Bad news for the AWB supporters

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What do you believe, Danno? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute? That any regulations or restrictions on ownership of weapons is infringement on the right to bear arms?

I believe that ANY restrictions on our right to own firearms is unconstitutional, yes. It is fairly clearly stated and has been determined by the highest court to be so. Unless there is some other meaning to "Shall not be infringed". The existing (remainging) laws will be struck down a little at a time. It is appalling that in the face of the Heller decision, cities like Chicago continue to deny rights to its citizens, but this too shall pass.

Gary, you seem to want it both ways. On one hand, you are saying essentially, that our Second Amendment is absolute (a strict, literal interpretation), but then use a contextual interpretation to define what a person can or can't own for a weapon. But for the sake of your argument - that the Supreme Court has made your assertion (absolute) clear...that is not accurate, even up to the most recent decision - reasonable regulations are acceptable. That is the crux of it all, however, if you are taking the stance that the Second Amendment is absolute, then you are rejecting the plausibility of reasonable regulations, even though you, yourself have some kind of definition of just what kind of arms a person can or can't bear (no nuclear arms even if it fits in a briefcase).

Now let's look at the current laws that are on the books regulating guns. According to you, these would all be in violation of the Second Amendment. Why then, hasn't the Supreme Court ruled such regulations as unconstitutional? I believe the answer to that is twofold. For one, the states have the right to regulate guns and two, because the gun lobby doesn't want the Supreme Court to make any decision in challenging current gun control laws in our 50 states. District of Columbia was unique in that it is under federal jurisdiction, so their ruling for D.C. was limited.

The reason for that is one fold. They haven't been challenged too the Supreme Court level yet and given the clarity of the Heller decision,( I mean it IS remarkable isn't it?) I am not sure they ever will be.

But again, that's not accurate. The lower courts have ruled on the constitutionality of many existing gun laws in the various states and so far, all current laws have been upheld in the lower courts as constitutional....60 cases since D.C. v. Heller:

On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Registration Amendment Act of 2008 which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.^[62]

Since the June 2008 ruling, over 60 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.^[63] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.^[63] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.^[63]

The courts have upheld every one of these laws as being constitutional. The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states: "nothing in our opinion should 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 on the commercial sale of arms." Consistently since the Heller ruling the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."^[63]

Robert Levy, the executive director of the CATO Institute who funded the Heller litigation has commented on this passage describing constitutionally acceptable forms of prohibitions of firearms: "I would have preferred that that not have been there," and that this paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."^[63].

Similar to the lifting of gun bans mentioned previously in the settlements of lawsuits filed post-Heller, in US v. Arzberger, also decided post-Heller, it was noted: “To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm.” ^[64]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_C...er#cite_note-63}

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller}

[justashooter 430]

The same rationale surely applies to the guy on 9/11 - he didn't have a gun (neither did the Virginia Tech students), neither did he expect the plane to be hijacked and was essentially caught with his pants down (just as the students weren't expecting an armed gunman to burst into the dorms and classrooms and start plugging away).

"As this was happening, passenger Daniel Lewin, who was seated in the row just behind Atta and Omari, was stabbed by one of the hijackers, probably Satam al Suqami, who was seated directly behind Lewin."

9/11 Commission Report

Edited March 29, 2009 by justashooter

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What do you believe, Danno? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute? That any regulations or restrictions on ownership of weapons is infringement on the right to bear arms?

I believe that ANY restrictions on our right to own firearms is unconstitutional, yes. It is fairly clearly stated and has been determined by the highest court to be so. Unless there is some other meaning to "Shall not be infringed". The existing (remainging) laws will be struck down a little at a time. It is appalling that in the face of the Heller decision, cities like Chicago continue to deny rights to its citizens, but this too shall pass.

Gary, you seem to want it both ways. On one hand, you are saying essentially, that our Second Amendment is absolute (a strict, literal interpretation), but then use a contextual interpretation to define what a person can or can't own for a weapon. But for the sake of your argument - that the Supreme Court has made your assertion (absolute) clear...that is not accurate, even up to the most recent decision - reasonable regulations are acceptable. That is the crux of it all, however, if you are taking the stance that the Second Amendment is absolute, then you are rejecting the plausibility of reasonable regulations, even though you, yourself have some kind of definition of just what kind of arms a person can or can't bear (no nuclear arms even if it fits in a briefcase).

Now let's look at the current laws that are on the books regulating guns. According to you, these would all be in violation of the Second Amendment. Why then, hasn't the Supreme Court ruled such regulations as unconstitutional? I believe the answer to that is twofold. For one, the states have the right to regulate guns and two, because the gun lobby doesn't want the Supreme Court to make any decision in challenging current gun control laws in our 50 states. District of Columbia was unique in that it is under federal jurisdiction, so their ruling for D.C. was limited.

