Samuel Alito for US Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[Hunt 11]

"Tell you what - if you and all your liberal buddies are so convinced the 2nd is only about militias, and since we don't need militias in this day and age, y'all just get your representatives to propose abolishing the 2nd. If everyone is as anti-gun as y'all think, it should be a piece of cake."

 

We don't need to do that, because the Supreme Court, even a more conservative Supreme Court, will never rule that the Second Amendment gives an individual right to possess any arms you want without restrictions. They've already ruled that it doesn't give you the right to possess a sawed-off shotgun.

What's more, the Supreme Court has already held that whatever limitations the Second Amendment imposes, it imposes them on Congress only, and not on the states--so the states can enact whatever gun control laws they want with no Constitutional limits.

 

So, you see, me and my liberal buddies don't need to do anything--our buddies the Founding Fathers took care of it for us.

[Zahnada 11]

Brentallen,

 

I have no problem with police and military being licensed to carry handguns. It is more practical for their line of work. But how often do you walk around the hallways of your house swinging your handgun around corners to make sure it's safe? How often has anyone in this forum done that?

 

As for keeping guns away from children, you could always just lock up the ammunition for the rifle if locking up the rifle is too cumbersome. I don't accept "it's safer to have a handgun in the house" as a logical excuse at all.

 

And then there's the handgun for sporting argument (ie The Olympics). Perhaps this is just a sacrifice our country will have to make. Or maybe there could be some very special, very hard to obtain permits to own sporting pistols (as far as I know, Desert Eagles, HK USPs, and the like are not part of the Olympic equipment). And then perhaps ammunition and the weapon itself could only be purchased at designated locations that assure only permitted individuals could carry them.

 

The point is that it is important to make handguns much more difficult to own for anyone who could use them for harm. Right now, our current laws are not effective as displayed by the prevalence of handguns and handgun violence.

 

I hope to not offend anyone, but most rationale for carrying handguns stem from paranoia and fear. Such as the arguments for stopping car-jackers with a handgun. Is your car that valuable to you? I can't think of a single scenerio where pulling a handgun on a car-jacker is the best course of action. And this is definitely not the best way to protect your family.

 

And finally, do you really walk down the street carrying a handgun at all times? Where do you live?

[Kahuna 172]

Hunt says: What's more, the Supreme Court has already held that whatever limitations the Second Amendment imposes, it imposes them on Congress only, and not on the states--so the states can enact whatever gun control laws they want with no Constitutional limits.

 

Would you mind citing the case in which the Court held that? That's not a challenge, I just want to read the case. Thanks.

[BrentAllen 10]

Zahnada,

I really don't care what you accept as being logical. You can't give a single reason why I shouldn't be allowed to own my handguns. I have never broken a law with mine, they have never been stolen. So I should give them up just so you can feel comfortable? Please show me where that is written in the Constitution.

As for a scenario where I would want to use a firearm to stop a carjacker? How about if my kids are in the back. I guess you would just let the scum bag drive off with your kids. I guess they aren't worth that much to you. Sorry, but mine are worth fighting for.

I happen to think firearms are the BEST way to protect my family. As I have mentioned elsewhere, if Mr. Bad guy just crashed through your window with an ax, how are you going to stop him? If you get a 911 call off, it is going to take 20 minutes for the police to arrive. How are you going to protect your family? Sounds like a ridiculous scenario? The idea of muslim extremists flying 2 jets into the World Trade Towers sounded pretty ridiculous - until it happened. BTW, the courts have ruled the police are NOT required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order." In Bowers v. DeVito (686 F. 2d 616, 1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

The only fear and paranoia I see is from people like you who are afraid of law-abiding citizens owning guns. All the statistics prove your fears to be absolutely wrong. In every state where they have changed to laws to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, violent crime has gone down. So please show me all the handgun violence that is so prevalent, that I should be forced to give mine up.

 

Hunt - I don't have to worry about the states; it's the feds who have been a problem. In 1987, there were 10 states that had Right To Carry laws, today there are 38. The states have been moving in the right direction, and all the "blood in the streets" the anti-gunners have been claiming we would see was all pure fiction and scare tactics. All those road-rage incidents that would turn into shoot-outs on the highways were pure liberal fiction. Again, you are welcome for the protection we give to all you non-gunowners; the bad guys still don't know you are an unarmed, defensless potential victims.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[Zahnada 11]

Whoaaa, BrentAllen! Easy, Brent, easy.

