NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the number of gun rights advocates (absolutists?) around here, I'm surprised that I'm the first to make a thread on this. (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14802662.htm)

SAN FRANCISCO - The city plans to appeal a judge's ruling overturning an ordinance banning handgun possession and firearm sales, the city attorney said Tuesday.

San Francisco County Judge James Warren ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association on Monday that the California Legislature, not the city's voters, can enact gun regulations.

City voters approved Measure H in November after the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by a rising number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000, put the measure on the ballot. San Francisco recorded a 10-year high of at least 94 murders last year.

"I respectfully disagree with the court's reasoning, and believe that San Francisco voters acted within their authority to restrict handgun possession and firearm sales within the limits of their own city," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

The case is Fiscal v. San Francisco 05-505960.
When the measure passed last November, there were a lot of people around here--you know who you are--who were incensed about it. Lots of smack talking, etc. And all the while I was saying that it'll never stand up in court. And I was right.

I just want to put something out there about this whole gun rights debate. Those of you who claim that Democrats are anti-gun are wrong. It's that simple--you're wrong. You won this battle--there was a time when lots of Democrats were very much in favor of gun control. That's not the case anymore, and hasn't been for at least twenty years.

I know it's good for fund-raising to demonize people as anti-gun, but knock it off already. The only place where you find significant support for gun control anymore is in major metropolises, and that's because they've got so much gun violence that they're willing to try anything. The rest of the country is very happy with letting states set their own rules, and that's the tack the Democratic party as a whole has taken as well.

I thought the constitution was fairly clear on this fact. They can't ban guns.

You’re right about the Democrats. They’re too busy banning video games and telling us where we can and can’t smoke to focus on guns.

As someone who votes democrat, this makes me quite happy.

Given the number of gun rights advocates (absolutists?) around here, I'm surprised that I'm the first to make a thread on this. (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14802662.htm)


When the measure passed last November, there were a lot of people around here--you know who you are--who were incensed about it. Lots of smack talking, etc. And all the while I was saying that it'll never stand up in court. And I was right.

I just want to put something out there about this whole gun rights debate. Those of you who claim that Democrats are anti-gun are wrong. It's that simple--you're wrong. You won this battle--there was a time when lots of Democrats were very much in favor of gun control. That's not the case anymore, and hasn't been for at least twenty years.

I know it's good for fund-raising to demonize people as anti-gun, but knock it off already. The only place where you find significant support for gun control anymore is in major metropolises, and that's because they've got so much gun violence that they're willing to try anything. The rest of the country is very happy with letting states set their own rules, and that's the tack the Democratic party as a whole has taken as well.


It's good news. One thing you have to admit, though, is that a good number of the big name democrats are still anti-gun and the party platform is ambiguous.

I thought the constitution was fairly clear on this fact. They can't ban guns.
People will always try to find ways around the contitution and impose their will on others. I don't see how, without a constitutional amendment, anybody can severely restrict gun ownership.

I thought the constitution was fairly clear on this fact. They can't ban guns.
good thing to. ya never know when you will have to defend your home from a foreign army. I love my guns

People will always try to find ways around the contitution and impose their will on others. I don't see how, without a constitutional amendment, anybody can severely restrict gun ownership.
I'll tell you how. Become a party to a treaty that bans firearms and that treaty would be honored above the protection given by the Constitution. At least that's what I understand. I'm sure someone else will elaborate.

Yeah, screw you people that vote, only the people you vote into office that you have no control over may choose what does or doesn't happen.

People will always try to find ways around the contitution and impose their will on others. I don't see how, without a constitutional amendment, anybody can severely restrict gun ownership.
God forbid people try to touch your guns, but if anyone tries to restrict speech, privacy, or etc, "meh, who the fuck cares, I got guns still."

Be nice if we could get serious as to how to keep guns from criminals though. Dirtbags who own an illegally purchased firearm should have the courthouse dropped on them but for everyone else, the Constitution says you can have it so it would be nice if people would shut up about banning them. It will never happen!

SAN FRANCISCO - The city plans to appeal a judge's ruling overturning an ordinance banning handgun possession and firearm sales, the city attorney said Tuesday.

San Francisco County Judge James Warren ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association on Monday that the California Legislature, not the city's voters, can enact gun regulations.

City voters approved Measure H in November after the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by a rising number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000, put the measure on the ballot. San Francisco recorded a 10-year high of at least 94 murders last year.
"I respectfully disagree with the court's reasoning, and believe that San Francisco voters acted within their authority to restrict handgun possession and firearm sales within the limits of their own city," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

1)This ban was only on handguns and sales of firearms in the city, it was not saying that you can't have other guns in the city. Really, why do you need a gun in the city? that makes no sense to me. Out in the country, yes, I can undestand that, but not in the freaking metropolis.
2)The people of the city wanted it that way, they voted on it. Why can't they have it?

Yeah, screw you people that vote, only the people you vote into office that you have no control over may choose what does or doesn't happen.


So you support the gay marriage bans then? They were direct voting.

2)The people of the city wanted it that way, they voted on it. Why can't they have it?
yeah, that whole consitution thing.... thats like saying if a city voted to have slaves they should get em

good thing to. ya never know when you will have to defend your home from a foreign army. I love my guns
What would you do if the king of England showed up at your house and started pushing you around?

Seriously though, I'm in favor of gun ownership.

I'll tell you how. Become a party to a treaty that bans firearms and that treaty would be honored above the protection given by the Constitution. At least that's what I understand. I'm sure someone else will elaborate.
I'm no expert, but I thought that the US Constitution was law even above treaties?

