Jump to content

OT - Supreme Court Ruling - Do you Have Guns?


totamus

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I own a .22 rifle I inherited from my grandfather. I never shot it.

 

I was a reserve police officer for 2 years in the early 1990's. I owned a .357 magnum while serving as a reserve. They had a residency requirement to stay with the police department. I sold the weapon when I moved out of that city.

 

I believe in gun owner rights, but I see no logical reason for the general public to own automatic assault weapons. I also see no logical reason for the general public to have access to armor piercing ammo.

 

I don't know of anyone that had to use their gun(s) for home defense and I live in the Detroit area.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

It's a good ruling...it's a basic right of every law abiding American to be able to own and defend themselves with firearms if they so chose. I also heard that with today's ruling the NRA plans to challenge other gun bans in other cities.:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Living out in Da Boonies, about 15 miles from the nearest town, we keep a few 12-guage shotguns, primarily for advanced* home security...one Mossberg behind each door and a just-legal sawed-off Remington side-by-side in my truck. My wife and kids are proficient in the safe use of each.

 

*Advanced means if the intruder/criminal survives our dogs, and are still acting stupid, we have the option of shooting him...thus far, we've never had to do so, I'm very pleased to say, but if it ever becomes an "us or them" situation, I'd prefer to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I am. I shoot skeet, trap and sporting clays. My shotguns are far fancier and more expensive than my guitars. I'm glad the supreme court went the way it did because it makes no sense for a state or local government to pass laws that abridge a right provided to Americans in the constitution. That right, by the way, was put into the constitution to help the citizens protect themselves from a runaway government. Fortunately, that hasn't been necessary and probably never will be, but it makes no sense to the let the government abridge rights that are designed to protect us from the government itself.

 

 

I know this is going to create some flak...but I don't believe the constitution guarantees the right to own guns...but lets not argue constitutional law here...I am not opposed to owning guns, just the right of maniacs to have them....which unfortunately includes too many people in this country...

 

And speaking of other countries, we alone have more guns than anyone, maybe everyone else combined...we have more gun related killings, domestic killings, gun related crimes than anyone else in the world....in fact among more than everyone else in the world combined. We have a current president and administration that thinks nothing of killing people. We have no protection from the government any more than Iraqi's do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think the poll on this thread needs some work.

The last 6 options invalidate the first four option results.

The pro/con %'s are alot further apart than what they show.

 

 

The poll allows you to vote for more than one category. So you could indicate, for instance, that you only have guns for hunting AND you have 4-5 guns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No guns, and I'm all for lawful ownership.

 

Just a side note, we have the Castle Doctrine in Texas which basically states that if you threaten my property (house, land, car) I can shoot to kill without retreating. IIRC there's an interesting case down in Houston about if the Castle Doctrine extends to your neighbor's house and your neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Which selections in the poll should add up to 100%?

 

 

I dont believe you will get 100%. Ideally I could have had a sub poll (if you have guns, how many do you have). Since I allowed multiple votes, I am guessing that 100% is out the window

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love firearms. Having grown up in NYC and thus having had basically no exposure to them, I got interested and perhaps a little obsessed with them after I joined the army. But then I came back to NYC... I don't own any firearms now. I brought one back with me from Germany - a lovely Browning Mark III-S (I love single-action pistols) - but exceeded a registration deadline and decided to turn the thing in to the NYPD long ago (mandatory minimum sentences for illegal gun possession in NY are pretty ugly).

 

I'd love to live in a place where owning firearms would make some sense. I don't think NYC is one of those places, though, unless you're a cop or a drug dealer or otherwise have enough $ to afford membership in one of the very pricey ranges in this town. I don't oppose anyone's right to own firearms for home defense, although in my particular case, I'm a very heavy sleeper and in the wee hours I am every bit as likely to wake up from a bad dream and blast one of my cats off the window sill as I am to do any actual good...