 

Hey, I'll admit, I don't know you. I know practically nothing about you. But I'm willing to bet that you are a very responsible handgun owner. You're much like thousands of other Americans who own handguns in a responsible manner. So, do I want to take your handgun away? No. But do I want to limit and restrict handguns and handgun ammunition in our society? Yes. Do I want to make it nearly impossible for any of our society's negative elements to own or possess a handgun? Yes. Will keeping handguns out of the hands of gangs and criminals make our nation safer? Yes. Will such restrictions have an affect on your ability to possess a handgun? Unfortunately, that is also true. It's too bad, but I still believe it's the best option.

 

So, you're absolutely right, I can't give reasons why you shouldn't be able to own a handgun. But I can give reasons why the prevalence of handguns is a bad thing.

 

Is our world safer now with regular citizens and criminals walking the streets carrying concealed handguns? Or would our world be safer if neither side was able to easily conceal a weapon? This is the fundamental break in our paradigms, Brent. You feel safer with more guns in the world, I feel safer with less.

 

Now, I'm completely sympathetic to your view because there was a time when I possessed a handgun. It's a great feeling of insurance. The mind is incredibly creative and can come up with an infinite number of scenerios where having a gun will be useful. I even took it camping (not with scouts, but with friends). I thought "what if we encounter a cougar on the trail?" or "What if there's an axe-murderer in the woods?" But then my brother became a police officer. He told me about all the stupid things people do with handguns. For him, that's the dangerous part of the job. Everyone walking down the street can potentially be a killer at a moments notice.

 

I know you'll disagree, but I do feel you're making the world more dangerous rather than safer. I also feel you're putting your family at more risk with your lifestyle. I also don't know what the September 11 attacks have to do with this discussion at all.

 

You said that "I happen to think firearms are the BEST way to protect my family."

 

Sorry, Brent. The best way to protect your family is with common sense. And except for certain imaginative, wild scenerios, handguns just aren't common sense.

[packsaddle 753]

Well, I guess I know a little about firearms and I think it would be fine to outlaw private ownership of semi-automatic (autoloading) weapons, regardless of size. And all the ammo should be taxed to the hilt. I pay less after inflation for ammo today than I did 30 years ago. A lot less.

 

Hunting is supposed to be sport and that can be done nicely with a bolt action or an overunder (shotguns are for people with lousy aim anyway). Serious target shooting is best done with a bolt action (unless you think skeet-shooting is target shooting and then the overunder is still available). And a bolt action or a revolver could never be modified to go full. But don't worry, that would still leave plenty of revolvers with which to kill our relatives when they abscond with a chicken in the middle of the night.

 

However, I agree that it would hinder our ability to stem that tide of jackbooted thugs storming all our homes in the middle of the night to take our guns.

 

Or have I merely added to the paranoia?

[BrentAllen 10]

Y'all don't like scenarios, so here is some reality.

 

2 Killed in Carjacking, Shooting

by Don Plummer

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Category: News Center

September 13, 2005

 

Kimberly D. Boyd took her son to preschool Monday morning, then dropped by a bank before heading to her office in north Cobb County.

Minutes later, her routine was shattered, and sometime before 9:30 a.m. she was struggling for her life with a carjacker as her Toyota Sequoia raced south on U.S. 41. The kidnapping ended with the 30-year-old Acworth woman dead and the carjacker fatally shot by a passer-by.

Boyd died instantly when her SUV was broadsided by a cement truck, police said. Within seconds, the man driving Boyd's car was also dead -- shot by Shawn Roberts, 31, who had seen Boyd fighting the man and followed the car, police said.

"She was fighting for her life," Roberts, who lives in Acworth, told WAGA-TV.

Roberts told police he was driving north on U.S. 41 about 9:30 a.m. when he saw a man beating a woman outside the SUV, just south of the Lake Allatoona bridge. He stopped and turned around on the four-lane road to help the woman, said Cobb Police Cpl. Dana Pierce.

The carjacker pushed the woman back into the SUV and took off, with the doors still open. Roberts followed about two miles to Lake Acworth Drive, where the crash occurred, Pierce said.

As Boyd's car turned east on Lake Acworth Drive, it was struck by the cement truck.