Nice to know democracy is still respected inside America.

Americans are lucky and cursed as the same time by the second ammendment

It's good news. One thing you have to admit, though, is that a good number of the big name democrats are still anti-gun and the party platform is ambiguous.

Being in favor of gun control isn't necessarily anti-gun. It's anti-gun-without-proper-background-checks-and-training, for the most part.

I'm not sure about calling big name Dems anti-gun, either.

I think the right to bear arms must be proteted, but I don't think we ought to just be selling them to anyone who walks in and picks one out like it's a diamond necklace, either. A background check and a 24 hour waiting period aren't eliminating the right to bear arms, they're just checking to see that you're not an insane person, with a record of violence during epidsodes of mental illness about to go home and kill your neighbor because you believe she's sleeping with your husband.

(Actual story that happened to my - very Republican but very in favor of some gun control - girlfriend's mother-in-law. If Wal-Mart had been required to check into the background of the crazy woman buying the gun, L's mother-in-law would probably still be alive.)

yeah, that whole consitution thing.... thats like saying if a city voted to have slaves they should get em
The Constitution already gets pissed over by the government every day, why not let this one pass?

yeah, that whole consitution thing.... thats like saying if a city voted to have slaves they should get em
There was no restriction put on gun ownership.

Ah again, the vote to ban gay marriage is a total restriction of rights, or a merger of church and state, either way, you can't do it.

1)This ban was only on handguns and sales of firearms in the city, it was not saying that you can't have other guns in the city. Really, why do you need a gun in the city? that makes no sense to me. Out in the country, yes, I can undestand that, but not in the freaking metropolis.
2)The people of the city wanted it that way, they voted on it. Why can't they have it?
1) If a thug tried to attack you guns make it easier to fight back.

2) That's the beauty of the constitution. It protects the minority's rights from tyranny of the majority.

I'll tell you how. Become a party to a treaty that bans firearms and that treaty would be honored above the protection given by the Constitution. At least that's what I understand. I'm sure someone else will elaborate.
Treaty banning guns>constitution saying "don't ban guns"?

yeah, that whole consitution thing.... thats like saying if a city voted to have slaves they should get em

O.o

tuna posted something that was actually... right?

Yeah, screw you people that vote, only the people you vote into office that you have no control over may choose what does or doesn't happen.
So you support a ban on gay marriage?

God forbid people try to touch your guns, but if anyone tries to restrict speech, privacy, or etc, "meh, who the fuck cares, I got guns still."
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Because I support gun ownership, I think free speech and privacy are unimportant issues. Way to make a baseless and illogical generalization.

The Constitution already gets pissed over by the government every day, why not let this one pass?
I'm not in favor of letting any of them pass. We have a constitution for a number of reasons. One of them is that it makes it harder for the majority to infringe on the rights of the minorities.

yeah, that whole consitution thing.... thats like saying if a city voted to have slaves they should get em


Yes, because there is no difference between fundamental human rights, and letting billy bob own a hand in good ol' san fransico..:rolleyes:

So you support a ban on gay marriage?
A ban on gay marriage is either a total restriction of rights or a merger of church and state, either way, you can't do it.

(Actual story that happened to my - very Republican but very in favor of some gun control - girlfriend's mother-in-law. If Wal-Mart had been required to check into the background of the crazy woman buying the gun, L's mother-in-law would probably still be alive.)

It is not as if it's that hard to buy a gun illegally anyway.

Being in favor of gun control isn't necessarily anti-gun. It's anti-gun-without-proper-background-checks-and-training, for the most part.

I'm not sure about calling big name Dems anti-gun, either.

Then read up on the voting records of Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstien, Shumer, etc. They go way beyond "Background checks and training".

I think the right to bear arms must be proteted, but I don't think we ought to just be selling them to anyone who walks in and picks one out like it's a diamond necklace, either. A background check and a 24 hour waiting period aren't eliminating the right to bear arms, they're just checking to see that you're not an insane person, with a record of violence during epidsodes of mental illness about to go home and kill your neighbor because you believe she's sleeping with your husband.

(Actual story that happened to my - very Republican but very in favor of some gun control - girlfriend's mother-in-law. If Wal-Mart had been required to check into the background of the crazy woman buying the gun, L's mother-in-law would probably still be alive.)

I have no problem w/ background checks. I fully support the NICS. Waiting periods have no purpose though. Walmart IS required to do a background check. If they didn't, they're in violation of the law.

I'm no expert, but I thought that the US Constitution was law even above treaties?
I've seen some discussions to the contrary, but I'm not an expert. The other possibility is a little more insidious. The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned in other decisions that a "world" view should be considered in the interpretation of U.S. laws. So not only our Constitution, but the EU Human Rights document and the U.N. Human Rights declaration should be used, in addition to whatever Zimbabwe and China have decided to apply as law, when making a decision on fundamental United States law.

A ban on gay marriage is either a total restriction of rights or a merger of church and state, either way, you can't do it.
A ban on handguns is an unconstitutional restriction of rights. You can't do it either.

What would you do if the king of England showed up at your house and started pushing you around?


Id shoot him in the face is what I would do

It is not as if it's that hard to buy a gun illegally anyway.

Yeah, but this particular schizophrenic would probably have been unable to get an illegal gun.

