some second amendment discussion

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,316
8,978
768
#1
i HATE USA today, but i caught this on the front page today,
WASHINGTON — Guns, and questions about how much power the government has to keep people from owning them, are at the core of one of the most divisive topics in American politics.
Nowhere is that divide more pronounced than in the gap between Americans' beliefs about their rights under the Second Amendment, and how courts have interpreted the law.
Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10.
Yet for decades, federal judges have seen the Constitution differently, allowing a range of gun-control measures imposed by governments seeking to curb gun violence.
Lower court judges overwhelmingly have ruled that the right "to keep and bear arms" isn't for individuals, but instead applies to state militias, such as National Guard units. The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly declined to hear appeals of those rulings, fueling the debate over gun control and tension between the law and public opinion.

Now, in a benchmark case that arises against a backdrop of election-year politics, the high court will take its first definitive look at the Second Amendment. However the nine justices rule in the case, their decision will reshape the national debate over guns, a conflict that pits images of America's history of frontier liberty against concerns about public safety.
"A Supreme Court decision has a moral, political and cultural meaning as well as a legal meaning," says Temple University law professor David Kairys, who has long been in the thick of the debate over gun rights and firearms violence as a defender of gun restrictions. "I think it is going to have a huge impact."
The case tests the constitutionality of a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., where in 1976 officials imposed one of the nation's strictest gun-control laws in response to alarming levels of gun violence. The justices will hear arguments on March 18; a ruling is likely by the end of June.
If the court decides there is an individual right to bear arms, it will be a huge victory for gun-rights advocates. It would reverse years of legal precedent and embolden politicians and groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) that have touted gun rights. It also likely would discourage new gun regulations and inspire challenges to other gun restrictions.
The possibility that the D.C. dispute could jeopardize a range of federal firearms laws — including those banning individuals from owning machine guns and those establishing rules for transporting weapons — has led the Bush administration to take a step back from its strong support of gun rights.
In 2001, the administration reversed decades of Justice Department positions when then-attorney general John Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did cover an individual right to have guns.
Now, with the D.C. case before the Supreme Court, the administration isn't taking such a hard line on an individual right to own and use guns, a stance pushed by the NRA and its allies. Instead, the White House is urging the justices to adopt a legal standard that would protect an individual right to own guns but protect federal firearms laws.
University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson, who believes the Second Amendment provides a right to individual ownership, says the government's new position might be easier for the court to adopt.
Many legal analysts predict that the court led by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts is ready to declare some individual right to own guns. Moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy could be a key vote on the issue, as he has been for the past two years on the divided court.
"My assumption is that there are at least five votes for the proposition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right," says Yale University law professor Jack Balkin. "But just because you say there is an individual right, you haven't resolved the case. … Is it an individual right to keep and bear arms that might be useful in militia service, a right to keep and bear arms that might be useful for self-defense, or both?"
The shifting politics on guns
Gun control was a recurring issue in the 1990s and deeply divided Democrats and Republicans, as Democrats typically favored strict controls on guns and Republicans stressed that people would be safer if they were allowed to arm themselves.
That has changed somewhat. The Democratic and GOP candidates for president have differences on gun control, but Democrats are trying to appeal to those on each side of the debate. That's likely a reflection of Democratic leaders' attempts to move their party's stance on guns closer to that of most voters.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has focused on gun control in their campaigns for the Democratic nomination. When asked specifically about it in public forums, they voice modest support for new regulations and quickly add that the Second Amendment protects people's gun rights.
"The Clinton and Obama campaigns know the public opinion data on the issue well," says Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow specializing in public opinion polls at the American Enterprise Institute. "Opinion is complex, but the right to be able to own a gun seems to be firmly held, and I think that's why both candidates say what they say."
At a debate in January, Clinton acknowledged that she had dropped her support for the licensing of new gun owners and registration of new guns, which she advocated in 2000 when she ran for the U.S. Senate in New York. She endorsed reinstating an assault-weapons ban, then added: "I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."
Obama also said he no longer supported broad licensing and registering of firearms, as he did when he was in the Illinois Senate. "We essentially have two realities when it comes to guns in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. … And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot," he said. "And then you've got the reality of public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago."
Republican frontrunner Sen. John McCain has needed no such finessing of the issue.
He joined a congressional "friend of the court" brief in the D.C. case that vigorously endorses an individual right to have guns.
Courts at odds with public
The Second Amendment says, "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." Until recently, judges seized on the first part, the collective "militia" right, rather than the second clause, "the right of the people."
The last time the Supreme Court took up a major gun-rights case was in 1939. That dispute, United States v. Miller, involved two men who were caught transporting an illegal sawed-off shotgun across state lines. The court did not directly address the scope of the Second Amendment. Yet its decision rested on the notion that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to firearms, not an individual right.
In the years since, most lower federal courts interpreted the Miller decision to mean there was no individual right to have firearms.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set the stage for the high court to weigh in when it ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms … for such activities as hunting and self-defense." The appeals court invalidated D.C.'s ban on handguns in the home.
Attorneys for Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who wanted to keep a handgun in his Washington home for self-defense and who helped start the case, urged the justices to affirm that decision.
Heller's attorneys note that in America's early days, colonists were bitter about the British king's disarmament of the English population. The attorneys say "the Second Amendment's text thus … confirms the people's right to arms."
Lawyers for the D.C. government echo lower courts that have rejected such a notion: "The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes."
D.C. officials say they banned handguns because such weapons "are disproportionately linked to violent and deadly crime."
The Bush administration's shifting stance on gun control has added political drama to the case.
Ashcroft's position seven years ago made him a hero to the 4 million-member NRA, which put him on the cover of its monthly magazine and called him a "breath of fresh air to freedom-loving gun owners."
The next year, in 2002, Justice Department lawyers said that any government regulation of gun rights should be subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny, which would make it harder to enact gun laws.
Now, the Bush administration is siding with Heller in a"friend of the court" brief — but with a large caveat. Justice Departmentlawyers have backed off their earlier position and now say gun regulation should be subjected to a lesser level of scrutiny that would allow far more regulation than the 2002 stance.
The reason is explained in the first line of the administration's court brief: "Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms." Current laws ban private ownership of machine guns and limit possession of firearms that can go undetected by metal detectors or X-ray machines. Laws also regulate the manufacture, sale and importation of firearms.
Vice President Cheney, a hunting enthusiast, broke with the administration and signed a brief with a majority of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives urging a high threshold for gun regulation.
Levinson believes the Justice Department's stance could appeal to most of the high court as well as the public. "I think laws that pass with genuine public support are likely to be upheld," he says.
Kairys, who has helped cities sue gunmakers for the costs of firearms violence, says gun-control laws could be hurt by any court finding of an individual right. If the court does that, he says, "It's going to be very hard to get any (gun control) legislation passed."
Adds Balkin, "There is no reason to believe the court's decision will defuse the battle over guns. The court rarely has the last word in major social controversies. If the court rules for D.C., there will be continuing agitation by gun-rights advocates. If the court rules against D.C., there will be new waves of litigation" over what the ruling means.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...r_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip#close-share-help
 

