US Supreme Court strikes down gun ban

[ditchdj]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

[Greenday]

My co-worker just told me about that. The Supreme Court is going nuts. One day they pass a really liberal thing, the next it's really conservative.

On that note: The Constitution wins again! You can't beat it!

[ebonyknight]

Right decision, but it means absolutely nothing. You are only allowed to legally buy a gun in the state (district, in this case) where you live. Guess how many gun stores there are in DC?

Not to mention that the city government is not happy with this so they will throw whatever technicalities they can to disrupt this. Also, there will most likely be an appeal and by the time it comes up, it maybe overturned by a more liberal SC.

The decision couldn't be more meaningless, in a practical sense.

[Pedersen]

Also, there will most likely be an appeal and by the time it comes up, it maybe overturned by a more liberal SC.

Ummm, you do realize that this was the Supreme Court Of The United States, don't you? As in: There are no appeals to any court higher? No, really, I promise. No higher court exists in the entire country. No place to appeal to.

[Depot Denizen]

That's the court's job - provide checks and balances against silly legislation and insane administration decisions. It should not matter whether it is made of conservatives or liberals. The court is supposed to be unbiased, and it looks like we're seeing a bit of that now. I for one welcome our steely overlords.

Now that there is a definitive ruling on the subject, expect to see more of the insane control laws being struck down. Now, I fully agree with responsibility, however. I myself own several dozen firearms (most passed down from my late father). The ruling will set a precedent for the next President, whether it be Obama or McCain (I support Obama, ftr).

[ebonyknight]

Ummm, you do realize that this was the Supreme Court Of The United States, don't you? As in: There are no appeals to any court higher? No, really, I promise. No higher court exists in the entire country. No place to appeal to.

You are correct. My terminology was bad.

What I mean is that if a similar case comes up again the court may reverse it's ruling (due to a new political climate and new justices), thus overturning the older verdict.

For example, the Supreme Court ruled that racial Segregation was constitutional. Later due to Brown vs. Board of Eduction, it was effectively overturned.

SOOOOOoooooooo......if this comes up again in the future, it may be OVERTURNED in a subsequent ruling.

[Greenday]

SOOOOOoooooooo......if this comes up again in the future, it may be OVERTURNED in a subsequent ruling.

Kinda like what the Republicans want to do with Roe vs. Wade. I'm guessing that's what you mean?

[ebonyknight]

Yes, if a new case came up where abortion was banned (or not granted), challenged and was submitted to the court, the new justices could ignore stare decisis and essentially overturn Roe vs. Wade.

But the question they have to ask is (Republicans) has the political winds shifted in their favor? Is there an actual legal (vs just political) basis for challenging it? Would they actually win or even hear the case?

There have been cases before where the politically appointed justices haven't voted the way 'the party' wanted them to vote and lost cases they would have liked to win.

Ex. Bush wanting to impose military trials at Gitmo.

[Greenday]

Heh, I've been reading a lot of Guantanamo Bay stuff in the military news network lately.

Sure, the Supreme Court could always choose to revisit a law and reverse it, but it usually takes awhile to just come back to look at a law. And these days, I think the Supreme Court is a crapload better. I trust their judgement and seeing them disagree with the executive/legistlative branches helps me keep my faith in them.

[BlaqueKatt]

What I mean is that if a similar case comes up again the court may reverse it's ruling (due to a new political climate and new justices), thus overturning the older verdict.


they have turned down quite a few cases on this-SCOTUS does not Have to hear cases if they don't think it has merit. This is the first case in over 200 years that has been heard by SCOTUS on the second amendment-because it directly asked "does the phrase "the people" 2nd amendment mean the individuals(as it does in the rest) or is this special and it means the states.

And as far as Roe v Wade-"Jane Roe" has been trying herself to get that case reopened because she committed perjury_(ps she's petioned every year for about the last 10 years or so-it's not getting reheard, and it would be pretty near impossible to get any new laws passed that would warrant another SCOTUS hearing)

[Slytovhand]

Perhaps I'm cynical (well - no, I am cynical :p), but given that Bush was wanting such a decision, and I believe that the US Federal Gov't appoints the judges to the SC bench (oh - that's 'Supreme Court', and not 'Sucky Customers' ), I sense a bit of.... tampering??? You know, maybe someone somewhere else decided that in this case, it did have merit to be heard??

[ditchdj]

I notice that it's pretty much impossible to get a permit to carry in Canada. Well then what happens if you're up north and you end up in a situation in the middle of nowhere full of polar bears??? Are you supposed to just "beg and negotiate" with him and pray they don't make you their main course dinner???? Because I really doubt your 100-200 lbs. frame is gonna hardly make a dent against 1-2 tons of material determined to take you out with its bare hands.

[Pedersen]

I'm hoping there's lots of sarcasm in your post, ditchdj. Otherwise, you've just made the claim that Canadians have to worry about dealing with polar bears as a normal occurrence, especially if they manage to live in the far north.

I think you'll agree that it would be hard to make a more ridiculous claim.

