District of Columbia v. Heller - Page 3

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-18-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

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.

You would be much better served by bringing a portable physical lock and not rely on hotel locks.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

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.

Yep, you are right.

And if they rule against DC then that means that just about any law regarding firearms can be challenged. Including those that prevent ownership by the mentally ill. The ban on owning machine guns.

I wonder, could this even affect the ability for felons to own firearms?

ScratchMonkey · 03-18-2008, 03:58 PM

If an ex-felon can't be trusted with a firearm, what's he doing on the street in the first place?

Switchcraft · 03-18-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Yep, you are right.

And if they rule against DC then that means that just about any law regarding firearms can be challenged. Including those that prevent ownership by the mentally ill. The ban on owning machine guns.

I wonder, could this even affect the ability for felons to own firearms?

Neither side argued that there should not be reasonable restrictions. We have the right to freedom of the press, but there are restrictions on libel. We have the right to vote, but some places permanently bar felons from voting.

As you say, if they rule against DC, many laws may end up being "challenged." There's nothing wrong with challenging a law, that's why we have a system to do that. But challenged doesn't mean "overturned," and in this case it just means people may actually have a guideline to look at instead of the current situation, just like we have a guideline to examine Constitutionally protect speech or whether a search is unreasonable.

Steeler · 03-18-2008, 04:33 PM

I'm betting the SC will bunt and strike the law down on a technicality rather than rule on the underlying principle. But I could be wrong.

Switchcraft · 03-18-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

I'm betting the SC will bunt and strike the law down on a technicality rather than rule on the underlying principle. But I could be wrong.

That happened in Parker, but I think Heller leaves a lot less room to wriggle. The Question presented in the petition for Cert was:

Quote:

Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of
Columbia from banning private possession of handguns
while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.

They granted cert to the question, so they must be intending to answer it.

ScratchMonkey · 03-18-2008, 05:02 PM

Speaking of voting and the free press, the SC upheld McCain-Feingold as not violating the 1st. I'm feeling very cynical about the outcome of this case.

**TheFeniX** · 03-18-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

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.

Let me rephrase this to highlight your basic argument:

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

If you have to have an alarm system ready to alert you to intruders any second now you are probably operating on the wrong side of the law with shady characters. Or you are just in love with alarm systems. Or are nuts and believe everybody is out to get you.

Quote:

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.

How is it more dangerous?

Let me try your style of argument:

Quote:

But for the vast majority of people not 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.

There's my argument. So, you're automatically wrong because I said so.

This is precisely what is wrong with making an argument when you have no basis for your assertion. As in number 1: you are not a mind-reader. I could easily just say all people who do not own guns must do so because they lack hand-eye-coordination and/or are all spineless passivists.

As for number 2, I could claim (without citing numbers) that not owning a firearm makes you a communist.

Sounds ridiculous? If you want to make an assertion and have someone take it anywhere near seriously, you need to back it up with something more concrete than "You are wrong."

[tR]Greasy_mullet · 03-18-2008, 06:50 PM

We have a right period. This should not even be up for discussion.

ScratchMonkey · 03-18-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [tR]Greasy_mullet

We have a right period. This should not even be up for discussion.

What is a "right"? That question alone opens a huge can of worms involving philosophy and politics and history.

There's a lot of people hollering "Run Henny Penny! The Sky is FALLING! And it's full of GUNS!" Mrs. Brady, for example, who became a gun grabber after her husband was shot. Not unlike the people who become anti-tobacco zealots after losing a loved one to some lung disorder. These people don't care about rights. They care about their fear. It's the same panic that drives people to toss out the rest of the Bill of Rights over fear of terrorism.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-18-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Let me rephrase this to highlight your basic argument:

How is it more dangerous?

Let me try your style of argument:
There's my argument. So, you're automatically wrong because I said so.

This is precisely what is wrong with making an argument when you have no basis for your assertion. As in number 1: you are not a mind-reader. I could easily just say all people who do not own guns must do so because they lack hand-eye-coordination and/or are all spineless passivists.