Regardless, trying to ensure that legal firearms are sold safely shouldn't be a non-issue because some people buy them illegally. I'm a liberal completely in favor of the right to bear arms, (yes, you read that right!) but I'd like to see the process be somewhat regulated. If an ex-con can't vote, I hope he can't buy a gun legally. For the record, this could already be part of our gun laws. I have no idea. But, I think violent mentally ill people should be part of those same gun laws.

A ban on gay marriage is either a total restriction of rights or a merger of church and state, either way, you can't do it.

But it's what the people voted for. Just as the SF ban was a violation of California law.

Or is it, "I'll accept direct voting if they agree w/ me"?

Yeah, but this particular schizophrenic would probably have been unable to get an illegal gun.

Regardless, trying to ensure that legal firearms are sold safely shouldn't be a non-issue because some people buy them illegally. I'm a liberal completely in favor of the right to bear arms, but I'd like to see the process somewhat regulated. If an ex-con can't vote, I hope he can't buy a gun legally. For the record, this could already be part of our gun laws. I have no idea. But, I think violent mentally ill people should be part of those same gun laws.

In most states, a convicted felon or violent misdemeanor cannot legally own a firearm. You cannot own a firearm if you have been institutionalized.

A ban on handguns is an unconstitutional restriction of rights. You can't do it either.


Well if thats the case, then I should be able to buy, sell, and make explosives. After all, i don't want my weapons to be taken away:rolleyes:

Yeah, but this particular schizophrenic would probably have been unable to get an illegal gun.

Regardless, trying to ensure that legal firearms are sold safely shouldn't be a non-issue because some people buy them illegally. I'm a liberal completely in favor of the right to bear arms, (yes, you read that right!) but I'd like to see the process be somewhat regulated. If an ex-con can't vote, I hope he can't buy a gun legally. For the record, this could already be part of our gun laws. I have no idea. But, I think violent mentally ill people should be part of those same gun laws.
As long as you don't try to keep guns from responsible and competent citizens, I agree with you.

A ban on handguns is an unconstitutional restriction of rights. You can't do it either.
It was a ban on handgun sales, not on handguns.

Well if thats the case, then I should be able to buy, sell, and make explosives. After all, i don't want my weapons to be taken away:rolleyes:

And the Constitution has explosives where, exactly?

It was a ban on handgun sales, not on handguns.

And on handguns. Read the OP.

A ban on handguns is an unconstitutional restriction of rights. You can't do it either.
They wrn't banned, they were restricted.

woo guns. yeah woo i love guns me i need them in case someone tries to punch me so i can shoot him in the face. woo guns yeah they protect me.

Well if thats the case, then I should be able to buy, sell, and make explosives. After all, i don't want my weapons to be taken away:rolleyes:
It's legal to make, buy and sell explosives. They're regulated by the government, just as guns are.

Yeah, but this particular schizophrenic would probably have been unable to get an illegal gun.

Regardless, trying to ensure that legal firearms are sold safely shouldn't be a non-issue because some people buy them illegally. I'm a liberal completely in favor of the right to bear arms, (yes, you read that right!) but I'd like to see the process be somewhat regulated. If an ex-con can't vote, I hope he can't buy a gun legally. For the record, this could already be part of our gun laws. I have no idea. But, I think violent mentally ill people should be part of those same gun laws.

I didn't mean that because it is easy to buy it illegally then we should cut back on safety requirements when purchasing. I just am really annoyed that guns are so prevelant that it is simple to get one illegally. What is the point of all these laws trying to keep guns away from criminals when you can buy a weapon on the street? Be nice if stricter laws would be passed to really hammer people owning one illegally.

It was a ban on handgun sales, not on handguns.
The article said that citizens would not be allowed to have handguns within the city. That sounds like a ban to me.

And on handguns. Read the OP.
Hooray for reading "banning handgun possession and firearm sales" as "banning handgun sales". Look out everyone, stupid is contagious *cough*

In most states, a convicted felon or violent misdemeanor cannot legally own a firearm. You cannot own a firearm if you have been institutionalized.

Well, that's reassuring, although the nutso lady had been institutionalized. I don't really know the entire story - it's possible that the lady used someone else's ID or SSN to buy a gun, although L has never really been clear on that. In any case, the woman is incompetent to stand trial.

They wrn't banned, they were restricted.
If they're not allowed to own them within the city, then it's a ban.

They wrn't banned, they were restricted.

Restricted so that no SF resident could own or posess one within the city. ie banned in SF.

I didn't mean that because it is easy to buy it illegally then we should cut back on safety requirements when purchasing. I just am really annoyed that guns are so prevelant that it is simple to get one illegally. What is the point of all these laws trying to keep guns away from criminals when you can buy a weapon on the street? Be nice if stricter laws would be passed to really hammer people owning one illegally.

Gotcha.

The Constitution already gets pissed over by the government every day, why not let this one pass?
How does it get pissed on? In case you havent noticied GW Bush is our President and everything he does is to protect the consitution.

How does it get pissed on? In case you havent noticied GW Bush is our President and everything he does is to protect the consitution.
In case you haven't noticed there's no Presidential Infallibility. Bush is just a man and he fucks up like the rest of us.

How does it get pissed on? In case you havent noticied GW Bush is our President and everything he does is to protect the consitution.

You're the funniest poster I've read since I've been back.

Given the number of gun rights advocates (absolutists?) around here, I'm surprised that I'm the first to make a thread on this. (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14802662.htm)


When the measure passed last November, there were a lot of people around here--you know who you are--who were incensed about it. Lots of smack talking, etc. And all the while I was saying that it'll never stand up in court. And I was right.