[ditchdj]

Yeah well I didn't write the law up there. Next door in Alaska you don't even need a CCW to carry a firearm up there, and in some places you NEED to carry to protect yourself from polar bears, because they WILL eat you alive and regard humans as a regular meal just like they would coyotes, dogs, or any other animal they get their paws on. Personally I would NOT like to be told that I can't legally defend myself from them just because some clown in a zoot suit sitting in a cozy office in some capital building says that I can't. Kinda like saying, "The only thing your life is worth is how much tax money you can pay, other than that, you're worthless."

[the_std]

I agree with ditchdj!

I live within 100 miles of the States border, but I had to kill 10 raging polar bears just to get to work today! I would have been a goner if I'd followed Canadian law and left my AK-47 at home!

I'm gonna start a reform and lobby for the right to bear arms, so a bear doesn't end up with my arms!

I know my government only sees me as a hunk of money to collect, and it's a total lie that we have a different society up here who doesn't depend on guns the way the States does. Plus, I have no ability to defend myself whatsoever. I haven't trained in martial arts, and I don't know how to avoid dangerous situations...

Man, we Canadians are fucked!

Plus, our Prime Minister looks terrible in a zoot suit.

[ditchdj]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/21/bear-mauling051021.html

----Yeah why dont you give this guy a call? He probably just made the whole story up just to get on TV. ;) I bet he was just using some power tools and slipped on some ice. :cool:

[the_std]

People in the States still get mauled by bears, even though you guys are allowed to have guns.

[ditchdj]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2003/09/05/sep05gunlawattack05092003.html

----Yeah, you can carry a gun for protection from them, just make sure they're not loaded when not in use! ;)

Well, he may have lost a few pounds due to loss of blood as well as the meat chewed out of him, but at least he didn't break the law. Too bad he doesn't get anything for his troubles.....

[Greenday]

I see your point, but for the most part, bears are not an issue for most people. The reasons why people need to be able to protect themselves are from the serial killers, rapists, muggers, gang-bangers, crackheads, etc. They are everywhere. And some people think that somehow by banning all weapons, these people who don't give a crap about breaking laws will actually abide by these ridiculous laws. So basically, the only people left weaponless are the ones who actually need to defend themselves. And the Surpreme Court agreed, the populace needs to be able to defend themselves. Sometimes, pepper-spray or a taser just isn't enough.

[Pedersen]

Sorry, ditchdj, you have just lost any credibility for your argument. You're seriously suggesting that people have, as one of the top worries and reasons to have a gun, they have to worry about bear attacks.

For somewhere between 99.9% and 100.0% of the world's population, bear attacks will never occur. Quite frankly, I'd worry more about people than I would about attack from a polar bear.

Had you said "Nope, just going for a sarcastic extreme" or something similar, you'd have maintained credibility. However, you were being serious (as evidenced by your need to post links about such attacks). Whatever else you might say is, unfortunately, suspect.

[IDrinkaRum]

The people in the District are more than likely either going to invite at least 1 or 2 or 150 (sarcasm there) gun shops into the neighborhoods. Or, those in charge of the rules are going to try to re-write the rules to still make it illegal to have guns in the district. Because, as we all know - OMG!!! The White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives are all here! We can't have crazy black people running around the city with guns. That's .. that's ... that's immoral!

Yes, my post is full of sarcasm ... but that is how some people view the residents of DC.

[ditchdj]

Sorry, ditchdj, you have just lost any credibility for your argument. You're seriously suggesting that people have, as one of the top worries and reasons to have a gun, they have to worry about bear attacks.

If you live far up north, yes. I had a friend who had moved down from Alaska and his mother said that there are times when you NEED to carry a shotgun with you in case a bear does attack, depending on where you go.



Of course I feel that I should point out that, as a responsible gun owner, the idea of having a gun is that its main purpose is to serve as a deterrent to other people committing a crime against you. I'm NOT a vigilante. Don't expect to see a 6'3 210 lb. white guy walking down Covert Ave. at 3 in the morning looking for punks to mess with him so he can shoot them. That's not what it's all about. The state of Indiana will grant a permit to carry to anyone 18 and older as long they have no felony or a domestic violence conviction. Despite that, there are no "Wild-West" shootings, and I've found most police here to have no objection to the CCW law in this state.

[BlaqueKatt]

and I don't know how to avoid dangerous situations...


all the situations I have been in that could have been life threatening can be directly related to my gas station job and my office job. I have had 5 stalkers(all knew me from one of the two jobs), one threatened me with a knife, one threatened to shoot my husband-the police here did nothing, they would actually have to harm me for me to get an order of protection.

I'm 5'5", I weigh 150#(at the time of most stalkers I was only 115#)-they have all been over 6' and over 200#-Am I not supposed to be afraid of that? Especially when one stands outside my bedroom window with a knife scratching on the screen, and 911 tells me unless he harms me they won't send an officer.

Yesterday I purchased a .40 cal Smith and Wesson, I hope I never have to use it.

[the_std]

Hey, I never said that people don't feel the need to use guns. I know there are some situations that you can't avoid. I was just pointing out that there are other methods of self-defense available as well.