The reason for that is one fold. They haven't been challenged too the Supreme Court level yet and given the clarity of the Heller decision,( I mean it IS remarkable isn't it?) I am not sure they ever will be.

But again, that's not accurate. The lower courts have ruled on the constitutionality of many existing gun laws in the various states and so far, all current laws have been upheld in the lower courts as constitutional....60 cases since D.C. v. Heller:

On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Registration Amendment Act of 2008 which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.^[62]

Since the June 2008 ruling, over 60 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.^[63] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.^[63] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.^[63]

The courts have upheld every one of these laws as being constitutional. The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states: "nothing in our opinion should 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 on the commercial sale of arms." Consistently since the Heller ruling the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."^[63]

Robert Levy, the executive director of the CATO Institute who funded the Heller litigation has commented on this passage describing constitutionally acceptable forms of prohibitions of firearms: "I would have preferred that that not have been there," and that this paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."^[63].

Similar to the lifting of gun bans mentioned previously in the settlements of lawsuits filed post-Heller, in US v. Arzberger, also decided post-Heller, it was noted: “To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm.” ^[64]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_C...er#cite_note-63}

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller}

Oh hello again Philip. Ahem. Your question was "why hasn't the supreme court ruled on any cases...." my answer..."because no case has been challenged to the supreme court level" Your response? "That isn't accurate, lower courts have held...." Philip, your answer proves my answer correct, there has been no additional challenges to the supreme court regarding the second amendment since Heller. They have to work their way through lower courts first. Heller was not upheld in lower courts, that is why it went to the Supreme court after the appeals court.

I keep up on this fairly well, as you might imagine, and I have yet to find a case upheld by a lower court regarding firearms laws challeneged on the basis of Heller. Can you please give us one?

Now, please focus and follow the the answers you give so as not to contradict yourself. It really makes the discussion difficult

[HAL 9000 96]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

You are not "budging" (barging) in at all. Thank you so much. And yes, it includes Burlington a very beautiful, clean friendly city where you are perfectly safe to walk the streets, but look both ways before crossing at the corner just to be extra safe.

I always get just a bit perturbed when someone like Bill O'Reilly says we don't protect children in Vermont because we don't have this or that law he wants. Yet we have the safest state in the country for children. Go figure. The children know where the rifle is kept behind the kitchen door and how to use it. They're safe. Like I said, we are a libertarian state, very conservative in our liberalism. Basically we can piss anyone off!!!!!!!! Kinda like if someone implicates we need some of those "reasonable" gun laws to reduce our crime rate.

I want to know...which house would you choose to burglarize in Vermont? I mean it would be easy, really. Most homes are not locked and we are pretty affluent here and have lots of "stuff"? Oh, and which car would you try to jack up? I never heard of a car-jacking in Vermont and cars are really useful here, you would think someone would try to steal one. Wonder why that never happens? Maybe because thieves don't like Suburus? Or is it they don't like Suburus driven by moms packing heat? What do you think?

Oh and don't get the impression we have to shoot our way out of the grocery store, or parking spaces, never happens. There is no crime because we are armed. The idea is to carry a big gun with nasty looking hollow point bullets that would make gaping, sucking chest wounds...and then never use it. Nothing discourages rapists like sucking chest wounds, really.

No offense, but I think you're confusing intent/deterrance of would-be criminals where there are none in your neck of the woods. Figuratively and statistically speaking. Besides, packing a little smaller heat would theoretically yield a faster bullet hole on a would-be perp anyway, specially at close range where the absolute majority of individual instances of crime occur.

Quite simply, there is no crime where you're at because there is no singular reason for there to be crime. That has everything to do with those social factors I mentioned and very little to do with the fact that guns are a deterring variable. Common sense. This whole thing about an armed society being a polite society is way too John Wayne for any rational mind to digest- given the short fuse on most Americans' attitudes.

Chicken or egg, Hal? We have always allowed all people to carry firearms. If there are no criminals, then you have to answer why? Expensive homes packed full of good stuff and no dorr locks sounds pretty tempting.

Now as to your choice of the firearms you carry concealed, Hal, thats a personal thing. Statistcally, truly statiscally, speaking ANY firearm is better than nothing in preventing crime. Personally, I am well trained with handguns and use a 3" Kimber Custom, Ultra CDP in .45 ACP. Too much gun for a lot of people. Better a .380 or even a .22 if you can't handle the bigger gun. A hit with a .22 is far more effective than a miss with a .45. Not as noisey but more effective to be sure. I don't worry about missing. It is virtually never necessary for an armed citizen to actually shoot someone, I was being a bit facetious. Silly me. Actually any firearm is usually enough to discourage criminals. The presence of many firearms in private hands, particularly when it is isn't known whose hands, is enough to discourage the presence of criminal activity

Sorry but your last part is simply wrong. Here is how it breaks out...