 

Putting the whole political debate about gun ownership aside, I would be sad to see the 2nd amendment disappear largely because I admire the craftsmanship and technical beauty of firearms in very much the same way that I admire acoustic guitars... Although of course I recognize that they are designed for very different purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, I kind of fudged.

I marked the do not have guns.

I have owned long arms in the past but now do not. I do own some firearms though. I own, but do not now possess, a .36 caliber Navy Colt replica that, when purchased, was the most exact replica available and supposedly made in the same factory many of the original Colts were made. It is on loan to one of my sons.

I also own a now non-functional .45 caliber side arm that was cut down from a rifle. It is a cap and ball black powder weapon, as is the Navy Colt.

hpim0625.jpg

Once the current stepson is out of the house permanently I will likely bring the Navy pistol back and probably acquire another side arm.

 

By the way, I grew up in hunting country and did hunt then and much of my family still hunts. I absolutely love upland bird hunting but at this time, do not, nor will I, simply because there are too many idiots where I live now who don't have a clue about fire arm safety.

To accommodate that desire I took up trap and skeet shooting and reloaded my own ammo. I also once owned several center fire and rim fire long guns and have owned revolvers other than black power, and semi autos. As mentioned above, I no longer have any of those long guns or hand guns, nor do I have the reloading equipment.

 

 

[edit]I forgot to mention. During that trap/skeet period my guitars were pretty much in storage, seldom getting out of the case.[/edit]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have owned rifles in the past, and I spent 5 yrs in the army. I have no objection to private gun ownership as long as the owner acts responsibly.

Having said that, I don't think that the 2nd amendment provides for it. It is an accepted practice that is well entrenched. I have some problems with liberal use of concealed weapon permits. I think that there are some places where a firearm shouldn't be carried.

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am 49 and grew up in a rural area...with guns. Long guns, mostly for hunting. Safety was drilled into you at an early age and you learned a healthy respect for firearms and what they could do, both good and tragic. I remained a hunter (now more archery than firearm).

 

I own about a dozen rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders. I also own one modern revolver and an 1858 Remington New Army reproduction.

 

I have lived in and around Detroit the last 27 years. I no longer have the fascination with handguns I did as a young man. I keep a loaded revolver accessible in my home. Just my wife and I---no children. I carried under a CCW permit for 3 years, about 20 years ago, when the permits were hard to get. Now, Michigan is pretty liberal in issuing CCW's. I am no longer interested.

 

I am torn on such issues. I see what happens when handguns are easily available. It's on the local news every night. This is Detroit. I am sure to some degree, all urban areas experience the same thing.

 

I also understand the "slippery slope" aspect of gun control in general. At the current moment, I am less concerned about the government coming to take my shotguns and rifles, and controlling me under martial law, than I am of seeing school kids shot and carjackings everyday.

 

On the legal end of it, I suspect the 2nd Amendment may have been worded a bit differently if the framers had foreseen our country and society as it is today. They had just fought a revolution and were forming a new government. The idea of actually needing an unfettered right to firearms to resist an oppressor was very real then. The context of the issue is just very different today. Those who formed this nation could not have imagined the violence we would inflict on each other a couple hundred years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The second ammendment ruling would have been a relatively easy vote of your consciense compaired to the decision of Child Rape not qualifying for the death penalty.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23928339-2703,00.html

That one must have been a gut wrenching decision to come to. The easy decision on that is to say F the child rapers and off-em. I would have liked to have written the discenting opinion on it.

 

Maybe the gun ruling was a counterbalance to the Supreme Courts sanity. Kind of a yin and yang thing.

 

Maybe the extra guns can help exterminate the child rapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Basically now if you want to own a gun in Canada you have to pay a lot of license fees and do a lot of paper work and take gun safety courses. Your weapons and ammunition must also be stored in accordance to government regulations. Having your shotgun/rifle collection in a rack on your living room wall is not part of government regulations...
:lol:

 

I think that is very reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well, I kind of fudged.

I marked the do not have guns.

 

 

Well heck, I just realized with Daklander's post there that I too lied.

