Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

Well it's about time the Supreme Court did their job. While I do believe that shouldn't have been necessary it's always nice to have this decision as an extra bit of backing for the 2nd Amendment. And although the permit and registration issues will likely continue to pose problems for law abiding citizens this is at least a very large step in the right direction.

And now to further illustrate the point of cars and other things killing more people than guns I would like to share an observation. I've been in two car accident, and was injured in one of them. I've known people who've been much more severely injured in car accidents. Proves that automobiles are indeed dangerous objects. Yet out of all the firearms I've been around I've never even had one so much as pointed at me. Here I am still a bit of a car enthusiast, so I think it'd be pretty unreasonable for me to have a fear of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. The real threat is people on their cell phones while driving.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I don't think it will. Given that this law primarily affects the average, law-abiding Joe (and the police know this), I don't think it'll have much impact on police attitudes or procedures. Additionally, in this era of mega-lawsuits, local police departments have to be careful in their official stated policies and procedures, and given the crime rate in DC before this ban was lifted, the police were probably at the legal limit already.

While I am glad that Supreme Court has Affirmed the 2nd amendment, I have not had the time time to read through the entire deciscion since it runs 157 pages.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

Have fun reading :O)

reply to post by vor78


If I may ask, would it not be a good idea to mandate a brief gun safety class or test as part of the gun permit application. It seems reasonable that if you have to pass a written test, eye exam, and road test to get a driver's license the same should apply to get a weapon, no?
I'm just thinking out loud here, so please don't bite my head of.

Wow! I just saw this! I guess we could have expected it but I'm thrilled with this decision! It's about time.

All people have to do is read and comprehend and the 2nd Amendment is very clear.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Lots of gun owners hate that idea, but I personally do not have a major problem with it as long as it does not ask technical questions or have a particularly high level of difficulty. That could be construed as denying idiots a weapon, which actually is not a bad idea lol , but is also unconstitutional. Much like the thread on mandatory testing in order to vote, you can't do this, either. Morons have rights, too. In this case, they have the same right to self-defense with contemporary weapons under the 2nd amendment. You have to be careful that it does not exclude a certain class of people from their constitutional rights except where absolutely necessary and even then, its very problematic.

So no, as long as they could pass a basic safety course, I would not have a problem with that.

Incidentally, I would not be against a nationwide firearms license IF it weren't for the fact that I believe the Feds would eventually use it against us. I'm 100% convinced they eventually would, hence my opposition to it.



[edit on 26-6-2008 by vor78]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by vor78]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Also sir It has only been the handgun that has been illeagal for a Law abiding citizen to have in his home in DC.
In otherwords Long guns IE shotguns rifles, paramilitary(ie, AR15 AK47) weapons, as long as they were registered were perfectly fine in the home..
Allowing another "Class" of weapons to be leagally registered and "permitted" in the home, in my humble opinion, will not have that much of an every day effect on your personal safety..
All it should mean to you is that your neighbor with the already leagal shotgun and AR-15 may now register and apply for a permit to have a 357 handgun in his home as well..
As far as the criminal element, well they either had guns before and were willing to use them at will, or they didn't..??

reply to post by vor78


Agreed, you could apply a lot of laws applicable to motor vehicles to gun permits. Including operational knowledge, alcohol/drug parameters. A car I guess is a lot like a gun, lawful when used responsibly and a lethal weapon when used irresponsibly.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by vor78

 

If I may ask, would it not be a good idea to mandate a brief gun safety class or test as part of the gun permit application. It seems reasonable that if you have to pass a written test, eye exam, and road test to get a driver's license the same should apply to get a weapon, no?
I'm just thinking out loud here, so please don't bite my head of.

Last I checked, there wasn't a Constitutionally protected right to drive a car.

Would you support psychological testing before one is allowed to purchase a certain book or attend a religious service?

reply to post by schrodingers dog
Here in Bama, you have to pass a simple gun safety course before you can get a hunting permit. The course is offered free and is sponsored by the NRA. I have no objection to a law like that, it actually makes sense to me.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by vor78

 

If I may ask, would it not be a good idea to mandate a brief gun safety class or test as part of the gun permit application. It seems reasonable that if you have to pass a written test, eye exam, and road test to get a driver's license the same should apply to get a weapon, no?
I'm just thinking out loud here, so please don't bite my head of.

