Samuel Alito for US Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[LongHaul 10]

I too was born and raised in Chicago. We (the members of my neighborhood) used to hunt rabbit in the prairie during the winter with 22 cal rifles. We younger kids hunted in packs using golf clubs. You could order a gun through the mail from the back of the Boy Scout Handbook. Sex offenders and child molesters didnt fair to well in prison, I could walk to and from school with out worry, and if I did something wrong the nearest Mom that saw it would be free to whop you as she saw fit. You always hoped (had lots of experience with this) that she got it out of her system and didnt call your Mom cuz youd get it again. Moms didnt know from double jeopardy. Same neighborhood 12 years later gang fights were in your face and personal, nobody used guns or knives and all of us have the scars to show just how moronically stupid teen age kids can be at times.  Same neighborhood 20 years later my parents and I are lying on the floor of our living room while two kids are shooting at each other from different sides of the street from behind parked cars. Four bullets where dug out of our wall and the kid that put them there got 2 years probation. Twenty years after that the Cops were being sued for discrimination, profiling, and whatnot for trying to do gun sweeps, crack down on gangs using the loitering clause, and stop the drug trafficking. So many youth were in gangs and carried weapons that if you arrested them all the schools would be half empty. How do you get elected to political office if you tell your constituents If I get elected I promise to put you or one of your family in jail You stand a far better chance by saying you'll fight for more gun control and banning of hand guns because everyone knows it wont effect them!

    I still say if you eliminate the statistics involving illegally obtained guns, guns used in the commission of a crime, or crimes involving possession of a firearm only(no other offense) there would not be enough left to generate the desire to impose more restrictions on legal gun ownership. The problem is the criminals the solution is in dealing with the criminals.

LongHaul

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So we need to enforce the laws already on the books rather than force more laws on the books

[Torveaux 10]

Long Haul, I agree with your basic stance, but the GPS thing had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. It is merely an FCC regulation.

 

Handguns are legal to hunt with in some states. I think hunting deer with a rifle is a bit too easy. Using archery, shotguns, or handguns makes it a bit more sporting.

 

Someone mentioned that shotguns are for those with bad aim. Try hunting upland game birds with a rifle.

 

The basic problem with the premise that more restrictive guns laws will reduce gun injuries or death is that the statistics simply do not bear it out. Criminals do not really care much about gun laws as they are going to commit a crime anyway.

 

The reason you have more restrictions on auto driving is that there are no constitutional guarantees to the right to drive a car.

 

As for the Scouting argument...we can reasonably assume that there are considerably fewer armed or unarmed criminals at Scouting functions than in the general populace.

 

Zahnada, there are likely quite a few people you would not expect that are armed on the streets. One of the advantages of handguns and concealed carry laws are that the criminals cannot predict so easily who are the 'safe' marks. In an area where the law prohibits handguns and/or concealment, the criminals have fairly good odds of knowing they will be the only ones armed in the conflict. This makes crime more likely whether or not a gun is used in commission of the crime. If only long arms were legal, it would still be quite obvious to criminals which marks were armed or not. The really cool part about the concealed carry laws is that everyone need not be armed for them to be effective. Most criminals are essentially cowards. They want to prey on the weak. When they cannot be certain of success, they are less likely to perpetrate the crime.

 

As for the argument about licenses or training, I guess it would not really be an effecive tool. It would limit the likelyhood that any individual on the street would be carrying a weapon. That tips the odds further in the favor of the criminals who would need no such license. I believe proper training is a great idea, but I do not agree that the government should mandate such training. Frankly, I don't think the government should mandate driver's training or other such training either. Great idea to have the training, but how would you feel about the government requiring special training or licensing to practice free speech, or freedom of the press (only licensed people can report?) If the government did not require driver's licenses, the insurance industry would likely develop their own training courses that would significantly reduce premiums. (in fact, where I learned to drive "Driver's Ed" was not required but insurance was much cheaper if you had it)

[packsaddle 753]

Torveaux, I was the one who made the quip about shotguns.

I guess my view is biased by an interest in eating what I kill. And you probably have upland game that is more substantial than around here (except for turkeys which we do hunt with rifles anyway). I just can't trade the price of ammunition for what I get from a dove.