I just want to put something out there about this whole gun rights debate. Those of you who claim that Democrats are anti-gun are wrong. It's that simple--you're wrong. You won this battle--there was a time when lots of Democrats were very much in favor of gun control. That's not the case anymore, and hasn't been for at least twenty years.

I know it's good for fund-raising to demonize people as anti-gun, but knock it off already. The only place where you find significant support for gun control anymore is in major metropolises, and that's because they've got so much gun violence that they're willing to try anything. The rest of the country is very happy with letting states set their own rules, and that's the tack the Democratic party as a whole has taken as well.

Most of them still vote anti-gun. Yes, there are exceptions. But not as solid a voting record as Republicans on the same issue.

Until you force Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Ted Kennedy to retire and shut up, most gun owners aren't going to buy it.

In case you haven't noticed there's no Presidential Infallibility. Bush is just a man and he fucks up like the rest of us.
He doesnt screw up alot, if he did he wouldnt be the decider. And what does him making mistakes or not have to do with protecting the consitution.

SAN FRANCISCO - The city plans to appeal a judge's ruling overturning an ordinance banning handgun possession and firearm sales, the city attorney said Tuesday.


This says "No handguns can be owned in San Francisco." It also says "No firearms will be sold in San Francisco."

It doesn't say no firearms can be owned in San Francisco.

By the letter of the law, it seems that it should be legal - but I do realize that 200 years of interpretation also get a say...

Most of them still vote anti-gun. Yes, there are exceptions. But not as solid a voting record as Republicans on the same issue.

Gun control does not equal anti-gun. ;)

Gun control does not equal anti-gun. ;)
By and large it does. That's how gun voters feel about it.

Face facts - until the DNC puts something in its national platform that the Second Amendment is a purely individual right, and the party will fight all gun control from that perspective, gun voters are not going to switch parties on the basis of "more Democrats are a bit more relaxed than they used to be".

By and large it does. That's how gun voters feel about it.

Them feeling so doesn't make it true. :eek:

I'm in favor of the second amendment, but I'm a staunch proponent of gun control. Yes, law-abiding citizens have the right to own a gun. But, I think the government has the right to take the time to ensure that those wanting to buy a firearm are law-abiding citizens. I also think the government can and should require anyone who buys a gun to demonstrate that s/he knows how to safely operate said gun. Just like driver's licensing. (Although I think you can buy a car without a driver's license you're just not allowed to drive it...) That's gun control. It doesn't mean I think there should be no guns - although I'll never own one and there will never be one in my house; I have a friend who is permanently disinvited because he has a concealed carry permit and never goes without a gun - I just think that there should be some restrictions on their sale and use.

I do get that we're never going to get the NRA to be Democrats, though. Some people can't see the forest for the trees...

Them feeling so doesn't make it true. :eek:

I'm in favor of the second amendment, but I'm a staunch proponent of gun control. Yes, law-abiding citizens have the right to own a gun. But, I think the government has the right to take the time to ensure that those wanting to buy a firearm are law-abiding citizens. I also think the government can and should require anyone who buys a gun to demonstrate that s/he knows how to safely operate said gun. Just like driver's licensing. (Although I think you can buy a car without a driver's license you're just not allowed to drive it...) That's gun control. It doesn't mean I think there should be no guns - although I'll never own one and there will never be one in my house; I have a friend who is permanently disinvited because he has a concealed carry permit and never goes without a gun - I just think that there should be some restrictions on their sale and use.

I do get that we're never going to get the NRA to be Democrats, though. Some people can't see the forest for the trees...

Most US states now have concealed carry permits on a "shall issue" basis.

You're living in a US where if you tried to overturn that, you would be touching the third rail.

Them feeling so doesn't make it true. :eek:

I'm in favor of the second amendment, but I'm a staunch proponent of gun control. Yes, law-abiding citizens have the right to own a gun. But, I think the government has the right to take the time to ensure that those wanting to buy a firearm are law-abiding citizens. I also think the government can and should require anyone who buys a gun to demonstrate that s/he knows how to safely operate said gun. Just like driver's licensing. (Although I think you can buy a car without a driver's license you're just not allowed to drive it...) That's gun control. It doesn't mean I think there should be no guns - although I'll never own one and there will never be one in my house; I have a friend who is permanently disinvited because he has a concealed carry permit and never goes without a gun - I just think that there should be some restrictions on their sale and use.

I do get that we're never going to get the NRA to be Democrats, though. Some people can't see the forest for the trees...


If members of the DNC would stop supporting various bans, registrations, waiting periods, ammo restrictions, "laser imprinting", etc. the NRA would definately support them.

Did you know Kennedy pushed for a law banning all hunting ammo?
Kerry only went off the trail once to vote against the industry protection bill?
the CA dem party pushed for a bill that would have put the ammo industry out of business?

That's just a few.

Yeah, screw you people that vote, only the people you vote into office that you have no control over may choose what does or doesn't happen.


God forbid people try to touch your guns, but if anyone tries to restrict speech, privacy, or etc, "meh, who the fuck cares, I got guns still."

Guns speak louder than words.

Guns speak louder than words.
Indeed.

It was a ban on handgun sales, not on handguns.
Actually, this was a ban on possession as well. That's why I knew it would be overturned back when it was on the ballot.

Actually, this was a ban on possession as well. That's why I knew it would be overturned back when it was on the ballot.
I remember your prediction.

Indeed.
Quite so.