 

I said I do not own any guns of any kind, but his photo there reminded me that I do indeed own one. I didn't think about it cause I never fired it and never saw it fired and it has been collecting dust in the attic for a long LONG time. Not sure if it's classified as a gun in the modern sense.

 

My grandfather left it to me almost 2 and a half decades ago. It's not quite like what he pictured there, I believe it's called an in-line musket. Smooth bore, no rifling. It's huge, I'd say 6' long and heavy as sin. Wood stock and a wood packer, the barrel is a hunk of iron - I guess if you didn't have time to load it you could beat someone to death with it. The barrel has an octogon shape and a big ass hole. Maybe 50 cal. ball? The date stamped onto the barrel says 1803 and I can not read the manufacturer.

 

I forgot all about that thing. Not sure it is even capable of being fired.. It's that old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've got a couple of bird guns somewhere. Killed a buncha pheasants but they all had it coming. I'm interested to see how this latest interpretation by the Supremes will effect other gun laws with regards to assault gun bans, limits to clip size and etc.

 

If they're going to read "militia" so broadly, when can I haz a hand grenade? :)

 

As an aside to the OP, you really shoulda posted this in HCPP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well heck, I just realized with Daklander's post there that I too lied.


I said I do not own any guns of any kind, but his photo there reminded me that I do indeed own one. I didn't think about it cause I never fired it and never saw it fired and it has been collecting dust in the attic for a long LONG time. Not sure if it's classified as a gun in the modern sense.


My grandfather left it to me almost 2 and a half decades ago. It's not quite like what he pictured there, I believe it's called an in-line musket. Smooth bore, no rifling. It's huge, I'd say 6' long and heavy as sin. Wood stock and a wood packer, the barrel is a hunk of iron - I guess if you didn't have time to load it you could beat someone to death with it. The barrel has an octogon shape and a big ass hole. Maybe 50 cal. ball? The date stamped onto the barrel says 1803 and I can not read the manufacturer.


I forgot all about that thing. Not sure it is even capable of being fired.. It's that old.

 

 

Smooth bore? That's gotta be a flint lock, no? If so, with a smooth bore, it is probably a 69 caliber and I'd love to have that baby, if nothing else, to have as a wall hanger. If it actually has rifling it could be a 54 caliber rifle which I'd love to have as well. Think Lewis and Clark Expedition.

That little side arm in the pic was cut down from a musket kit. I cut it down because the wood was so warped I couldn't get it to conform anywhere near the straightness needed to accommodate the barrel, which happens to be octagonal as well though mine is a cap lock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well...I'm in Canada. The government here has made it mandatory that all legally owned weapons be registered and then it's all entered into a data base. Those opposed to the registration say they have already registered their weapons years ago so why do must they do it again? The other anti-gun registration argument is that if the government keeps all the registered weapons in a data base this will give any computer savvy hacker criminal the opportunity to hack into it and get the adress of every gun owner in Canada.

 

The original registration system was for handguns only, and has been inplace since the 1930s.

 

The problem with Canadian registration, beyond being an affront to law abiding citizens, is that it has proven ineffective. Two billion dollars spent, with 80% non-compliance, it did not prevent guns getting in the hands of criminals (see Toronto), and has not effectively accepted registration from law abiding citizens.

 

 

Basically now if you want to own a gun in Canada you have to pay a lot of license fees and do a lot of paper work and take gun safety courses. Your weapons and ammunition must also be stored in accordance to government regulations.

 

Technically, no course is required. You just have to pass the Non-restricted or restriced exam. The storage laws are uneforceable, allow unreasonable entry to your home by a CFO, and prevent the effective use of a firearm in home defense when followed.