 

Your argument for concealed carry is persuasive and it has a good foundation in game theory as well as economics. Just a couple of comments:

Indeed criminals are usually cowards in many and profound ways. But cowards are even more unpredictable, making them (in some ways) more dangerous. If they have a weapon (and it is far too easy for them to have one) the risks are much greater and the argument could be made that a coward might lose some fear with weapon in hand.

With respect to training, it does work at least for concealed carry - and I think it would work for other firearm ownership as well. If similar background check and training was required all around, and if gun-show and private sales with no regulation were ended, eventually there would be an effect on the number of guns in the hands of criminals. The effect would be that guns are more difficult to acquire thereby making them more expensive on the black market.

Unfortunately the bottom line has an element of fatalism....there are so many out there already that any measure that COULD have an effect may take a very long time to be effective. The atitude that, because of that, we should give up on efforts, I think is wrong. I do agree, however, that existing laws should be enforced fully. I also think that, for the most part, they are.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

GPS on phones "merely" an FCC regulation? Yes, not directly connected with Patriot, but a part of the same mindset. And it's a very tricky one. The 911 usage is very important and could be a godsend to those in an emergency, but the chance for subversion by the government exists as well. What bothers me quite a bit about the Administration's stance on so many things now is that they demand that things be done without oversight. So much secrecy. "Trust us". I don't think so. Even Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify".

 

OGE, absolutely agree. Enforce the laws we have. That will go a long way towards decreasing gun violence, and crime in general. But we don't want to get too carried away. We've had a whole bunch of people on death row here in Illinois that have been exonerated when it was found that so-called "law and order" prosecutors, and the police that support them, have gotten a bit carried away and convicted the wrong people. In the meantime, the real criminals still walk the street while those prosecutors get happily re-elected.

 

I still think that some sort of safety training should be mandatory. In the hands of an incompetent owner, a weapon is a threat to everyone around them. This is one of those cases where the rights of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

I have a hard time picturing the defensive scenario in this concealed carry thing. A guy walks up to you with his gun drawn and demands your wallet. Do you really think you can get your gun out and fire it before he blows you away? This isn't like the movies where the bad guys always miss. Even out in the land of hunting (ok, I personally don't see the attraction, but that's just me), wouldn't you feel a bit better knowing that everyone out there with you has been properly trained in the use of their weapon?

 

Torveaux, c'mon. Licensing free speech is kind of a stretch from this discussion, don't you think? Although given some of the reporting I've seen, some sort of competency check might be in order

 

Pack, I have to agree on the "fatalistic view". If we've gotten to the point that we start to think that the more guns we have, the safer we are, then we've essentially given up on the police and the law to protect our society in general. If we do that, we're back to the West in the late 1800's.

 

 

 

 

[Hunt 11]

"The reason you have more restrictions on auto driving is that there are no constitutional guarantees to the right to drive a car."

 

I just wanted to point out--again--that there is no constitutional guarantee to own a gun if your state wants to ban it. It's not clear that there is an individual right to own a gun, even against a federal law--it may be that only the states themselves would be able to successfully challenge a federal law abridging gun ownership. But again, insofar as what the state can legally do, there is no difference constitutionally between requiring you to have a driver's license and requiring you to have a gun license. The state couldn't, on the other hand, require you to have a "free speech" license, because the right to free speech in the Bill of Rights does apply to the states, as well as to the federal government.

 

Really, for a supporter of unrestricted gun ownership to win this argument, you'd have to explain why it's better as a practical matter for the state to allow gun ownership without licensing and safety training. I can't see any sensible practical argument at all, except for the one that suggests that all such restrictions are just excuses to move to a total ban.

[Torveaux 10]

Hunt, 44 of the 50 states have state constitutional amendments or language that guarantee the right to keep and bear arms as well.

 

The language of the 2nd Amendment has only been in question recently. Only revisionists and people making a lame attempt to undermine its intent for their own political reasons even question its meaning. The Founders through their language and their associated writings clearly intended that the people retain the power to defend themselves from criminals both within and without their government was not only important, but mandatory for a free people to be governed. The Founders feared the tyranny they rebelled against and gave the people the power to defend themselves.

