Gun Law Goodness

[NickReppinThe909]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_..._co/scotus_guns

[Scheetz]

Already a thread going in the Serious section.


But yes, I am quite pleased it passed. However, I am angry that 4 idiots voted no.

[NickReppinThe909]

i avoid the serious section its like a battlefield in there. but in honor of the new law im going to more than likely go buy a 12ga autoloader for home defense

[Big Boss]

I heard about this case back in March or so. I forgot about it until now. Glad to hear that the Supreme Court made the right decision.

[bjelder]

about time

[boulderkid303]

I'm not up to date with this, but what is going to be the policy's with schools? Carrying a self defense weapon on campus enclosed is ok? Or is it up to the school hows it work exactly?

[Big Boss]

Most states, if not all, have clauses that prohibit guns on school grounds and hospitals. In Nebraska it was a big deal because when we ratified the concealed carry law they put in a clause that wouldn't allow guns on school grounds, but they failed to include colleges in that group and they had to wait a few months to get it in.

[boulderkid303]

Well I hope all schools dont allow it. Other than that its fine.

Most states, if not all, have clauses that prohibit guns on school grounds and hospitals. In Nebraska it was a big deal because when we ratified the concealed carry law they put in a clause that wouldn't allow guns on school grounds, but they failed to include colleges in that group and they had to wait a few months to get it in.

[ilikemyusername]

okay, so does this mean i can get a L.A.W. for home-defense, are UZI's still okay? nah, i'll stick to the trusty winchester.
its name is cowboy.

[derogatory]

On one hand I'm glad, on the other hand I think it will make it easier for "common sense" gun laws to pass since they mentioned "reasonable regulation" in their decision. Only time will tell. I'm counting it as a victory for freedom for now. Does this mean NYC will have to lift their ban too?

[derogatory]

Well I hope all schools dont allow it. Other than that its fine.

Most states, if not all, have clauses that prohibit guns on school grounds and hospitals. In Nebraska it was a big deal because when we ratified the concealed carry law they put in a clause that wouldn't allow guns on school grounds, but they failed to include colleges in that group and they had to wait a few months to get it in.

Whoa?! Why shouldn't guns be allowed on school property when carried by citizens who are cleared for legal carry? Who does that protect? I'll tell you who that protects, it protects madmen who want to go shoot up schools in a gun-free environment. The only place I think guns should be banned from are courtrooms, jails, and mental hospitals. In those environments, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are too dangerous because they could be grabbed by desperate people. Also in those environments there are guards responsible for people's safety so I'd feel like I was taking a low risk by disarming for these environments.

I will never think it's a good idea to disarm parents, teachers, and other adult employees of the schools. It's completely backwards and irresponsible. Unless every school has a metal detector and a trained and armed guard on duty to protect the place it's a bad idea to disarm the rest of us.

[judgeposer]

okay, so does this mean i can get a L.A.W. for home-defense, are UZI's still okay? nah, i'll stick to the trusty winchester.
its name is cowboy.

On one hand I'm glad, on the other hand I think it will make it easier for "common sense" gun laws to pass since they mentioned "reasonable regulation" in their decision. Only time will tell. I'm counting it as a victory for freedom for now. Does this mean NYC will have to lift their ban too?

Just to clarify... the entire court agreed that from our Constitution, we have an individual right to bear arms. In fact, neither side during oral arguments or through their briefs forwarded the contrary argument that we do not possess an individual right to own a gun (meaning, both sides agreed that our right to own arms does not depend on being member to a militia or some similar thing). In this particular case, the Court decided whether Washington, D.C.'s gun law, which banned all privately owned handguns, was constitutional.

From the opinion http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up.../06/07-2901.pdf syllabus, it held the following:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose . . . The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
3. The [D.C.] handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Of course, the Court's opinion (and even with the help of the dissent in this case) will likely spur numerous challenges to other gun control laws, such as those laws as restrictive as D.C.'s--or even moderately less restrictive. The Court did not make some sort of general holding that all bans like D.C.'s are unconstitutional, just that D.C.'s was to be sure.

[Bulldog_916]

I like the idea of sensible gun laws. You cant have lax gun laws in highly populated areas. It doesnt make any sense. Lax laws in the country? Cool, let it go. I think autos should be highly regulated if not banned, you'll never hunt anything but man with a fucking auto, EVER. Semi-autos with auto switches like AKs and AR-15s should be restricted to law enforcement only. Strict semi-autos are fine if the clip is 12 rounds or less. Concealed carry laws are good as they are.

[boulderkid303]

+1000000000000000000.

Great points.

I like the idea of sensible gun laws. You cant have lax gun laws in highly populated areas. It doesnt make any sense. Lax laws in the country? Cool, let it go. I think autos should be highly regulated if not banned, you'll never hunt anything but man with a fucking auto, EVER. Semi-autos with auto switches like AKs and AR-15s should be restricted to law enforcement only. Strict semi-autos are fine if the clip is 12 rounds or less. Concealed carry laws are good as they are.

[derogatory]

I like the idea of sensible gun laws. You cant have lax gun laws in highly populated areas. It doesnt make any sense. Lax laws in the country? Cool, let it go. I think autos should be highly regulated if not banned, you'll never hunt anything but man with a fucking auto, EVER. Semi-autos with auto switches like AKs and AR-15s should be restricted to law enforcement only. Strict semi-autos are fine if the clip is 12 rounds or less. Concealed carry laws are good as they are.

It's not hard to see who doesn't know anything about guns. They are always the ones who believe there should be more rules and regulations made about them because they think only criminals and hunters would want a gun and can't imagine the plethora of other legitimate uses guns have including FUN (pursuit of happiness.)

12 round clip[sic]? There are these things called shootouts, that occur every so often and you need more than 12 rounds because all of your shots are being fired to protect you from getting shot, to keep your aggressor at a distance where they can't shoot you. Sometimes you are just creating an escape to get away from the danger or maybe sometimes you are cornered and need to keep your aggressors at bay until help arrives.

Anyways, I have 2 30-round MAGAZINES in my closet. I just don't appreciate being told that what I'm doing is wrong and I should be punished for it.

I mean you guys don't support the smoking bans. You really don't need a hookah, it will never put food on the table and it isn't a sport. What if tobacco smoking were to be made illegal and punishable? That's a very real threat too. I'm surprised you don't sympathize more with gun owners/enthusiasts/hunters.

Does your car go over 85? You don't need it to go over 85 EVER so why'd you buy such a fast car? I mean it really is my own business what I do with my guns, they aren't hurting anyone and unlike hookahs and cars, they do put food on my table and protect myself and my loved ones from harm.