Quite so.
w3rd

Yes, because there is no difference between fundamental human rights, and letting billy bob own a hand in good ol' san fransico..:rolleyes:
Well marriage and guns were both invented by humans and neither is considered a fundamental human right.

I've seen some discussions to the contrary, but I'm not an expert. The other possibility is a little more insidious. The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned in other decisions that a "world" view should be considered in the interpretation of U.S. laws. So not only our Constitution, but the EU Human Rights document and the U.N. Human Rights declaration should be used, in addition to whatever Zimbabwe and China have decided to apply as law, when making a decision on fundamental United States law.
I don't see a problem with this (well, I hope the Zimbabwe/China part wasn't true!). The US sees fit to lord its vision over the rest of the world, I think we can teach you guys a lesson from time to time.

1)This ban was only on handguns and sales of firearms in the city, it was not saying that you can't have other guns in the city. Really, why do you need a gun in the city? that makes no sense to me. Out in the country, yes, I can undestand that, but not in the freaking metropolis.

Ever seen crime in the city? No? Thought not. Thank you Judicial System for upholding the Constitution. for once

2)The people of the city wanted it that way, they voted on it. Why can't they have it?

Because it is unconstitutional.

Ever seen crime in the city? No? Thought not. Thank you Judicial System for upholding the Constitution. for once



Because it is unconstitutional.Just remember this the next time someone complains about "activist judges subverting the will of the people."

Just remember this the next time someone complains about "activist judges subverting the will of the people."

The will of the people is precisely why we are a Republic. I shutter to think if our government was run by "The will of the people".

The will of the people is precisely why we are a Republic. I shutter to think if our government was run by "The will of the people".
I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm quick to point out that the term "activist judge" really means "judge who rules a way I don't agree with." In this case, it's a perfect counterpoint to all those people who want to "protect marriage from activist judges," for instance.

I donated money to the NRA with this in mind, and it worked.


Nazis.

Just remember this the next time someone complains about "activist judges subverting the will of the people."

They're going to have to overturn the 2nd amendment first.

Molon Labe.

They're going to have to overturn the 2nd amendment first.

Molon Labe.
And in other cases it'll be the First, and in others, it'll be the Fifth, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. My point is that those "activist judges" are there to protect the rights of the minority against the power of the majority when its needed. Lots of people don't see it that way, including lots of people who are no doubt applauding this decision.

And in other cases it'll be the First, and in others, it'll be the Fifth, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. My point is that those "activist judges" are there to protect the rights of the minority against the power of the majority when its needed. Lots of people don't see it that way, including lots of people who are no doubt applauding this decision.


Such as condemning people to death? (terri Schiavo)

Damn, that's a minority right there, and a defenseless one too. How appropriate a target for a pansy assed judge. Or, we could look at that nutty family law judge in Reno who was sniped off by a pissed off dad. SHooting the judge was wrong, but that guy had it coming.

Given the number of gun rights advocates (absolutists?) around here, I'm surprised that I'm the first to make a thread on this. (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14802662.htm)


When the measure passed last November, there were a lot of people around here--you know who you are--who were incensed about it. Lots of smack talking, etc. And all the while I was saying that it'll never stand up in court. And I was right.

I just want to put something out there about this whole gun rights debate. Those of you who claim that Democrats are anti-gun are wrong. It's that simple--you're wrong. You won this battle--there was a time when lots of Democrats were very much in favor of gun control. That's not the case anymore, and hasn't been for at least twenty years.

I know it's good for fund-raising to demonize people as anti-gun, but knock it off already. The only place where you find significant support for gun control anymore is in major metropolises, and that's because they've got so much gun violence that they're willing to try anything. The rest of the country is very happy with letting states set their own rules, and that's the tack the Democratic party as a whole has taken as well.

i have to disagree with you,ask kerry or kennedy(the state rep of the countries most prolific manufacturer of guns, that makes the most guns)how they will vote on gun control,i think you know the answer..let alone schumer from new york...so your incorrect..oh and ask hitlery clintoon how she would vote!

your wrong my friend.

and i have as much distaste for repugs as i do for the full of shit dems....sell your shit elsewhere...no offence.

check their track record...then talk to me,at the least the repugs havent added new laws...which the dems(see..brady campaigners) have everytime they have been in office...rediculous laws to boot..that effect crime..nill.

sell that nonsence elsewhere....it is patentely false.

i would only vote repug just only over the gun issue...and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

vote dems..never.

they are so full of shit..kerry with a shotgun comes to mind..lol..sporting guns are ok...that aint the second amendment my friend..thats their way to erode MY freedom...so fuck off dems...you want my vote...leave me allone and quit trying to be my nanny..ok...until then..go away.

but they know better then me...what a joke.

What would you do if the king of England showed up at your house and started pushing you around?

Seriously though, I'm in favor of gun ownership.

Firstly I´d check the date and then call him imposter. The last King of the United Kingdom died in 1953.

Such as condemning people to death? (terri Schiavo)

Damn, that's a minority right there, and a defenseless one too. How appropriate a target for a pansy assed judge. Or, we could look at that nutty family law judge in Reno who was sniped off by a pissed off dad. SHooting the judge was wrong, but that guy had it coming.If you want to go after Schiavo, go after the law, not the judge. There was nothing activist in that judge's rulings--he followed the law, which said that the husband had the final say in her care. And what's more, the final autopsy report confirmed what the docs had said all along--that Terry Schaivo was in a non-recoverable vegetative state. That you can't accept that fact just makes you an idiot. But even if you had a point--which you don't--you're going after the wrong opponent. The thing you have a beef with is the law, not the judge, and maybe one day you'll figure that out. Probably right after you figure out how to walk and chew gum at the same time.