As for number 2, I could claim (without citing numbers) that not owning a firearm makes you a communist.

Sounds ridiculous? If you want to make an assertion and have someone take it anywhere near seriously, you need to back it up with something more concrete than "You are wrong."

First I see you do selective quotes. Well good for you!

I said "If you have to have a loaded gun laying beside you ready to pop a cap in somebody any second now ". A bit different. I own several firearms, by the way.

From the NRA

Quote:

Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. If you do not know how to check to see if a gun is unloaded, leave it alone. Carefully secure it, being certain to point it safely and to keep your finger off the trigger, and seek competent assistance.

http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/Firearm_Safety.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_br...35/index1.html

It just isn't real safe.

I can see the confusion you had with

"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."

It should be.

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

The fact is home invasions simply don't happen that often. And when they do chances of injury are low. And when they do it is even more rare it is a done by strangers.

If you do use a gun to protect yourself it will most likely be against someone you know.

I stand by my statement.

And criminals are not really deterred by firearms. If there are two houses with the same quality goods they will pick the one without firearms all things being equal. But if both houses had firearms? They would still go for it.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-18-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [tR]Greasy_mullet

We have a right period. This should not even be up for discussion.

The discussion is about if the right is an individual or a state one or maybe something inbetween.

War.mongeR1 · 03-18-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

If there are two houses with the same quality goods they will pick the one without firearms all things being equal. But if both houses had firearms? They would still go for it.

Well, if they wanna risk their life entering my domain, let it be said that they certainly won't have much luck stealing MY television. I guess your logic with gun safety would certainly hold true for the general public, but those of us who are well trained and experienced with firearms generally feel different. Since the law is of course meant to protect the general public, however, I can see why the situation can be tricky.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-18-2008, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

Well, if they wanna risk their life entering my domain, let it be said that they certainly won't have much luck stealing MY television.

Ahh the false sense of security inspired by firearms. They are almost as good as beer!

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

I guess your logic with gun safety would certainly hold true for the general public, but those of us who are well trained and experienced with firearms generally feel different. Since the law is of course meant to protect the general public, however, I can see why the situation can be tricky.

You are on the right track. But it is also for those that are around you. Your girlfriend or others that come to your house. You may be trained well, but are they?

And of course once you get kids everything changes. They will have friends and some of those friends can be really, really stupid.

You leave the gun on the nightstand and somebody breaks in and you are not home but your girlfriend is. Will she know how to handle it? Some friends come over and they get drunk and they come upon your handgun, still feel safe? I wouldn't. Or they bring their kids over and one of them finds the handgun laying on the nightstand.

War.mongeR1 · 03-18-2008, 11:45 PM

Exactly why I clear the weapons, separate the ammo, and secure the weapons before company comes over. And I don't have any kids either. That is when everything would change. But since it's just me and only me, I feel safe leaving my guns at the ready.

03-18-2008, 03:58 PM	#33 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 3,367	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller If an ex-felon can't be trusted with a firearm, what's he doing on the street in the first place? __________________ Sig

03-18-2008, 04:33 PM	#35 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,841	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller I'm betting the SC will bunt and strike the law down on a technicality rather than rule on the underlying principle. But I could be wrong. __________________

03-18-2008, 05:02 PM	#37 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 3,367	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Speaking of voting and the free press, the SC upheld McCain-Feingold as not violating the 1st. I'm feeling very cynical about the outcome of this case. __________________ Sig

03-18-2008, 06:50 PM	#39 (permalink)
[tR]Greasy_mullet Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Tennessee Age: 29 Posts: 533	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller We have a right period. This should not even be up for discussion.

03-18-2008, 11:45 PM	#45 (permalink)
War.mongeR1 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,064	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Exactly why I clear the weapons, separate the ammo, and secure the weapons before company comes over. And I don't have any kids either. That is when everything would change. But since it's just me and only me, I feel safe leaving my guns at the ready. __________________ "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

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

Sponsored links

Sponsored links