Witness Bobby Williams said the truck had just started away from a traffic light and was traveling no more than 10 mph when it hit the SUV.

Williams, owner of A2Z Auto Service at 4356 North Cobb Parkway, said he saw Roberts get out of his 2004 black Dodge Ram pickup and run toward the accident scene wearing a leather shoulder holster.

"He looked official," Williams said, explaining that he thought Roberts might be a plainclothes police officer. "He hollered at [the carjacker], 'Stay where you are. Stay where you are.' "

The carjacker ran toward a Raceway gas station on the corner and Roberts chased him. He told police the man turned a gun toward him, and he had to do something.

"I shot and killed a man today," Roberts told WAGA-TV. "I don't feel good about it, but if I hadn't have done something somebody else would have died."

Williams said he heard at least four, perhaps five, gunshots.

"He [the carjacker] was five feet in front of me when he got hit," Williams said. "On TV, all that flailing around that goes on is not what happened. He dropped like a sack of potatoes."

Monday night, Cobb police identified the dead man as Brian Clark, 25, who has family in Acworth. Police did not say whether Clark lived in the area.

No charges were filed against the cement truck driver, who was not identified.

Police questioned Roberts, who they said was not an off-duty officer, before releasing him without filing charges.

"All I can say right now is to offer my condolences of the family of the woman," Roberts said when reached at his home Monday night in Acworth. "I'm postponing any comments just for a few days," he added, saying he was acting on legal advice.

Boyd's family could not be reached Monday.

Police are still unsure where the carjacking began, Pierce said. They are tracing possible routes from Allatoona Truck Rental, the business Boyd operated on Cherokee Street in Acworth, according to public records. Police said she left her office shortly after arriving there Monday morning. The first 911 call on the crash and shooting came in about 9:30 a.m.

Police also were investigating the possibility that the gun in the carjacker's possession had been taken in a robbery, rape and carjacking in Acworth last Tuesday, said Cobb robbery squad Lt. Tom Arnold.

"We're looking into that and whether the suspect in this assault is the same as in last week's attack in Acworth," Arnold said.

Acworth police spokesman Wayne Dennard said his department also is investigating the possibility that the man killed Monday morning was the suspect in a rape last Tuesday.

In last week's attack, a woman was assaulted as she left home and was forced inside, where she was beaten and raped before being forced to drive to a nearby bank to get money from an ATM, Dennard said. The woman instead ran inside the bank and her assailant drove away in her car, which was later found abandoned, he said.

Late Monday, Boyd's SUV was driven on a flatbed into the Cobb crime lab impound building next to the medical examiner's office where the bodies of Boyd and her assailant were taken, Arnold said.

Fingerprints were taken from the dead man Monday, Arnold said.

Autopsies on Boyd and the man are to be conducted today.

Police will compare the dead man's fingerprints and DNA to evidence recovered from last week's attack, Arnold said.

Meanwhile, police revealed Tuesday that Clark had a criminal record. He pleaded guilty to committing statutory rape and child molestation in Cobb County in 2003 and received an 18-month prison sentence. Clark also had a forgery conviction in Cherokee County in 2004.

 

Too bad Kimberly wasn't armed; good thing Shawn Roberts was. Why weren't the police there to protect Kimberly?? There were witnesses calling 911, the policer were notified, why couldn't they stop the crime and save her life??

[packsaddle 753]

So, does your wife carry? Yes or no?

 

And I noticed that the police have a suspicion of the origin of the gun in the carjacker's possession. Now what was that? I think they said it was possibly from a, "robbery, rape and carjacking in Acworth last Tuesday". If that's so, then it's a good thing she wasn't armed. Otherwise the perp would have had TWO illegal firearms. He might have killed a lot more people. But I suppose it's worth noting - trucks don't kill people, people kill people.

[LongHaul 10]

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. Benjamin Franklin

      Telling me that I must relinquish a freedom I now posses, whether I choose to avail myself of it or not, so that those who choose to misuse that freedom may be hindered is unacceptable. Enforce the laws already on the books. Make misuse of a firearm so unprofitable those that would do it wont, at least not twice. The city I live in has a ban on hand guns of all forms. So QED only criminals have guns here. We still have break-ins, we still have abductions, we still have car jackings. What we dont have is a level playing field between criminal and victim. With all the statistics being offered up in this debate how about someone finding out how many second time gun offenders there are. When our judicial system cracks down on the people using guns to perpetrate a crime, when they enforce the laws already in place, when using a firearm in the commission of a felony results in life in prison no parole, then come talk to me about giving up one of my rights. Until then Id back Bushs war before Bradys.