And the Constitution has explosives where, exactly?


and where does the constitution say that handguns, the main weapon used in gun related accidents and deaths, are protected? it just says "the right to bear arms" That could be anything really, depending on who inteprets it.

and where does the constitution say that handguns, the main weapon used in gun related accidents and deaths, are protected? it just says "the right to bear arms" That could be anything really, depending on who inteprets it.


"arms" by definition, legal and historical precedent, are man portable small arms. "Explosives" are ordinance.

and where does the constitution say that handguns, the main weapon used in gun related accidents and deaths, are protected? it just says "the right to bear arms" That could be anything really, depending on who inteprets it.
Which is why this is such a touchy subject for so many people. The Constitution is filled with abstractions and undefinable terms, but the 2nd Amendment is really a work of art when it comes to vague language.

Which is why this is such a touchy subject for so many people. The Constitution is filled with abstractions and undefinable terms, but the 2nd Amendment is really a work of art when it comes to vague language.
I don't see how the second amendment is vague; all I see are people who choose to interpret it vaguely because they're against gun ownership.

Which is why this is such a touchy subject for so many people. The Constitution is filled with abstractions and undefinable terms, but the 2nd Amendment is really a work of art when it comes to vague language.

I am sure though, that with the cirmcumstances, the founding fathers would clarify it more outlawing such a dangerous weapon. Like I said, the handgun is the main cause of injury and death, when talking about gun-related accidents.

I don't see how the second amendment is vague; all I see are people who choose to interpret it vaguely because they're against gun ownership.


I am not against gun ownership, i have a shotgun under my bed as we speak. I like my gun, and i like to hunt, and so forth. i just don't see the need of allowing city dwellers to have hand guns. It makes no sense to me.

I am not against gun ownership, i have a shotgun under my bed as we speak. I like my gun, and i like to hunt, and so forth. i just don't see the need of allowing city dwellers to have hand guns. It makes no sense to me.

Well, being that handguns are also the primary weapon used in defensive uses and the majority of crime occurs in urban areas by people who aren't allowed to legally own them in the first place, it makes perfect sense.

BTW, do you have stats on the rates of gun related accidents and they type of firearm involved?

I am sure though, that with the cirmcumstances, the founding fathers would clarify it more outlawing such a dangerous weapon. Like I said, the handgun is the main cause of injury and death, when talking about gun-related accidents.
Concidering that the hand gun had been around 300 years prior to the framing of the US Constitution I think the founding fathers didn't outlaw them on purpose.

Well, being that handguns are also the primary weapon used in defensive uses and the majority of crime occurs in urban areas by people who aren't allowed to legally own them in the first place, it makes perfect sense.

BTW, do you have stats on the rates of gun related accidents and they type of firearm involved?


Im sure I could find them real quick. Actually, use google. You can find it off there

I don't see how the second amendment is vague; all I see are people who choose to interpret it vaguely because they're against gun ownership.
You're precisely the kind of person who would argue about it. Here's the text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now here are the questions. What's a militia? How does that translate into 21st century society? Does the fact that it's supposed to be a well regulated one matter to the definition? If you say that what definition that applied when the Framers wrote it is the one to use, then what about the definition of Arms? That's certainly changed in the last 220+ years--so is the protection limited to Arms from that period? We must be consistent, after all. And how do all those commas affect the meaning of the clauses and the way they interact? I'm an English teacher at a university and I can't quite parse that out.

So go ahead--derive an unassailable definition from those words. I guarantee you that any devil's advocate can poke a ton of holes in it.

I am not against gun ownership, i have a shotgun under my bed as we speak. I like my gun, and i like to hunt, and so forth. i just don't see the need of allowing city dwellers to have hand guns. It makes no sense to me.

City dwellers need handguns more than anyone else. Criminals, do not.

Where do most crimes occur? Cities. Who will obey the law? LACD (law abiding city dwellers) who will not? Criminals.

Well, You all can keep arguing for them, but I think you would feel the same way as I, if you saw your cousin get shot with a handgun, and nearly die in your arms, at age 14.

Well, You all can keep arguing for them, but I think you would feel the same way as I, if you saw your cousin get shot with a handgun, and nearly die in your arms, at age 14.
Which means nothing. I am sorry for your loss but it doesn't really apply to anything.
People die every day. Car accidents. My wife was an EMT and I watched her stop at a car accident where 3 people died in it. The driver fell asleep at the wheel.
Should we ban cars? It's a stupid argument.

You're precisely the kind of person who would argue about it. Here's the text:

Now here are the questions. What's a militia? How does that translate into 21st century society? Does the fact that it's supposed to be a well regulated one matter to the definition? If you say that what definition that applied when the Framers wrote it is the one to use, then what about the definition of Arms? That's certainly changed in the last 220+ years--so is the protection limited to Arms from that period? We must be consistent, after all. And how do all those commas affect the meaning of the clauses and the way they interact? I'm an English teacher at a university and I can't quite parse that out.

So go ahead--derive an unassailable definition from those words. I guarantee you that any devil's advocate can poke a ton of holes in it.

Here's the DOJ take on the 2nd. It answers most of your questions.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Well, You all can keep arguing for them, but I think you would feel the same way as I, if you saw your cousin get shot with a handgun, and nearly die in your arms, at age 14.