 

Although...even with all these government regualtions they still have 50-100 shootings in Toronto every year.
:idk:

 

One more example against the Registry. Forcing hunters and target shooters to register long guns does not prevent gang violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Supreme Court case dealt with the extreme margins. Total gun bans are now unconstitutional because the Court found that the 2nd Amendmend provides an individual (not collective) right to gun ownership. So no to no guns to anyone, all the time, under any circumstance. But even Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, stated that the decision did not deal with the right of individual states to enact reasonable gun control regulations provided they are not, or do not amount to, a total ban. So, no to guns for anyone, no matter whom, or under all circumstrances. Brady waiting periods and registration laws will likely survive, and then its up to the lawyers to litigate the closer cases and generate sufficient appellate law to define what is constitutional regulation and what is not.

 

The case is landmark because it is the first Supreme Court case in 200 years that has issued an opinion interpreting one of the most frustratingly ambiguous amendments to the Constitution. When the 2nd Amendment was enacted, the United States had no standing armies like we have today, no huge armouries jammed with weapons and ammo. The US continued to rely on militia, that is, citizens armed with their own weapons for military needs. That situation does not exist today, where we have several million under arms in our various armed forces. Thus, the language of the Second Amendment has the introductory proviso that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", the right of the people etc. etc. I don't think that you can interpret the amendmend in such a way that the introduction is rendered a nugatory. The Court has now simply held, yes that is so, but the people are permitted to use those weapons for purposes beyond militia-related activities, that is, for any lawful purpose. I think that is a reasonable interpretation, because the people who were alive when the Second Amendment was enacted also obviously used their weapons for hunting, self-defense and entertainment. There are not that many total gun bans in the US as draconian as DC's was, so the immediate impact is not that great. We'll wait and see what the subsequent litigation will bring.

 

Whew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I used to do a lot of quail hunting in my youth, but that was many moons ago. I have a .38 for protection at our home. Suffice it to say, I agree with the Supreme Court's decision.

 

Stevens, though not Breyer, based his argument on original intent, but Scalia's use of original intent is more persuasive, IMO. I agree with this analysis. As always, YMMV.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The dissent interprets the prefatory clause literally, that is, guns only if used by an organized militia. You can " keep and bear arms" but you can't use them unless you get together with your fellow miltiamen and do some military thing. To interpret the clause otherwise, said Stevens, would render the clause a nullity. The majority says you can use the guns for any lawful purpose, and I think that was the social and cultural reality at the time. If the framers (Madison primarily, a Virginian who hated hunting) had intended to limit the use of firearms, well, they were pretty smart guys and I figure that they would have said so. So I personally agree with majority in this case (and I am a liberal Democrat who used to hate guns, but now would like to have at least one).

 

This case only dealt with federal law (DC law, which is under federal jurisdiction), so the interpretative debate is somewhat abstruse. States clearly have the right to legislate in the areas of health, safety and public welfare, so reasonable regulations are clearly a non-federal issue unless they amount to a total ban, in which case they would violate the 2nd Amendment.

 

The more interesting cases will be in the endless variations. For example, in California, automatic weapons, and even weapons that can be rendered automatic, are completely banned. Can a state ban all automatic weapons, so we don't turn into a another Beirut, or is that just another unconstitutional ban? In most states, you can't own .50 cal machine gun, which is a total ban. Are these "total bans" constitutional? After all, a gun is gun. What about ammo? Can a state totally ban armor-piercing rounds? Can a state ban any calibre over, say, a .38? There will be endless debates over what is a ban (DC banned all handguns, and rifles had to be kept disassembled) and what is reasonable regulation within a states power to regulate.

 

Should keep the lawyers busy for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have an interesting twist on the argument. The wording appears to be awkward and unclear "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

 

I would suggest that our usage of some terms has somewhat changed over time. Specifically the word "regulated".

 

reg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I once lived in a country where guns were outlawed ... among the civilians. Civilians with ties to the government were allowed to have guns.


It was a dictatorship with lots of cronies. Outlaws and crooks were still able to get guns.


The US isn't perfect, but I'm happier to be here.

 

 

It's not like I'm going to argue that the US is worse than a corrupt dictatorship. That doesn't mean outlawing guns is a always a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...