dolemyte

Tiger = Wesley Pipes
Feb 27, 2008
1,725
0
0
BX
#2
I've always wanted to ask, not being a smart ass mind you...but what is the big deal about owning guns?

Why are you a gun lover? Before anyone jumps, i'm not anti gun, i just never got the whole gun love thing from other segments of the country.. im from NYC, so i understand protection, but once i stopped doing anything i needed a gun for, i dont feel the need or want to have a gun...
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#3
An automatic gun is no different than any other and there should be no reason for cops to be able to have them and not civilians. They essentially banned them in 1934 because in 1933 and early 1934 they had about nine people robbing banks during the great depression with Thompson submachine guns that they bought and half of them stole, some from the National Guard (Bonny and Clyde).

Then in 1986 a shitdick named William Hughes slipping in a clause into the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act that banned the importation and registration of any automatics in this nation after the date of the bill's passing.

It wasn't anything fair to do and it hasn't been overturned because 98% of the 1986 FOPA was good by protecting gun makers and individuals.

My goal when I get into the Senate is to negate the Hughes Act
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#4
I've always wanted to ask, not being a smart ass mind you...but what is the big deal about owning guns?
Well they are a great way to relieve stress and they provide for a good hobby. But on the serious side they make sure that we can protect ourselves and family from lunatics out there by killing them ASAP.

I'm not going to bullshit about how our founding fathers wanted us to be able to hunt. Hunting is fun, but the real reason is to keep from being ruled by tyrants and to be able to kill other human beings that threaten our or other's lives.