[rahmota]

I was just pointing out that there are other methods of self-defense available as well.
You are correct. Some of them require other weapons, some require training and physical conditioning that not everyone would have or be capable of, some of the other methods require chemical sprays that can blow back and incapacitate the wielder. Some of the methods can even be turned around on the wielder. No defense is perfect thats why people need to have several options. A layered defense and be ready and willing to do what is required to defend themselves.

[Slytovhand]

You could have a polar bear as a guard.... ummm... bear...

I know we're really in the wrong thread here, but is the issue about having a gun to protect yourself, or a constabulary that is more effective? Or, more likely, law enforcement that has the laws and ability to do so?

(oh - Pedersen... there are over 6 Billion people on the planet... so you know how many are in 0.1% - for the bear attacks line??? I'm just sayng - not taking sides, I don't [I]polar/I]ise..p)

[AFPheonix]

I'm hoping there's lots of sarcasm in your post, ditchdj. Otherwise, you've just made the claim that Canadians have to worry about dealing with polar bears as a normal occurrence, especially if they manage to live in the far north.

I think you'll agree that it would be hard to make a more ridiculous claim.

Weirdly enough, my cousins up near the Alberta/Seskatchewan border do have bear trouble getting near their beef cows and horses. They even had a brown bear get far too close to the house where the grandkids were playing. Not polar bears, brown bears. They do require firearms as they live out in buttfuck nowhere.
Also, if an animal gets injured, it's better for them to just shoot it to put it down rather than wait for the vet to come several hours later. Plus, they also clear out gophers that tear up their pastures and create holes that stock can break legs in.

Firearms in certain situations, like rural ones, are an invaluable tool. Are they appropriate always and for all people? No, but they aren't the devil, either.

[BlaqueKatt]

You are correct. Some of them require other weapons, some require training and physical conditioning that not everyone would have or be capable of, some of the other methods require chemical sprays that can blow back and incapacitate the wielder. Some of the methods can even be turned around on the wielder. No defense is perfect thats why people need to have several options. A layered defense and be ready and willing to do what is required to defend themselves.


My point is a layered defense is not always possible.
A handgun is the only weapon I can legally own in my state, chemical sprays are illegal as well(unless you are a LEO, same goes for batons, tazers, stun guns, etc.)
The only place that offers adult beginner classes for martial arts charges $400/month for 2 classes a week that's $4800/year, compared to $350(cost of handgun purchased)+$35(membership in gun club for use of range) and maybe $30/month for practice ammunition. The low-cost women's self-defense classes here are a joke. they "teach" you to use your keys as weapon(I have one key), and how to run away(I have no PCL in one knee-running is out), and that's about it-no real defensive techniques at all.

[Pedersen]

(oh - Pedersen... there are over 6 Billion people on the planet... so you know how many are in 0.1% - for the bear attacks line??? I'm just sayng - not taking sides, I don't [I]polar/I]ise..p)

Oh, I do know that even 0.1% is a large number of people. Don't forget that I happen to believe we should own guns of any size.

My point was that if you're going to go around saying "We should own guns because bears might attack us" to the vast majority of people, you're talking about something that is ridiculously unlikely. And using that line just completely destroys credibility.

Want to use it for practical purposes? State it that way. Want to use it to defend yourself? State it that way. Want to tell people that you need it for something so unlikely they can hardly conceive of it happening to anyone they even know? Get ready to lose all credibility.

Good example: I do believe that the USA is headed for another major internal war. Depending on what happens, that war could be labelled as a second revolutionary war, or as a seond civil war. I believe that this will happen in my lifetime. I want to be able to defend myself when that occurs.

Now, with the way I've stated that, I'm not totally unreasonable. My credibility still is somewhat intact. State it a different way:

I need my guns for when I have to go and take down the government.

Exactly how much credibility do I have if I say that? And if you say any amount higher than "None", you deserve beatings with live salmon :)

And that is my overall point: Saying to a huge majority of people that they need to carry a gun to defend themselves from bears removes any hope of credibility from that speaker.

[Boozy]

I notice that it's pretty much impossible to get a permit to carry in Canada. Well then what happens if you're up north and you end up in a situation in the middle of nowhere full of polar bears???

It's virtually impossible to get a permit to carry a handgun in Canada.

However, handguns are quite useless against polar bears. Or, to use a less silly and rare example, moose. Moose are common in the north and will often charge.

As long as you are permitted to own a hunting rifle, you are allowed to carry it in most non-residential and commercial areas (ie, places where you may run into dangerous wildlife). Northern settlements known for wildlife incidents will often allow people to carry rifles within town limits. My cousin lives in northern Alberta and is never without his rifle.

Generally, Canadians do not stay up at night wringing their hands in worry over being unprepared for bear attacks. But we thank you all for your concern.

[the_std]

Yeah, my cousin once tried to shoot an elk with a handgun that he had borrowed from a friend visiting from the States. He was very drunk and was very lucky that his friend had a fast car, or else he'd be a red stain in the dirt.

[ditchdj]

In the state I live in it's illegal to carry a handgun if you're intoxicated.