2 states do not allow people to carry concealed firearms at all...Illinois and Wisconsin.

2 states allow anyone to carry a concealed firearm without a permit...Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska didn't always, they copied)

9 states allow concealed carry on a "disgressionary basis", that mjeans the local Sheriff gets to decide if he thinks you need a to carry a firearm. Now in two of those, Alabama and Iowa, the Sheriffs pretty much agree you need one if you sat so and hand out the permits easily. Likewise New York where most of the county Sheriffs will do the same, but not all. That leaves 6 that have disgressionary carry but with varying degrees of difficulty.

It hasn't always been this way. In 1965 only 3 states allowed concealed carry. Vermont (always) Alaska and Washington. The first to change this was Florida in 1986 when in the grips of a drug fueled crime wave they passed the first of the countries "new" concealed carry laws. In the next 15 years the other 36 states followed suit to the howls of Sarah Brady, Newspapers, and doomsday predictions everywhere. Never happened. As crime rates dropped, other states joined in. Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas were the last. Wisconsin has passed concealed carry TWICE, only their anti-gun Governor Doyle has prevented it from becoming law. Soon enough.

So, Hal..You are in IL? Yes?

Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana have all passed concealed carry laws in the last 15 years. They have all had reductions in crime attributed to this law. So tell me, why would the people of IL not be able to handle this? Why would we expect a different result in IL than in every other state? Why would the politicians of IL in face of overwheming evidence (no common sense but tins of evidence) deny this right to IL residents? Does it concern you just a bit that yuour politicians deny you rights othes have for no reason? In fact they deny you the benefit of reduced crime. Now what could be the reaon for that?

But in 42 of our 50 United States law abiding people can carry concealed firearms. Now that is a cross section that goes far beyond "common sense" Yet every county of every state that has implemented these laws has had reductions in crime in general and gun realted crime in particular and in every state the largest beneficiaries were women, not surprising to me. It has nothiung to do with John Wayne, since none of us act like John Wayne.

Yes, crime rates among those states vary, for all the reasons in your previous post reagrding the causes of crime, but ALL have a decrease in crime since passing the concealed carry laws. If that goes against you common sense...sorry. The studies were done by the University of Chicago, Dr. John Lott. You can read them on the web, just google "John Lott". He actually did county by county studies, really remarkable evidence.

I must be a liar. Not.

Its only a chicken or egg scenario when you try to justify the existence of one thing by linking it slave to another. Reality doesn't work that way.

So how does it work?

Every state with a concealed carry law has a drop in crime...but the two are not related (incidentally there was even a drop in crime nationwide as we went fro 3 to 42 states that allow concealed carry. Anti gunners, when they can croak out an argument, like to say "well, crime was going down anyway" LOL Just by coincidence I suppose, at any rate it shoots in the foot any argument they can make that guns increase crime, thank you again, I can always count on the anti-civil-rights people to open their mouth and change feet.) States with concealed carry laws had crime rate drops in excess of those that did not have concealed carry laws. Read The University of Chicago study, it was really quite thorough.

I will await your explanation of how reality works. Please.

Indeed. You must be referring to the UC Crime Lab reports.

Perhaps to stay more on topic about that you could read up more, from that same group of researchers, about the market for guns instead of harping about anti-gun people or otherwise incongruous relationships to your idea.

Here's a link in pdf.

Here are a couple of more empirical papers and reviews on the topic of guns and violence:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

And here. This paper, if you read it carefully, shows that increased gun availability makes the gun violence problem even worse.

Enjoy.

I live in Chicago.

that explains a lot.

The crapper need a cheerleader? Do some more research, Charles.

http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/know/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh hello again Philip. Ahem. Your question was "why hasn't the supreme court ruled on any cases...." my answer..."because no case has been challenged to the supreme court level"

Supreme Court's First Post Heller Gun Case Decided, In Favor of Gun Possession Prohibitions

Except that, while the case involved guns, it wasn't really a gun-rights case, at least not as presented to the Court. We can argue about the real issues that really underlay the whole thing, but courts have to deal with the specific legal issues presented to them by the parties and by lower courts.

Yesterday in the case of United States v. Hayes, the Supreme Court did indeed uphold a wide reading of a federal regulation that prohibits anyone convicted of a domestic violence charge from owning a gun. And that decision will ensure that more people remain legally prohibited from owning guns, with the Second Amendment not applicable.

Basically, what was at issue in Hayes is whether the statute under which you were arrested actually had to specifically state as an element of the crime that you had a domestic relationship with the victim, or was it enough that you actually did have such a relationship?

Most courts have said the latter; in an earlier appeal the 4th Circuit said the former, and overturned Hayes' 2005 conviction for possessing firearms after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in 1994 in West Virginia. The Supreme Court has now reversed the 4th Circuit.