 LongHaul

[Hunt 11]

Kahuna, the following article has links to Supreme Court cases on this:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

 

The most recent case cited, from the Seventh Circuit in 1982 (cert. denied by the Supreme Court, can be read at:

 

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/quilici.htm

 

This opinion, written by a Nixon appointee, clearly holds that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, under ruling Supreme Court precedent. It goes on to hold that even if it did apply to the states, it wouldn't prevent them from banning handguns. It also holds that the right to have a handgun isn't protected by the right to privacy under the federal constitution. A Reagan appointee dissented, but not on the Second Amendment point.

 

So, under current law, it's pretty clear that the federal Constitution doesn't prohibit a state from banning all guns if it wants to. The question of what Congress can do is less clear. It probably couldn't ban all guns, because then the Second Amendment would be meaningless. The Miller decision held that Congress can ban guns that don't have any connection to a "well-regulated militia," but the Court didn't really give criteria on what that means.

 

 

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I think that Zahnada has hit the nail on the head about one thing. The main difference between the ideas presented by Brent and some others and the ideas presented by some others, including myself, is that he seems to feel the U.S. is safer with more guns in place; others think that less guns is the way to go. That's just a difference in philosophy that no amount of information on either side is going to change.

 

So, let me ask a question again. That is, what would be wrong with having a requirement in place that requires a gun owner to prove proficiency with the weapon and knowledge of standards for safe use and storage before they can take ownership of a weapon? It's been said that the NRA is very big on gun safety. Is that just for looks or would they be in favor of making their own safety standards mandatory? Is that too much to ask for the sake of community safety?

 

I think I read someplace about a year ago that there are something like 100 million guns in the U.S. Does anyone know if that's correct?

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Hmmm, if carrying a handgun is a good idea for general safety, how do you suppose BSA would feel about adult leaders carrying handguns in order to be able to protect their units on outings?

[LongHaul 10]

Praire_Scouter why are you so focused on curtailing my right or freedom with respect to fire arms instead of those that misuse them? Many states have a law requiring liability issuance for auto mobiles. Requiring those with insurance to have their policy number tattooed on their forehead will not solve the uninsured motorist problem. Making me pass a test to drive a car does not stop unlicensed drivers. It does not stop misuse of automobiles. Why would putting more restrictions on gun owners impact gun misuse? The problem does not lie with the gun or the gun owner it lies with the judicial system which will not protect society from those who break the law. Its easier to take away rights and freedoms from the law abiding than to control the criminals.

 The 2nd. Amendment does not prevent local governments from denying the right to bare arms, as I said I live in a no hand gun city. I wonder why it is that every time someone wants to put up a local Christmas display the separation of church and state clause is hauled out? If they can ignore the 2nd. Why not the 1st?

 LongHaul

As to carrying on BSA outings, we are a private organization and can and do set rules. If you are a Venture Crew Leader in a right to carry state......

[Kahuna 172]

Hunt:

 

Thanks for posting that. I just didn't want to do the research if I didn't have to.

 

I was aware that it was the state of the law, but not really the reasoning. I'm still not sure I understand entirely why the constitutional prohibitions which originally constrained only Congress and were later extended to the States don't carry with them the same prohibitions in these cases. I guess I could figure it out if I wanted to become a constitutional scholar (which I don't).

 

Anyway, thanks again.

[Kahuna 172]

P_S: NRA estimates 60-65 million handguns, so I think 100 million guns would be a little low.

 

The NRA of course heavily supports gun safety, including the very popular Eddie Eagle program for young kids to instill behavior that insures they know what to do when they come across a gun (don't touch it, call an adult), and urges its members to take gun safety training. NRA courses are offered all around the country.

 

The NRA doesn't support mandatory gun safety training as a condition to owning a firearm. I'm not sure what NRAs position is on mandatory training for concealed carry, but to me that's a separate issue. There is a much greater chance that someone carrying a gun on his/her person will do harm to the public than is the case with a gun kept in the home.