Unfortunately, you are confusing a "privilage" (driving) with a constitutional right.. Although I do very much agree with your position on this.. It would be like asking every American of voting age to take an IQ exam... LOL (I think this would be a good idea also)
But however well your intentions are to make sure that someone is actually "mature, capable,and deserving" of this RESPONSIBILITY, It is a constitutional right.... and so therefore like the first ammendment you may not feel alot of people deserve to excersize this right, unfortunately as long as they abide by the law, and the already many restrictions we have, They can excersize thier right to have and bear arms...

Darn illiterate spelling

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]

reply to post by slackerwire


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. All I'm pointing out is that it seems reasonable that if we require a basic test to let people operate a motor vehicle it would follow reason to expect at least the same to operate a handgun. I understand there's nothing in the constitution about cars. And I am not proposing people don't have guns. But it seems like gun safety would be good for everyone.
And please, I am actually one of the people who are on the fence on this issue and like I said I happen to live in DC. So talk to me like an adult, false metaphors not required.

reply to post by slackerwire


My apollogies sir, I seem to have elaborated (long winded reply) on what you posted above me, Happens when it takes me so long to "hunt and peck" the letters... LOL

reply to post by slackerwire


Its a little bit of a different case, though. A firearm, in a direct sense, is potentially much more dangerous than a book or religious service (although some books and religious service have some rather dangerous teachings!).

Personally, I am on the fence when it comes to firearms safety courses or tests. On one hand, if you can't show a proficiency with regards to firearm safety, you have no business owning one. On the other hand, all citizens (exc. felons) have a constitutional right to self-defense under the Bill of Rights, even ones who are clueless about firearm safety.

So which one wins out? Its a good question, at least in my mind. I'm not opposed to the idea of mandatory safety courses, but as I indicated above, I can see the Constitutional issues that would surround it.

I would probably go with the Constitutional argument and against testing if pressed. Ultimately, the citizen buying the weapon would simply have to bear the personal accountability that comes with firearms ownership and if he/she uses it irresponsibly and causes personal injury, the owner should pay a legal and financial price.

reply to post by vor78


I hate to keep trying to compare the 1st ammendment with the 2nd, but as you stated, words and freedom of speech can be a very dangerous thing..
I am thinking that more deaths have been caused by simple written and uttered words throughout history than any firearm has caused...
I could be wrong but......
(lets not even bring up the freedom of religion,as it will derail this thread big time) LOL (easier to edit this last part in than to post another reply)
[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


All states with CCW permits require some type of safety course and shown ability to understand a firearm. Some do even just to purchase which find over the top. There are two states,Alaska and New Hampshire , that don't require permits to carry concealed or a safety course.

Zindo

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

All states with CCW permits require some type of safety course and shown ability to understand a firearm. Some do even just to purchase which find over the top. There are two states,Alaska and New Hampshire , that don't require permits to carry concealed or a safety course.

Zindo

Big diff between NH. And MASS. and they are right next to each other... LOL...BTW, I do have a Firearms Identification Card. from Mass, and a CCW in VA.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]

Well your dealing with the kingdom of Kennedy. He or his family don't trust they're subjects so I guess you need to enlighten the populace and throw the clowns out. But there are so many of them. And people complain about the Bush Dynasty!

Zindo

reply to post by SideWynder


I think that you're quite likely correct. In the grand scheme of things, there is no doubt in my mind that words have ultimately resulted in far more deaths throughout human history than firearms (and of course, have later led to firearms-related deaths), no question about it. They just do it indirectly.

"It is frightening that America loves guns," the mayor said, "and to me, I think this decision really places those who are rich and those are in power, they'll always feel safe. Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying. If you're elected officials, you feel safe. You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So they're setting themselves aside, and really, they're saying to the rest of America that the answer to all the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. And I just don't understand how they came to this thinking."

Source

Can anyone make sense of what this guy says? Did he actually read the opinion or is he just grasping at straws... What is the deal with the us and them reference? I mean its painfully obvious as to what he is saying but is he really saying it?