From the Los Angeles Times' account:

In 1968, Congress made it illegal for felons to own a gun in the United States. Lawmakers in 1996 extended this ban to include those convicted of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

Until Tuesday, however, it had been unclear who is covered by this provision. Only about half the states have laws that make domestic violence a crime. Across the nation, prosecutors often charge offenders with an assault or battery.

Two years ago, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal gun ban did not extend to state charges involving assault or battery. Randy Hayes, a West Virginia man, had challenged the federal law after he was convicted of illegal gun possession. He was found with three guns in his house in 2004. Ten years earlier, he had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery against his then-wife.

Ruling for Hayes, the appeals court said this "generic battery" conviction did not count as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," and it freed him from the federal charges.

The Supreme Court overturned that ruling Tuesday in United States vs. Hayes and restored the broad view of the federal law. Ginsburg's opinion said the ban on gun ownership extends to any person who has been convicted of any crime involving "physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon," so long as there was a "domestic relationship" between the perpetrator and the victim.

Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts dissented. It's all argued on complicated technicalities of this variety, quoted from Roberts' dissent, and not at all on larger issues of political or legal philosophy. Quoted for truth!

The grammatical rule of the last antecedent indicates that the domestic relationship is a required element of the predicate offense. That rule instructs that “a limiting clause or phrase . . . should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.” Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U. S. 20, 26 (2003). Pursuant to that rule, the “committed by” phrase in clause (ii) is best read to modify the preceding phrase “the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.” See 482 F. 3d, at 754–755. By not following the usual grammatical rule, the majority’s reading requires jumping over two line breaks, clause (i), a semicolon, and the first portion of clause (ii) to reach the more distant antecedent (“offense”). Due to the floating “that” after “offense,” if “committed by” modified “offense” the text would read “offense that committed by.”

Now, the Second Amendment and the underlying validity of cutting off an entire class of people from gun possession rights was not on the table in this technical case, though some newspaper headlines are talking about "Supreme Court upholding gun control laws." Kind of, but not really the point of the case. Because it's not at issue, neither the decision nor the dissent mention the Second Amendment or last year's Heller at all--and that's pretty much as it had to be.

It is worth remember that even as Heller defined the Second Amendment right as both existing and applying to individuals, it stated upfront how limited that right might end up being. As Scalia wrote in the Heller decision:

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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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.

Thus, even if Mr. Hayes' Second Amendment rights had been brought up in this case such that the Court had to consider it, it probably wouldn't have helped him much.

ScotusWiki has a good, but detailed and complicated, explanation of what specifically was at stake in Hayes and its history.

Read the full decision here. And check out Gun Control on Trial, my new book on the history of the Heller case and the Supreme Court's take on the Second Amendment

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131885.html

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Oh hello again Philip. Ahem. Your question was "why hasn't the supreme court ruled on any cases...." my answer..."because no case has been challenged to the supreme court level"

Supreme Court's First Post Heller Gun Case Decided, In Favor of Gun Possession Prohibitions

Except that, while the case involved guns, it wasn't really a gun-rights case, at least not as presented to the Court. We can argue about the real issues that really underlay the whole thing, but courts have to deal with the specific legal issues presented to them by the parties and by lower courts.

Yesterday in the case of United States v. Hayes, the Supreme Court did indeed uphold a wide reading of a federal regulation that prohibits anyone convicted of a domestic violence charge from owning a gun. And that decision will ensure that more people remain legally prohibited from owning guns, with the Second Amendment not applicable.

Basically, what was at issue in Hayes is whether the statute under which you were arrested actually had to specifically state as an element of the crime that you had a domestic relationship with the victim, or was it enough that you actually did have such a relationship?

Most courts have said the latter; in an earlier appeal the 4th Circuit said the former, and overturned Hayes' 2005 conviction for possessing firearms after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in 1994 in West Virginia. The Supreme Court has now reversed the 4th Circuit.

From the Los Angeles Times' account:

In 1968, Congress made it illegal for felons to own a gun in the United States. Lawmakers in 1996 extended this ban to include those convicted of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

Until Tuesday, however, it had been unclear who is covered by this provision. Only about half the states have laws that make domestic violence a crime. Across the nation, prosecutors often charge offenders with an assault or battery.

Two years ago, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal gun ban did not extend to state charges involving assault or battery. Randy Hayes, a West Virginia man, had challenged the federal law after he was convicted of illegal gun possession. He was found with three guns in his house in 2004. Ten years earlier, he had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery against his then-wife.

Ruling for Hayes, the appeals court said this "generic battery" conviction did not count as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," and it freed him from the federal charges.