 

 

Prairie, the willingness to strip people of any of their Constitutional rights, especially those so clearly defined in the Bill of Rights is tantamount to an attempt to strip them all. If the freedom to defend onesself is debatable, so too is any right enumerated by the Founders. My point is quite germane to the thread. It is much like the saying about the Nazis, when they took the rights others, I stood aside and let it happen and by the time they got to me, there was no one left to help me. Also, an FCC regulation is much easier to change than a law.

 

Packsaddle, not only would such a plan take a long time, it would be impossible without restricting even more of our rights. The criminal element would still be able to acquire new weapons. What is cost to those willing to steal? Your premise is fatally flawed as it presumes that those who engage in crime play by the rules. Even if the US outlawed all weapons and weapons production, criminals would find a way to smuggle them from other nations. Besides, even in a gun-free utopia, those truly bent on killing will simply use the next most lethal alternative.

 

BTW, Pheasants, ducks, geese, grouse, partridge... many tasty animals that are best taken with a shotgun. Besides, using slugs, shotguns are good for big game hunting as well. I thought you were out East somewhere, you can duck/goose hunt if you wish...

[Zahnada 11]

It feels like we're trapped in a classic prisoner's dilemma.

 

Anyway, I feel my views on how to limit handguns requires more explanation. Sure, it won't change anyone's views on the matter, but when has that ever stopped us?

 

For starters, banning handguns would be a long process that would require several decades. I doubt the government would go the route of saying, "Please turn in all your handguns for immediate destruction." As has been mentioned, this would leave the law abiding people defenseless while the criminals would have all the guns. What's more likely is a ban on the manufacturing and sale of handguns and strict enforcement of firearm laws. Therefore, everyone who currently owns a gun would still own a gun. The proportion of armed law abiding citizens to armed criminals would be initially untouched. As the years go by, the proportion would actually tip in favor the law abiding since criminals caught with handguns would lose their weapons.

 

The only thing is that new handguns would not be entering the system. With a decreased supply, the price of ammunition would increase making it more expensive to own and fire a handgun. The law abiding would continue to possess their guns until the gun broke or until they used it improperly. Eventually, handguns would vanish from our society, but in the meantime, the armed law abiding citizens would still exist.

 

Naturally, a blackmarket for handguns would open up. However, as with all blackmarket items, these handguns would be very expensive. The guns would stay out of the hands of gangs for the most part. I think the outcome would be that crime and violence would decrease.

 

Am I being optimistic? Yep. I really don't think this kind of scenerio will ever play out. As we've seen on this forum, the two sides of the argument are just too far apart to find common ground. There was a story of a woman who was killed during a car jacking that was posted a few days ago. Some would say that if the victim had a handgun, this never would have happened. Others would say that if the assailant didn't have a handgun, none of this would have happened. Just too sides of an argument.

 

But I must say, it's nice to see an intelligent discussion on these forums that doesn't get too heated and evolve into personal attacks.

[LongHaul 10]

Hunt,

       Is there a state that right now requires safety training as a condition for gun ownership? Licensing yes but safety training? Why do we have to win an argument to keep what we have? Shouldnt the opposition have to win the argument to justify taking these freedoms away? Im not asking what can be done Im talking about what seems fair.

     As for the GPS in cell phones being an FCC thing and not a Patriot Act thing read the laws carefully and you will find that the FCC got its right to impose that restriction on the general public without review or further permission of Congress under the Patriot Act. The law that requires the boat slips to close came under the office of inland waterways or something but it was the result of the Patriot Act. The current inflated use (I was going to say misuse) of the National Security Letters is another by product of the Patriot Act.  These are documents, written by an FBI supervisor stating that an investigation pertains to a matter of National Security. This gives them the right to subpoena information, which would normally require a warrant, without a warrant and with a broader scope( Ill get to this in a minute) and to top it all off they can order the person they are requesting this information from not to tell anyone about the request not even their own lawyer or local law enforcement. This last part was challenged and a court has ruled that the FBI can not stop people from seeking counsel when requested for information under the National Security Letter provisions of the Patriot act. That ruling is being appealed by the Justice Department. These letters are not overseen by anyone other than the FBI itself. Who thought that in America the Police could write themselves a letter giving them the power to seek any information they wanted from anyone that thought might have that information and then stop everyone from telling anybody about the fact that the request had been made. Before everyone jumps up and points out that this broadening of the powers of the FBI is the result of HR. 2417 the Intelligence Authorization Act remember its a broadening of rights granted them under the Patriot Act, which was passed virtually unchallenged in response to 9-11. As to the broader scope thing, If the FBI thought that this forum was being used by a terrorist in some way they could demand all information the forum creators have about anyone who has ever posted anything. They can then go to any financial institution and get all the records they have on anyone who has ever posted anything on this forum and keep there efforts secret. These records could however be shared with any law enforcement agency in the country, under the Patriot Act, and when used in court could not be challenged as having been obtained with out a warrant because of the for the National Security provision. When you try and define financial institution there are so many modifications to the original definition in US Code title 31 that for this discussion it covers any person or business that cashes checks, buys goods from the public, or sells goods on time payments made to that same business, along with credit card companies and everything you would normally think of as a financial institution.

