shouldn't be a law the prohibits something simply because someone else has kids and is an idiot. A gun without bullets is about as useful as a car with no engine. __________________ \|TG\|Elwenil A vote for Obama is change we can believe in? So was the last ice age, but that don't make it good.

03-18-2008, 02:07 PM	#24 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 30 Posts: 905	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller The locking thing is more draconian than that. The law as written would mean you couldn't take the lock off even if you wanted to clean it. I'm not saying you should keep unsecured loaded firearms laying around, but I am saying that I believe I should be able to take my gun from one room in my house to another without having to wonder if I've just broken a law on illegal carrying of firearms.

03-18-2008, 02:27 PM	#26 (permalink)
War.mongeR1 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,212	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller I sleep with a loaded shotgun next to my bed at home, and a pistol here at my hotel in West Texas. No, I don't deal with shady characters. No, I don't have any enemies. I'm not law-enforcement. I am a fully law abiding citizen. I don't think anyone's out to get me. However, I don't want to be caught with my pants down if I ever got robbed or attacked. Did you not read what I said earlier? I'll repeat it for the 3rd time. My brother got mugged last summer in D.C.. Here's what happened. He was sleeping IN his hotel room, next thing he knew he awoke while his door clicked open, he was held up while the robber took EVERYTHING important and valuable he had with him. Thankfully, he was not hurt, but he was pissed as hell that he couldn't do a damn thing about it without his gun as HE was following D.C.'s STUPID laws. I am not acting like everyone's out to get me, but these things DO happen! People DO get mugged. And it would seem much more so in these gun hating states. __________________ "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

03-18-2008, 02:56 PM	#29 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 3,915	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller I have a small locking gun case with an interesting fast-access combination lock. I'm sure those of you who own handguns have seen this. It's got 5 buttons in a row. You press a combination of buttons, and then another combination of buttons, twist a knob a 1/4 turn, and the case unlocks. No turning of dials, no need to see the buttons. You can operate it by touch with one hand and have it open in under a second. There are keyholes cut in the base, so you can bolt the box to something heavy (like the floor or a big cabinet or even your bed frame) to keep a thief from walking away with the box. Here's a photo http://www.deansafe.com/vli-2912-s.html __________________ Sig

03-18-2008, 03:02 PM	#30 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 3,915	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Some interesting British history about the definition of "militia" here (with citations): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...tion#Precedent The Talk page includes the US Code defining "militia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Se...tution#Militia __________________ Sig

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links