The Supreme Court overturned that ruling Tuesday in United States vs. Hayes and restored the broad view of the federal law. Ginsburg's opinion said the ban on gun ownership extends to any person who has been convicted of any crime involving "physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon," so long as there was a "domestic relationship" between the perpetrator and the victim.

Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts dissented. It's all argued on complicated technicalities of this variety, quoted from Roberts' dissent, and not at all on larger issues of political or legal philosophy. Quoted for truth!

The grammatical rule of the last antecedent indicates that the domestic relationship is a required element of the predicate offense. That rule instructs that “a limiting clause or phrase . . . should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.” Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U. S. 20, 26 (2003). Pursuant to that rule, the “committed by” phrase in clause (ii) is best read to modify the preceding phrase “the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.” See 482 F. 3d, at 754–755. By not following the usual grammatical rule, the majority’s reading requires jumping over two line breaks, clause (i), a semicolon, and the first portion of clause (ii) to reach the more distant antecedent (“offense”). Due to the floating “that” after “offense,” if “committed by” modified “offense” the text would read “offense that committed by.”

Now, the Second Amendment and the underlying validity of cutting off an entire class of people from gun possession rights was not on the table in this technical case, though some newspaper headlines are talking about "Supreme Court upholding gun control laws." Kind of, but not really the point of the case. Because it's not at issue, neither the decision nor the dissent mention the Second Amendment or last year's Heller at all--and that's pretty much as it had to be.

It is worth remember that even as Heller defined the Second Amendment right as both existing and applying to individuals, it stated upfront how limited that right might end up being. As Scalia wrote in the Heller decision:

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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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.

Thus, even if Mr. Hayes' Second Amendment rights had been brought up in this case such that the Court had to consider it, it probably wouldn't have helped him much.

ScotusWiki has a good, but detailed and complicated, explanation of what specifically was at stake in Hayes and its history.

Read the full decision here. And check out Gun Control on Trial, my new book on the history of the Heller case and the Supreme Court's take on the Second Amendment

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131885.html

Oh, good, I thought for a moment I may have missed a decision.

This was not presented as a gun control issue, as noted in the first line. And it involved whether a convicted abuser could have guns. Thankfully, no. But this is in no way related to "reasonable restrictions" on the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens nor to the possession of any particular type of firearm. There are, no doubt, various lawyers that will try to challenge ownership of firearms by criminals using Heller. It won't work, I hope. Criminals have had their rights curtailed by due process following wrongdoing on their part. Wonderful. As a law abiding gun owner I support taking away guns from people that have proven their inability to handle the resposibility. You will also note this case has not been supported by the "gun lobby".

I would like if you could find a case that has not been upheld under Heller that actually addresses restrictions on law abiding gun owners, the "prior restraint" type such as assault weapons bans, etc.

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

I live in Chicago.

that explains a lot.

The crapper need a cheerleader? Do some more research, Charles.

http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/know/

[britbird 4]

Very interesting posts.

I think the key is that, as Scalia says in Heller, it's not an absolute right.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

You are not "budging" (barging) in at all. Thank you so much. And yes, it includes Burlington a very beautiful, clean friendly city where you are perfectly safe to walk the streets, but look both ways before crossing at the corner just to be extra safe.

I always get just a bit perturbed when someone like Bill O'Reilly says we don't protect children in Vermont because we don't have this or that law he wants. Yet we have the safest state in the country for children. Go figure. The children know where the rifle is kept behind the kitchen door and how to use it. They're safe. Like I said, we are a libertarian state, very conservative in our liberalism. Basically we can piss anyone off!!!!!!!! Kinda like if someone implicates we need some of those "reasonable" gun laws to reduce our crime rate.

I want to know...which house would you choose to burglarize in Vermont? I mean it would be easy, really. Most homes are not locked and we are pretty affluent here and have lots of "stuff"? Oh, and which car would you try to jack up? I never heard of a car-jacking in Vermont and cars are really useful here, you would think someone would try to steal one. Wonder why that never happens? Maybe because thieves don't like Suburus? Or is it they don't like Suburus driven by moms packing heat? What do you think?

Oh and don't get the impression we have to shoot our way out of the grocery store, or parking spaces, never happens. There is no crime because we are armed. The idea is to carry a big gun with nasty looking hollow point bullets that would make gaping, sucking chest wounds...and then never use it. Nothing discourages rapists like sucking chest wounds, really.

No offense, but I think you're confusing intent/deterrance of would-be criminals where there are none in your neck of the woods. Figuratively and statistically speaking. Besides, packing a little smaller heat would theoretically yield a faster bullet hole on a would-be perp anyway, specially at close range where the absolute majority of individual instances of crime occur.

Quite simply, there is no crime where you're at because there is no singular reason for there to be crime. That has everything to do with those social factors I mentioned and very little to do with the fact that guns are a deterring variable. Common sense. This whole thing about an armed society being a polite society is way too John Wayne for any rational mind to digest- given the short fuse on most Americans' attitudes.