Here is a question. If you were being a criminal and trying to break into my house and you saw me carrying an AK-47 loaded with a 40rd magazine and a red-dot scope would you want to proceed with breaking into my home? Of course not, mission accomplished.
 

dolemyte

Tiger = Wesley Pipes
Feb 27, 2008
1,725
0
0
BX
#5
Well they are a great way to relieve stress and they provide for a good hobby. But on the serious side they make sure that we can protect ourselves and family from lunatics out there by killing them ASAP.

I'm not going to bullshit about how our founding fathers wanted us to be able to hunt. Hunting is fun, but the real reason is to keep from being ruled by tyrants and to be able to kill other human beings that threaten our or other's lives.

Here is a question. If you were being a criminal and trying to break into my house and you saw me carrying an AK-47 loaded with a 40rd magazine and a red-dot scope would you want to proceed with breaking into my home? Of course not, mission accomplished.

Point taken... I understand protection, but is hunting the only recreational use?

I could never see myself stockpilling or even feeling that they are absolute necessary. Its one amendment i've never given a second thought about
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,316
8,978
768
#6
well the obvious answer is its none of your fucking buisness its my right.

got that out of the way.

im an avid hunter and fisherman, and target shooter, so most of my guns are "sporting weapons" i also own several what could be called "non sporting" weapons but it depends on your opinion of "sport"
shooting is a discipline just like golf or the martial arts. i was never good at "physical" sports so i like to shoot. the other thing i love about guns is the mechanics that are involved with them, like a fine watch a fire arm can be a work of art.
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#7
Point taken... I understand protection, but is hunting the only recreational use?

I could never see myself stockpilling or even feeling that they are absolute necessary. Its one amendment i've never given a second thought about
Absolutely there is a recreational use. The simple act of firing guns and practicing marksmanship is fun. Remember, it's an Olympic sport.

I used to be on a competetive rifle team and it wasn't about self-protection. It was for fun exercising a skill that I love. It's like any other interest/hobby.

When you know that you can hit targets out between 600-1,000 yards with your rifles when 95% of the people owning firearms can't do the same then it's fulfilling.

It takes skill (when not using bench rests like 70yr old retirees) to be able to hit your mark in different situations.

Speed shooting is the best! And most people can't do it and hit their targets reliably.
 

dolemyte

Tiger = Wesley Pipes
Feb 27, 2008
1,725
0
0
BX
#8
well the obvious answer is its none of your fucking buisness its my right.

got that out of the way.

im an avid hunter and fisherman, and target shooter, so most of my guns are "sporting weapons" i also own several what could be called "non sporting" weapons but it depends on your opinion of "sport"
shooting is a discipline just like golf or the martial arts. i was never good at "physical" sports so i like to shoot. the other thing i love about guns is the mechanics that are involved with them, like a fine watch a fire arm can be a work of art.


Hey, i wouldnt try (or care enough) to infringe anyone's rights...shoot and own anyway

But, i am glad that you broke down the sporting aspect though, i've never had to shoot in the past, so i have no idea how it feels, even if it is against targets
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,650
6,848
693
F.U.B.A.R
#9
The Second Amendment also covers all other weapons that may be carried upon ones person.

The collectivist opinion is bullshit commie talk, and all commies should die a traitors death, at the end of a rope swinging with their commie pals in the wind.
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#12
Point taken... I understand protection, but is hunting the only recreational use?
And here are examples of my 2nd Amendment Right (castrated Gay-K-47 since the ATF thinks we can only have semi-autos).

And the GAY-K-47 even has a tac light so I can see people in the dark 50yrds away and see them with my red-dot :D

 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#13
Whats the range in price for range practice time?
Indoor range fees usually run about $10-15 per person. I don't know about outdoor ranges since the one around me is managed by the U.S. Parks admin so it's free to use for the public
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,316
8,978
768
#14
Whats the range in price for range practice time?
it really depends, if your shooing pistol indoors at a pay buy the hour range it can get pricey, if your shooting on your own property its really just the cost of ammo. another thing i completely over looked is the science behind fire arms, if you get into reloading you can have lots of fun, making your own bullets, im too disorganized for that though.
 

dolemyte

Tiger = Wesley Pipes
Feb 27, 2008
1,725
0
0
BX
#15
it really depends, if your shooing pistol indoors at a pay buy the hour range it can get pricey, if your shooting on your own property its really just the cost of ammo. another thing i completely over looked is the science behind fire arms, if you get into reloading you can have lots of fun, making your own bullets, im too disorganized for that though.