Thank god we don't all go through emotional events that taint our logic. And thats only half facetious.

Here's the DOJ take on the 2nd. It answers most of your questions.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

From one point of view.

Since the framers aren't around, we pretty much can't say anything for sure. I prefer to look at what the framers were recorded as saying, in my interpretations for the 2md amendment, which looks to me like civilian gun ownership for the purpose of defense against hostile governments, abroad and at home.

As long as militaries use handguns, so should the polulace be allowed to. IMO.(Note, don't slippery slide this... I mean only as far as firearms, though I do include automatics, snipers, etc.). If we want to tackle gun crime, we should make abuse of firearms much more grave in punishment.

Which means nothing. I am sorry for your loss but it doesn't really apply to anything.
People die every day. Car accidents. My wife was an EMT and I watched her stop at a car accident where 3 people died in it. The driver fell asleep at the wheel.
Should we ban cars? It's a stupid argument.


Do people go into a convient store with a car to rob it?

Here's the DOJ take on the 2nd. It answers most of your questions.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
And yet not everyone agrees with that opinion--there are at least three major schools of thought in terms of Constitutional interpretation. Originalism, Textualism, and a third I can't quite remember just yet but I believe is a combination of the two (which generally means that the judge goes with the one he agrees with for that case). But so much of constitutional interpretation depends on how you're coming at it in the first place, and there's a lot of argument over it, and the end result is a variety in opinions over how the text should be interpreted. And because the text is vague, there's room for legitimate arguments over how it should be interpreted.

And I haven't even gotten into how judges have to deal with prior care law on the subject when making decisions. It's way more complex than people like DM or Adam the Batlord want to act like it is. They want simple answers--well sorry, but the world doesn't work that way.

Do people go into a convient store with a car to rob it?
yes they do... I've seen several video's of criminals crashing into convenience stores to grab atm's or cash registers and then drive off.

But that's not the point of my post. You were using a traumatic experience to justify banning handguns. I used a traumatic experience to facitiously justify banning cars.

If you want to talk about using firearms in the commission of crimes, wouldn't it make much more sense to enforce the laws already on the books and punish the criminials for the actions they commit? Instead you are punnishing law abiding citizens for crimes that other people commit. How does that make any sense?

Do people go into a convient store with a car to rob it?

And that's an illegal use. Should all 86 million + legal handguns be banned because of the actions of those few who odds are didn't legally own it in the first place? What about the hundreds of thousands of times/year a handgun is used to prevent a crime? Like in said convienence stores?

Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.

One day a group of sheep, more bold than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one dog and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!"

One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them and cried "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!

The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out "Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things! You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried, "We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"

"Baaaaaaaddd!", cried the flock,"the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock. They scare us!". So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.

In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return. Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaaddddd! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you from our presence!".

And so they did. The great chief sheep and his court and council, encouraged by the words of their moneylenders and advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!". But the flock would not hear, and drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!".

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!".

That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!". And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter. It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, vowing to each other to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.

In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!". But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaadddd! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaaddd!". The other sheep could only hang their heads and sigh. The flock had forgotten that even they possessed teeth; how else could they graze the grasses of the pasture? It was only those who preyed, like the wolves and jackals, who turned their teeth to evil ends. If you pulled their own fangs those beasts would take another's teeth and claws, perhaps even the broad flat teeth of sheep, and turn them to evil purposes.

The bold sheep knew that the fangs and claws they possessed had not changed them. They still grazed like other sheep, and raised their lambs in the spring, and greeted their friend the dog as he walked among them. But they could not quell the terror of the flock, which rose in them like some ancient dark smoky spirit and could not be damped by reason, nor dispelled by the light of day.

So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.

They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!

And yet not everyone agrees with that opinion--there are at least three major schools of thought in terms of Constitutional interpretation. Originalism, Textualism, and a third I can't quite remember just yet but I believe is a combination of the two (which generally means that the judge goes with the one he agrees with for that case). But so much of constitutional interpretation depends on how you're coming at it in the first place, and there's a lot of argument over it, and the end result is a variety in opinions over how the text should be interpreted. And because the text is vague, there's room for legitimate arguments over how it should be interpreted.

And I haven't even gotten into how judges have to deal with prior care law on the subject when making decisions. It's way more complex than people like DM or Adam the Batlord want to act like it is. They want simple answers--well sorry, but the world doesn't work that way.

Oh, sure, there's few simple answers in the world. However, the majority of the anti-gun arguements are based on historical innaccuracies and emotional arguements. The FF's clearly stated what they meant by firearm ownership even if they didn't directly state "All LAC's should be able to own guns" in the BOR. That's not saying the "pro-gun" side is innocent of it either but...

An interesting point is that most of the "anti-gun" cases that have come about use US v Miller as their justification. If you actually read the arguements and the facts of the case, it was pathetically weak on the prosecutors side and the justifications that judges used. There wasn't even a defendant present.

It should be interesting to see how the current SCOTUS will rule on the next 2nd case to come before it. A new precedent perhaps?

Oh, sure, there's few simple answers in the world. However, the majority of the anti-gun arguements are based on historical innaccuracies and emotional arguements. The FF's clearly stated what they meant by firearm ownership even if they didn't directly state "All LAC's should be able to own guns" in the BOR. That's not saying the "pro-gun" side is innocent of it either but...

An interesting point is that most of the "anti-gun" cases that have come about use US v Miller as their justification. If you actually read the arguements and the facts of the case, it was pathetically weak on the prosecutors side and the justifications that judges used. There wasn't even a defendant present.