Chicken or egg, Hal? We have always allowed all people to carry firearms. If there are no criminals, then you have to answer why? Expensive homes packed full of good stuff and no dorr locks sounds pretty tempting.

Now as to your choice of the firearms you carry concealed, Hal, thats a personal thing. Statistcally, truly statiscally, speaking ANY firearm is better than nothing in preventing crime. Personally, I am well trained with handguns and use a 3" Kimber Custom, Ultra CDP in .45 ACP. Too much gun for a lot of people. Better a .380 or even a .22 if you can't handle the bigger gun. A hit with a .22 is far more effective than a miss with a .45. Not as noisey but more effective to be sure. I don't worry about missing. It is virtually never necessary for an armed citizen to actually shoot someone, I was being a bit facetious. Silly me. Actually any firearm is usually enough to discourage criminals. The presence of many firearms in private hands, particularly when it is isn't known whose hands, is enough to discourage the presence of criminal activity

Sorry but your last part is simply wrong. Here is how it breaks out...

2 states do not allow people to carry concealed firearms at all...Illinois and Wisconsin.

2 states allow anyone to carry a concealed firearm without a permit...Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska didn't always, they copied)

9 states allow concealed carry on a "disgressionary basis", that mjeans the local Sheriff gets to decide if he thinks you need a to carry a firearm. Now in two of those, Alabama and Iowa, the Sheriffs pretty much agree you need one if you sat so and hand out the permits easily. Likewise New York where most of the county Sheriffs will do the same, but not all. That leaves 6 that have disgressionary carry but with varying degrees of difficulty.

It hasn't always been this way. In 1965 only 3 states allowed concealed carry. Vermont (always) Alaska and Washington. The first to change this was Florida in 1986 when in the grips of a drug fueled crime wave they passed the first of the countries "new" concealed carry laws. In the next 15 years the other 36 states followed suit to the howls of Sarah Brady, Newspapers, and doomsday predictions everywhere. Never happened. As crime rates dropped, other states joined in. Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas were the last. Wisconsin has passed concealed carry TWICE, only their anti-gun Governor Doyle has prevented it from becoming law. Soon enough.

So, Hal..You are in IL? Yes?

Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana have all passed concealed carry laws in the last 15 years. They have all had reductions in crime attributed to this law. So tell me, why would the people of IL not be able to handle this? Why would we expect a different result in IL than in every other state? Why would the politicians of IL in face of overwheming evidence (no common sense but tins of evidence) deny this right to IL residents? Does it concern you just a bit that yuour politicians deny you rights othes have for no reason? In fact they deny you the benefit of reduced crime. Now what could be the reaon for that?

But in 42 of our 50 United States law abiding people can carry concealed firearms. Now that is a cross section that goes far beyond "common sense" Yet every county of every state that has implemented these laws has had reductions in crime in general and gun realted crime in particular and in every state the largest beneficiaries were women, not surprising to me. It has nothiung to do with John Wayne, since none of us act like John Wayne.

Yes, crime rates among those states vary, for all the reasons in your previous post reagrding the causes of crime, but ALL have a decrease in crime since passing the concealed carry laws. If that goes against you common sense...sorry. The studies were done by the University of Chicago, Dr. John Lott. You can read them on the web, just google "John Lott". He actually did county by county studies, really remarkable evidence.

I must be a liar. Not.

Its only a chicken or egg scenario when you try to justify the existence of one thing by linking it slave to another. Reality doesn't work that way.

So how does it work?

Every state with a concealed carry law has a drop in crime...but the two are not related (incidentally there was even a drop in crime nationwide as we went fro 3 to 42 states that allow concealed carry. Anti gunners, when they can croak out an argument, like to say "well, crime was going down anyway" LOL Just by coincidence I suppose, at any rate it shoots in the foot any argument they can make that guns increase crime, thank you again, I can always count on the anti-civil-rights people to open their mouth and change feet.) States with concealed carry laws had crime rate drops in excess of those that did not have concealed carry laws. Read The University of Chicago study, it was really quite thorough.

I will await your explanation of how reality works. Please.

Indeed. You must be referring to the UC Crime Lab reports.

Perhaps to stay more on topic about that you could read up more, from that same group of researchers, about the market for guns instead of harping about anti-gun people or otherwise incongruous relationships to your idea.

Here's a link in pdf.

Here are a couple of more empirical papers and reviews on the topic of guns and violence:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

And here. This paper, if you read it carefully, shows that increased gun availability makes the gun violence problem even worse.

Enjoy.

I live in Chicago.

that explains a lot.

The crapper need a cheerleader? Do some more research, Charles.

http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/know/

No, I was referring to the study by the University of Chicago, Professor John Lott. Like I said, google "John Lott"

You do know what "empirical papers and reviews" are, correct?