     Its the got a toe in the door now were are moving in mentality that concerns me. The term  Secret Police has always had a negative connotation in this country. We associate that with Stalin, Mao and the dictatorships around the world, not with America. Yet that is exactly what many are advocating be formed within the FBI as an anti terrorist, organized crime, counter intelligence gathering force. We can only hope the ruling against the gag restrictions holds up under review. How did that type of provision even make it through Congress?

 LongHaul

[packsaddle 753]

Torveaux, I grant that you may be correct. However, I note that everyone, even criminals, are subject to market forces...even if they are blackmarket forces. If, as Zahnada writes, we were able to restrict the supply somehow, the price would increase everywhere. As it is, firearms are essentially a throw-away commodity for a consumer society. The problem is that lives are being consumed in the process as well.

LongHaul, licensing yes. But for some persons that translates to ownership. In this and many other states, you cannot legally hunt unless you have taken and passed a hunter-safety course. Would I purchase an expensive, hunting long arm if I wasn't allowed to hunt with it? Not likely. Would I purchase an expensive pistol sized for concealed carry if I wasn't allowed to carry? Unlikely.

Unless, in both cases, I intended to break the law.

[LongHaul 10]

Packsaddle,

      The licensing I was referring to was license to own not licenses to use in public. If you intend to hunt with this firearm then yes I would be in favor of mandatory safety class requirements. If the state didnt already require such testing the argument would be that the firearm was going to by used in a public place and there is a reasonable concern that without safety training the public could be at risk. This is not the same as ownership. I can own a motor vehicle without having a valid operators license, I cant get plates or city sticker without a valid operators license( for a private vehicle) but I can take title ownership of one. As a company I can own, plate and sticker a vehicle and not have a valid operators license.  I can, in some states, even get insurance as a blanket policy.

     Where would one use a firearm they couldnt use in public legally? I used mine at a private gun range for relaxation. You pretty much have to relax and clear your mind if you are going to do more than bust caps and shred paper. When they were in my home where my sons lived they were in pieces and the pieces were scattered. The ammo was under double lock and key. My wife once laughed as I collected parts and assembled guns to go to the range that if I ever wanted to use one of them against an intruder Id be SOL. As a younger man I did hunt in Wisconsin to help put dear meat on my relatives table and never had to take a safety course to get an out of state license. That was 35+ years ago though, if things have changed and safety courses are now mandatory I approve.

LongHaul

[Torveaux 10]

Sorry fellas, but I think the results of an outright ban on handguns would be disastrous. We tried Prohibiting alcohol, it merely enriched the criminals further. Narcotics are illegal, yet tons of them cross the border every day. Others are grown and manufactured illegal right in our own country. As you so aptly pointed out, the black market will make prices rise. That makes smuggling a better risk/return business. Just as with prohibition, some traffickers in illegal arms would otherwise be doing illegal things anyway, some, however, would be otherwise law-abiding citizens that are willing to risk incarceration to protect themselves. The end result is an ever-widening gap of firepower between the criminals and their black market connections to illegal weapons and the average citizen who not only would need to take the legal and financial risks, but would need to acquire the underground connections in order to arm themselves. The same thing happens in the drug world today. Those already connected to criminal activities have a much easier time getting drugs and can get them more cheaply (closer to the producer, fewer people taking a cut) than can the Joe Average citizen that is looking for an occasional recreational drug.

