Supreme Court: gun possession fundamental to American freedom

I was amazed that this passed. Especially considering the political views of the current administration. I for one am glad because I support gun ownership. People seem to think a gun ban and turning ourselves into England will solve violence. The problem is that the guns are already in the country and if the public isn't allowed to have them, the underground criminals will.

There have been failed attempts to ban guns by the mayor of Toronto Canada. While on the surface, it does seem like a good idea...you know, eliminating guns will eliminate violence but most people dont look deeper. Most of the guns being used for illegal purposes are stolen and owned illegally anyways. Banning guns would only make the legitimate gun owners suffer.

But another side of the story is that if you ban legal guns, they wont be stolen....but then again, a lot of guns are smuggled from across the border.

Even if you were to ban legal guns, people still would possess those guns. When the Assault Weapons ban was enacted in '89 (I believe) people that owned the guns still had a right to their previous ownership. I believe they can also pass it on in there estate through the grandfather clause (could have pulled that out of my rear end).

If the people don't have guns, the criminals will. Criminals aren't going to walk up to the PD and just hand over their guns like good Samaritans.

Its cliche but true, Guns dont kill people, people kill people. curbing violence will work when the reasons so many resort to it are adressed. USA should be about choices. Enforcement of bans on anything form guns to words should not be issued. It counters the principles of the founders.

Though I have to say the states that allow guns to be carried into taverns are on something. Logic and common sense should previal there.

If you make laws against guns, only the Government and crooks have guns.

mvr said:

There have been failed attempts to ban guns by the mayor of Toronto Canada. While on the surface, it does seem like a good idea...you know, eliminating guns will eliminate violence but most people dont look deeper. Most of the guns being used for illegal purposes are stolen and owned illegally anyways. Banning guns would only make the legitimate gun owners suffer.

But another side of the story is that if you ban legal guns, they wont be stolen....but then again, a lot of guns are smuggled from across the border.

Click to expand...

exactly, and what about the police then? They become corrupt because nobody can fight back and what about people who get guns illegally, you can't defend yourselves against them either.

I am a gun owner and have been for years. I own modern rifles, shotguns, muzzle loaders, flintlocks and pistols. I don't have to own a gun or much less multiple guns. I don't live in a wilderness where my survival depends on my ability to shoot game. I don't live in a war zone where I am called on for combat duty. I own guns because I choose to own them. At one time I was a duck, turkey and deer hunter. Today I seldomd hunt but still reserve the right to take it up again if I so choose.

When at my Long Island, New York address I have two rifles and two shotguns on hand. They are safely locked up so that my grandchildren can not get at them but are available to me if I want or need them.

When I am at my Florida address I often carry a pistol on my person, especiall when going to the ATM, going out to dinner late at night or driving in my car.

All my guns are legal and I have been trained in their use both while in the army and later as a civilian. I know how to store them responsibly and I know how to shoot, when to shoot and more importantly when not to shoot.

I consider my right to own a gun a basic right open to all Americans who are of sound mind and have not been convicted of a felony. As a member of the National Rifle Association I put my money where my mouth is when it comes to protecting my rights as a gun owner.

notimpressed said:

Its cliche but true, Guns dont kill people, people kill people. curbing violence will work when the reasons so many resort to it are adressed. USA should be about choices. Enforcement of bans on anything form guns to words should not be issued. It counters the principles of the founders.

Though I have to say the states that allow guns to be carried into taverns are on something. Logic and common sense should previal there.

Click to expand...

By taverns, do you mean places that serve alcohol such as a bar? I don't know how many states allow anyone to mix firearms and alcohol, especially in a bar nonetheless. CO and CA most definitely don't.

Tennessee passed a a law allowing carry into a Bar. I saw it done in Florida years back, although they can keep the weapon, it was unloaded at the bar not the door. The ammuntion was registerd like a coat check and was given back when the coustomer left. Just plain weird. Legal at that time?...89 I believe I have no idea if it was.

myp said:

Earlier today, for the first time ever, the Supreme Court ruled that gun possession was a fundamental American right. The 5-4 ruling may lead to the court striking down some state and local gun regulation laws much like what happened when the D.C. gun ban was deemed unconstitutional.

The justices stressed that this decision does not mean every regulation will be struck down and it does not mean citizens can have any weapons for any purpose.

source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...4701513109426.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Yes, fundamental rights in nearly every case apply the strict scrutiny test which presumes legislation limiting the right is presumptively unconstitutional unless it passes the test.

Test

Mayor Daley in Chicago is helping gun rights supporters more than gun control advocates because he's forcing the court to flesh out the law regarding the second amendment. Prior to the last few years there was precious little on the book. I think US v Miller in 1939 was the last case prior to Heller.

First the court held that the second was an individual right not a collective right (in Heller) and the they incorporated it in McDonald v Chicago

I have a blog entry on the Chicago gun control litigation here