Can you tell me why IL residents cannot be trusted with the same resposibilities as the residents of neighboring states?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Very interesting posts.

I think the key is that, as Scalia says in Heller, it's not an absolute right.

And the Supreme Court did rule that reasonable regulations are constitutional. I just wish we could get past the extremist viewpoint that any regulations are an infringement which simply isn't true. Like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment will always be part of the Bill of Rights that will need to be examined as it relates to gun legislation.

Imagine in the near future if someone develops a hand held gun that completely evaporates it's target. Will there be some who argue that owning such a gun is within their 2nd Amendment rights?

Edited March 30, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Very interesting posts.

I think the key is that, as Scalia says in Heller, it's not an absolute right.

And the Supreme Court did rule that reasonable regulations are constitutional. I just wish we could get past the extremist viewpoint that any regulations are an infringement which simply isn't true. Like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment will always be part of the Bill of Rights that will need to be examined as it relates to gun legislation.

Imagine in the near future if someone develops a hand held gun that completely evaporates it's target. Will there be some who argue that owning such a gun is within their 2nd Amendment rights?

The problem is the Supremem Court did NOT rule that banning classes of firearms are "reasonable regulations" You cannot take some words and apply your own definitions to them. "Ah Hah! They said reasonable! I think banning all handguns is reasonable" Doesn't fly. At the very leaset any reasonable regulations will need to be adjudicated. But if this they specifically refferred to reasonable regulations as apply to legislation to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, background checks, laws restricting the ownership of firearms by felons.

To the poster above, true it is NOT an absolute right, it can be taken away, exactly as your right to be free can be taken IF you commit a felony and have your freedoms removed by DUE PROCESS. Courts can take away even your very right to live under certain circumstances. So even your life is not an absolute right.

Imagine? So let's start banning guns now to set a precedent? Really, can anyone who is an opponent of civil rights, PLEASE try to make sense. First it is nucelar bombs, now it is Flash Gordon Evaporating Death Rays, maybe the Battlestar Gallactica phaser? And I presume you have heard of "prior restraint" Simply reading the constituion and not imagining unstated reasons and words does not make me an extremist, except in the eyes of those that would take away our civil rights. Then it is necessary to throw out words to label someone (extremeist) or fanciful arguments. "Well, if we can outlaw nucelar boms in private hands, why not handguns?" "Why not whatever we choose to call assault rifles?" But they never address the issue that these things have been tried and they failed and therefore cannot be "reasonable" The "reason" has been proven false.

[justashooter 430]

Very interesting posts.

I think the key is that, as Scalia says in Heller, it's not an absolute right.

And the Supreme Court did rule that reasonable regulations are constitutional. I just wish we could get past the extremist viewpoint that any regulations are an infringement which simply isn't true. Like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment will always be part of the Bill of Rights that will need to be examined as it relates to gun legislation.

Imagine in the near future if someone develops a hand held gun that completely evaporates it's target. Will there be some who argue that owning such a gun is within their 2nd Amendment rights?

The problem is the Supremem Court did NOT rule that banning classes of firearms are "reasonable regulations" You cannot take some words and apply your own definitions to them. "Ah Hah! They said reasonable! I think banning all handguns is reasonable" Doesn't fly. At the very leaset any reasonable regulations will need to be adjudicated. But if this they specifically refferred to reasonable regulations as apply to legislation to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, background checks, laws restricting the ownership of firearms by felons.

To the poster above, true it is NOT an absolute right, it can be taken away, exactly as your right to be free can be taken IF you commit a felony and have your freedoms removed by DUE PROCESS. Courts can take away even your very right to live under certain circumstances. So even your life is not an absolute right.

Imagine? So let's start banning guns now to set a precedent? Really, can anyone who is an opponent of civil rights, PLEASE try to make sense. First it is nucelar bombs, now it is Flash Gordon Evaporating Death Rays, maybe the Battlestar Gallactica phaser? And I presume you have heard of "prior restraint" Simply reading the constituion and not imagining unstated reasons and words does not make me an extremist, except in the eyes of those that would take away our civil rights. Then it is necessary to throw out words to label someone (extremeist) or fanciful arguments. "Well, if we can outlaw nucelar boms in private hands, why not handguns?" "Why not whatever we choose to call assault rifles?" But they never address the issue that these things have been tried and they failed and therefore cannot be "reasonable" The "reason" has been proven false.

the big problem with hayes is the ex-post facto question. lautenberg added penalties for crimes that had already been commited. this concept has little precedent, and should not stand.

[HAL 9000 96]

No, I was referring to the study by the University of Chicago, Professor John Lott. Like I said, google "John Lott"

You do know what "empirical papers and reviews" are, correct?