 

The only way a ban would work to make people safer is if somehow (magically?) every gun on the face of the planet would disappear at the same time. The technology would need to be unlearned and the ability to reconstitute such learning would have to be gone as well. Otherwise, the aforementioned market forces will always favor those willing to take bigger risks (criminals) who are willing to beg, borrow, steal, or invent whatever is deemed most effective in carrying out their crimes. You would create not only smuggling to avoid taxes and licensing, but illegal firearms manufacturing would spring up to fill the economic void. Our country is too vast and our ideals too open to be able to effectively ban anything, much less an item that would provide criminals almost unfettered access to the assets of private citizens.

 

Rather than taking an impossible position, I think it would be better if we spend our time eliminating as many of the criminals as possible from the general populace. If the risks of crime are greater and the rewards fewer, market forces will play there as well. An armed or potentially armed citizenry places much greater risk to the criminal with no better than an equal reward. The data speaks for itself in this regard in that crime rates have dropped whenever gun laws are relaxed and concealed carry laws are in place.

[Hunt 11]

"The language of the 2nd Amendment has only been in question recently."

 

The Supreme Court ruled in 1876 that the Second Amendment doesn't affect the ability of states to regulate guns, and the Supreme Court case holding that the federal government could ban sawed-off shotguns was decided in 1939. I guess that's kind of recent, compared to when the Bill of Rights was written. There aren't really any more recent cases--perhaps because lawyers in the gun lobby realize that if they were to try to challenge federal gun control laws on Second Amendment grounds they'd probably lose, which would hurt their fund-raising and lobbying efforts.

[Torveaux 10]

I was referring to the language argument that suggests that the Founders did not really intend to enumerate the rights of individuals to own guns.

 

The first time the whole 'Militia' thing became misconstrued was in US v Miller (1939).

 

That is the sawed off shotgun case. The court held (incorrectly) that since the sawed off shotgun was not a weapon used in national defense, it was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. In effect, the court was saying that any weapon used as part of the national defense WAS protected. The incorrect part of the ruling was that such weapons were not used. In fact, they have been used since WWI.

 

The court did not hold that one need be a member of the National Guard or any formal militia, by definition, the militia consists of any able bodied man (read person in modern lexicon).

 

The 1867 case (US v Cruikshank) was one of a number of post war cases wherein former slaves were not protected by the Court. (Involves the KKK trying to disarm some former slaves) The wording of the ruling did reaffirm that the right to bear arms was an inherent right that pre-dated the Constitution and could not, therefore, be conferred by it. Interestingly, the same reasoning was used on the 1st Amendment portion (right to assemble) of the case. The difference between the two is that the 1st explicitly mentions that Congress shall make no law, leaving the states free to do as they wish, while the 2nd has no such language. The Court held in Cruikshank that the 'Congress' part of the 2nd was implied. To make things even more convoluted, the 14th has been interpreted to effectively limit states in exactly the same way the Founders limited the Federal government. This interpretation, however, has been disjointed and not all rights have been handled this way. For example, states cannot prohibit free speech, but they can exercise some limits on gun ownership. Somewhere among this mess is some very bad judicial reasoning. The 14th was never intended to push the states into adopting an exact replica of the Constitution, the purpose was simply to prohibit states from disenfranchising minorities through legal trickery (not very effectively until 1965). However, if you make the argument that the 14th does have such a purpose, it is specious at best to suggest that it only applies to some rights and not others. In other words, if the 14th forces states to permit free speech and prohibit unreasonable searches, it must also force the states to abide by the 2nd and stop infringing on the right to bear arms.

 

There is much more to that case, but the rationale was manufactured to allow Louisiana to continue to prevent those "of African descent and persons of color" from lawfully assembling and bearing arms. This was not really a 2nd Amendment case so much as it was an early race case while the Court was still populated by segregationists (the polite way to say it).

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Seems to me that this discussion is headed in the direction of the old MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy of the 50's and 60's, that is, just keep on raising the stakes by creating what amounts to a residential arms race. The way to make us all more safe is to arm more and more people?

 

Is that really what this country's come to? So, the argument is what?, that the way to make us really safe in our homes is to have lots and lots of gun owners, purchases without records, and no mandatory safety training? That's essentially the stance here, no?

 

It sounds to me that this is really a defeatist attitude, one that assumes that law and order has lost, and we're basically on our own. That's really sad. That fact that so many states have passed legislation to make it possible makes it just that much sadder.