Damn, live in the city, so shooting on my property isnt an option. Guess i'd have to look out of state or in the woods upstate

(Although it wouldnt be smart for colored fella like myself to be travelling with guns and get pulled over)
 

Budyzir

There's nothing quite like a shorn scrotum.
Nov 12, 2004
7,307
1
0
Queens, NY
#16
.... the other thing i love about guns is the mechanics that are involved with them, like a fine watch a fire arm can be a work of art.
That so hit a spot with me. When I owned my Colt I really enjoyed breaking it down and cleaning it. It fascinated me how some half a dozen or so finely machined parts could could come together into such an efficient mechanical device. There really is art in the design and construction of mechanisms.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,316
8,978
768
#17
Damn, live in the city, so shooting on my property isnt an option. Guess i'd have to look out of state or in the woods upstate

(Although it wouldnt be smart for colored fella like myself to be travelling with guns and get pulled over)
yea that might be a little rough, im sure there's indoor ranges in the city that rents guns. as for the traveling if your a legal owner the law says your allowed to transport a fire arm with out fear of prosecution, now the weapon should be un loaded and locked up and or separated from its ammo so as not to be easily accessible :icon_roll.

just a quick google http://www.handgunlaw.us/
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#18
(Although it wouldnt be smart for colored fella like myself to be travelling with guns and get pulled over)
Sir, your skin color doesn't matter. That shit ended in the 60s. The Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 protects you by FEDERAL law that allows you to transport weapons over state lines and even through cities that have gun bans.

You simply need to have the gun and ammo stored seperately and out of your immediate reach (in the back seat, floor board of a truck, trunk of a car).

Don't be afraid to exercise your 2nd Amendment. You are more protected than you know but you need to learn the laws so you can make sure that no asshole cop tries to bullshit you.

Find an indoor range around your area. Cities have them around. Look in the phone book under "guns" or "sporting goods"
 

Stig

Wackbag's New Favorite Heel
Jul 26, 2005
80,677
4,436
558
NH
#19
it really depends, if your shooing pistol indoors at a pay buy the hour range it can get pricey, if your shooting on your own property its really just the cost of ammo. another thing i completely over looked is the science behind fire arms, if you get into reloading you can have lots of fun, making your own bullets, im too disorganized for that though.
A buddy of mine owns several machine guns (legally) ranging from a silenced sub gun up to a tripod-mounted 30 caliber Browning. As you can imagine, he spends a LOT of time reloading ammo. If you go through the piles of bullets he does, you can spend hours every week cranking that reloading rig.
 

dolemyte

Tiger = Wesley Pipes
Feb 27, 2008
1,725
0
0
BX
#20
Good looks on the gun laws.. i dont know if i'll ever really own a gun, but it is good to know about an amendment and laws that i've never cared about till recently...
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
140,961
49,538
644
#21
Something I've always wanted to ask and know I'll sound stupid asking.

Do you need to bring your own guns to a shooting range? If not, is it expensive to "rent" guns?
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,316
8,978
768
#22
well that was kind of the point of me posting this article, when this gets in front of the high court it is going to be one of the most important decisions that they have had to made in the last decade, how do you think its going to go.

im hoping for a complete repeal of the DC ban, but i dont think its going to happen that way, i will bet it goes back to the lower court, even though the lower court declared it illegal, or worse it will be up held, then we can all start to fear the "jack booted thugs" coming for our guns
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,316
8,978
768
#23
Something I've always wanted to ask and know I'll sound stupid asking.

Do you need to bring your own guns to a shooting range? If not, is it expensive to "rent" guns?

well it depends on what kind of range you go to, i often go with freinds and bring an arsonal so we all have something new to shoot, but i have also rented guns at the local indoor range. they charge about 15$ an hour to rent a pistol and 20$ an hour for a class III, you also have to shoot there ammo thew there guns, so you have to buy there ammo at there prices. for me to go to the indoor range it cost me around 50$ an hour, but thats with my own guns, and shooting there ammo
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#24
for me to go to the indoor range it cost me around 50$ an hour, but thats with my own guns, and shooting there ammo
It costs me $12 with tax to go to my favorite indoor range (a newer one) and the pistols cost $10 to rent. And there you can use your own ammo.

But another indoor range in the area only allows you to rent their machine guns and pistols if you use their ammo. So, if you want to rent their UZI or MP5 then of course it's going to cost a lot of money since they are fully automatic :)
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,316
8,978
768
#25
pigs knuckle Arkansas > media pa