Can you tell me why IL residents cannot be trusted with the same resposibilities as the residents of neighboring states?

Hate to disappoint... as this is my last post in this thread (and I already addressed your question by reminding you I never stated that point), but Dr. John Lott no longer teaches at the U of Chicago because he was asked to leave for being empirically biased. Since you wanted a google about Dr Lott, you might want to check this out:

For three years, John Lott pretended to be a young woman.

Her name was Mary Rosh.

Mary Rosh often spoke sweetly of her days as a student of John's, she gave a glowing Amazon.com review of his book "More Guns, Less Crime," she criticized anyone who questioned John's research or his conclusions, and she attacked other researchers in her ardent defense of Lott's idea that more guns on the streets leads to less crime.

She was also a petite defenseless creature. We know this because John, we mean, she said:

"Do you really think that most women can out run your typical criminal?…Even if I am not wearing heels, I don't think that there are many men that I could outrun.

"As a woman, who weighs 114 lbs, what am I supposed to do if I am confronted by a 200 lbs. man?"

Then a researcher at the conservative think tank CATO Institute discovered the truth about Mary Rosh and undressed John Lott for all the world to see.

Currently, Lott is a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

***********

Pretty funny for the Gun Lobby's apparent last bet for 'statistics'

And just for the record, yesterday I emailed a friend at UChicago's economics department, confirming that Dr. Lott was asked to leave for being problematic in how he derived his statistical analysis of the empirical evidence he was using as support for his points of view... not just regarding the gun debate, but also about his actual economical presentation.

So yes... I googled the poor man and verified other things I suspected about him.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No, I was referring to the study by the University of Chicago, Professor John Lott. Like I said, google "John Lott"

You do know what "empirical papers and reviews" are, correct?

Can you tell me why IL residents cannot be trusted with the same resposibilities as the residents of neighboring states?

Hate to disappoint... as this is my last post in this thread (and I already addressed your question by reminding you I never stated that point), but Dr. John Lott no longer teaches at the U of Chicago because he was asked to leave for being empirically biased. Since you wanted a google about Dr Lott, you might want to check this out:

For three years, John Lott pretended to be a young woman.

Her name was Mary Rosh.

Mary Rosh often spoke sweetly of her days as a student of John's, she gave a glowing Amazon.com review of his book "More Guns, Less Crime," she criticized anyone who questioned John's research or his conclusions, and she attacked other researchers in her ardent defense of Lott's idea that more guns on the streets leads to less crime.

She was also a petite defenseless creature. We know this because John, we mean, she said:

"Do you really think that most women can out run your typical criminal?…Even if I am not wearing heels, I don't think that there are many men that I could outrun.

"As a woman, who weighs 114 lbs, what am I supposed to do if I am confronted by a 200 lbs. man?"

Then a researcher at the conservative think tank CATO Institute discovered the truth about Mary Rosh and undressed John Lott for all the world to see.

Currently, Lott is a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

***********

Pretty funny for the Gun Lobby's apparent last bet for 'statistics'

And just for the record, yesterday I emailed a friend at UChicago's economics department, confirming that Dr. Lott was asked to leave for being problematic in how he derived his statistical analysis of the empirical evidence he was using as support for his points of view... not just regarding the gun debate, but also about his actual economical presentation.

So yes... I googled the poor man and verified other things I suspected about him.

Yeah, OK so he likes womens panties. Ha ha.

I guess that throws everything else out and lets you off the hook? So we can expect all the states that passed concealed carry and "didn't" experience drops in crime but were only told they did by a cross-dressing professor to now repeal all the concealed carry laws? That isn't happening. Hmmm.

Evidence is evidence, facts is facts and laws are laws. If you are suggesting the outcome might be different if the legislatures knew about some guy wearing silk panties, you are wrong. Obviously wrong.

Yesterday you posted articles for me to read of "empirical evidence" and it was perfectly OK because it supported your ideas. Today "empirical" evidence is enough to get a professor fired? Strange.

Well, at any rate, 48 of our 50 states now allow concealed carry, 42 of them easily and for any law abiding citizen, which I am happy about. You? So, John Lott turns out to be a strange dude. OK, I can live with that.

[justashooter 430]

So John Lott used a pseudonym to present a viewpoint that he felt needed to be heard? He wrote as though a woman to represent the views of women? This is not in line with his research and publications related to women's suffrage? Perhaps he is just a guy that wants to make sure women have an active voice in American politics?

John Lott never went out in public dressed as a woman (though he might do it at home ). He just used a female pseudonym in internet discussion boards to argue his viewpoint. Sounds kinda like some fellow here on VJ that uses a picture of one big red electric eye and a funny name to pretend to be a slightly demented supercomputer from an old science fiction movie.

Edited March 30, 2009 by justashooter