SCOTUS to decide on handgun ban

Tashah · 11-24-07, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Court Sets Its Scope on Handgun Ban
By NICK TIMIRAOS
November 24, 2007

The Supreme Court agreed this past week to decide whether the Constitution grants individuals the right to own firearms, thrusting the court into a political thicket ahead of next year's election.

The court will decide whether the District of Columbia's 1976 law that bans handguns, generally considered to be the nation's strictest, violates the Second Amendment. A federal appeals court struck down the handgun ban in March, becoming the first federal court to overturn such a law on Second Amendment grounds.

The high court, which is expected to hear arguments in the spring and to issue an opinion by July, hasn't ruled on the issue in nearly 70 years, leaving plenty of uncertainty about its decision.

Full story: The Wall Street Journal

Does the Constitution guarantee a citizen's right to own a gun? Whatever SCOTUS decides here will no doubt have far reaching Second Amendment consequences.

Lachean · 11-24-07, 12:00 PM

When they came for our guns, I didn't complain because self defense can be dangerous...

scourge99 · 11-24-07, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

When they came for our guns, I didn't complain because self defense can be dangerous...

If they rule against it I plan on starting my own "militia". Then we can go to court about who gets to run and maintain "militias".

On a side note I've always wondered what type of limits we should place on weapon ownership. The main idea of the "right to bear arms" is protection from others which includes the government. However, in this day and age a single shot rifle will hardly protect you from the government. Does that mean I should be able to own an SRAW or a Stinger Missile Launcher or even nuclear weapons? Where is the line drawn?

Personally, I think citizens should be allowed to own SRAWs or other heavy weapons since they are a reasonable defense capabilities against the offense that is present today. However, Stinger missiles and nuclear weapons are overkill: when does a person or militia need the ability to shoot down a plane or nuke an area for protectection?

TheHonestTruth · 11-24-07, 02:58 PM

Its important to note this issue is about ownership of HAND guns. Not guns in general.

Im a bit torn on this issue. The argument the DC city limits had was that handguns are involved in the vast majority of crimes because they are easily concealed weapons. Yet at the same time, nobody really needs a handgun imo. Defending yourself can be done in other ways, your home with a shotgun or rifle for example is equally as safe. I think if fewer handguns were sold over time crime would decrease. Plenty of crimes are committed simply because people shove guns into their wasteband, if these guns were systematically eliminated over time crime would decrease.

Its certainly a tenuous issue.

Iriemon · 11-24-07, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

If they rule against it I plan on starting my own "militia". Then we can go to court about who gets to run and maintain "militias".

On a side note I've always wondered what type of limits we should place on weapon ownership. The main idea of the "right to bear arms" is protection from others which includes the government. However, in this day and age a single shot rifle will hardly protect you from the government. Does that mean I should be able to own an SRAW or a Stinger Missile Launcher or even nuclear weapons? Where is the line drawn?

Personally, I think citizens should be allowed to own SRAWs or other heavy weapons since they are a reasonable defense capabilities against the offense that is present today. However, Stinger missiles and nuclear weapons are overkill: when does a person or militia need the ability to shoot down a plane or nuke an area for protectection?

How are you going fight the Govt with its helicopters and fighter jets if you don't have Stingers? Why is that a weapon the 2dA forbids?

scourge99 · 11-24-07, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHonestTruth

Its important to note this issue is about ownership of HAND guns. Not guns in general.

Im a bit torn on this issue. The argument the DC city limits had was that handguns are involved in the vast majority of crimes because they are easily concealed weapons. Yet at the same time, nobody really needs a handgun imo. Defending yourself can be done in other ways, your home with a shotgun or rifle for example is equally as safe. I think if fewer handguns were sold over time crime would decrease. Plenty of crimes are committed simply because people shove guns into their wasteband, if these guns were systematically eliminated over time crime would decrease.

Its certainly a tenuous issue.

Defending yourself isn't restricted to your private residence. Shotguns or other large weapons aren't easily carried for self defense, handguns are.

The SCOTUS may end of defining more specific details on the intent of the 2nd amendment which may describe what exactly the founders meant by "arms" in the "right to bear arms" part which deals with gun ownership in general.

scourge99 · 11-24-07, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

How are you going fight the Govt with its helicopters and fighter jets if you don't have Stingers? Why is that a weapon the 2dA forbids?

Which is why I can't decide whether they should be allowed or not. Where do you draw the line. Can't I argue that I need nuclear weapons for the same reason you need stinger missiles? Is it a good idea for the average citizen to own nuclear weapons or stinger missiles?

Lachean · 11-24-07, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

How are you going fight the Govt with its helicopters and fighter jets if you don't have Stingers? Why is that a weapon the 2dA forbids?

The government couldn't use weapons of those kinds against its people because it needs the infrastructure to exist. If you think occupying Iraq is hard, try occupying Baltimore.

scourge99 · 11-24-07, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

The government couldn't use weapons of those kinds against its people because it needs the infrastructure to exist. If you think occupying Iraq is hard, try occupying Baltimore.

Remember that thing called the civil war?

Lachean · 11-24-07, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

Remember that thing called the civil war?

Yeah, what about it? Do not pose questions at me, if you have an argument to make speak directly.