It should be interesting to see how the current SCOTUS will rule on the next 2nd case to come before it. A new precedent perhaps?
Personally, I'm for state regulation, because I'm pragmatic about it. A one-size-fits-all plan for gun control is guaranteed to fail. But frankly, when it comes to issues like this, I don't much care what the Framers had to say on the issue outside the Constitution because that world doesn't exist anymore. I think we have to work with what the language means today, not what it meant in 1790. Otherwise, someone could make a legitimate argument that, say, ownership of multi-shot semi-automatic rifles isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment because they didn't exist when the Framers wrote the word "Arms" there. (If they did exist, forgive me--not so great on the history of munitions--the illustration still stands.)

As to counting on SCOTUS for a new precedent, I wouldn't hold my breath. Like I said earlier in this thread, the two parties have reached a truce of sorts on this issue, the demonizing of Kennedy et al notwithstanding. The NRA won the last major battle when they kept the assault weapons ban from being repealed. And frankly, if it stays a state issue, which is what the NRA wants, I can live with that. I'd like a waiting period for all purchases, or at least a background check even for gun show purchases, and that would have to be federal, but that's about all.

and where does the constitution say that handguns, the main weapon used in gun related accidents and deaths, are protected? it just says "the right to bear arms" That could be anything really, depending on who inteprets it.

Whatever you can carry, pretty much, with the exception of ordnance. asault rifle? Yes. Mortar? maaaybe.....50cal rifle? Yep. 122 mm cannon? Nope.

To better shed light on many of the points brought up, here are quotes from the founding fathers on this issue (I'll get to other arguments later; it's 1 a.m. here and I'm tired):

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
-Thomas Paine.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-Patrick Henry.

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
-Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..."
-John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms."
-Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

-Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America."
-Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

A few more points:

-The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

-Another main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to garantee that citizens had a way to keep the government from getting too much power, and revolt if need be.

-As far as the infamous comma goes, both the U.S. Senate Journal and the Annals of Congress show the final version of the Second Amendment as not containing this comma. On September 25, 1789, the completed Bill of Rights was written to parchment by a House scribe. In this version, now held by the National Archives, the comma was inserted. All other surviving original texts of the Bill of Rights, including the copies sent to the states for ratification, do not contain the comma.

Once again, I'm tired. I'll address other arguments later.

I thought the constitution was fairly clear on this fact. They can't ban guns.


lol, daft constitution then.

How does it get pissed on? In case you havent noticied GW Bush is our President and everything he does is to protect the consitution.

Um, have you even LOOKED at the news over the past five years? GWB has STOMPED all over the Constitution of the US.

Latest--no warrants for wire tapping....ring a bell??? Just because he's not stomping on the Amendments you care about doesn't mean he's not breaking laws left and right.

I'm one of the most pro-gun folk on the list, and I'm happy that those populace-controlling, elitist, wanna-be-ruler nut-jobs in SF had this knocked down, but don't try to tell me that Bush is not fucking with the Constitution.

Personally, I'm for state regulation, because I'm pragmatic about it. A one-size-fits-all plan for gun control is guaranteed to fail. But frankly, when it comes to issues like this, I don't much care what the Framers had to say on the issue outside the Constitution because that world doesn't exist anymore. I think we have to work with what the language means today, not what it meant in 1790. Otherwise, someone could make a legitimate argument that, say, ownership of multi-shot semi-automatic rifles isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment because they didn't exist when the Framers wrote the word "Arms" there. (If they did exist, forgive me--not so great on the history of munitions--the illustration still stands.)

I think it's a mix of the two. For example: what did they mean by " regulated militia" would be effectively the same as it would be today. However, "ordinance" has gotten smaller and more effective but would they consider a mounted grenade launcher "ordinance or man portable arms"? Going by the tech of the time is ussually not a good arguement for the restriction especially when comparisons can be made to speech and the communications revolution we're experiencing today. "Could the Framers have imagined a world where nearly every person was connected at the click of a button?"

As to counting on SCOTUS for a new precedent, I wouldn't hold my breath. Like I said earlier in this thread, the two parties have reached a truce of sorts on this issue, the demonizing of Kennedy et al notwithstanding. The NRA won the last major battle when they kept the assault weapons ban from being repealed. And frankly, if it stays a state issue, which is what the NRA wants, I can live with that. I'd like a waiting period for all purchases, or at least a background check even for gun show purchases, and that would have to be federal, but that's about all.

I don't agree w/ the waiting period but agree w/ the addition of private firearm purchases at shows having a background check. The NICS system is federal.

The reason there has been contention about closing the "gun show loophole" is that the push has been to have ALL dealers at shows be required to have firearm dealer licenses (not cheap) and all purchases go through checks. This includes dealers that don't deal in firearms (actually the majority at shows), individuals making private sales (although they can use the NICS system), and all products. It's one of those details that aren't announced to make the advocates seem like gun nut extremists when they oppose it like the "assault weapon" switch.

Um, have you even LOOKED at the news over the past five years? GWB has STOMPED all over the Constitution of the US.

Latest--no warrants for wire tapping....ring a bell??? Just because he's not stomping on the Amendments you care about doesn't mean he's not breaking laws left and right.

I'm one of the most pro-gun folk on the list, and I'm happy that those populace-controlling, elitist, wanna-be-ruler nut-jobs in SF had this knocked down, but don't try to tell me that Bush is not fucking with the Constitution.


Zax, these people haven't noticed that Democrats have stomped all over the 10th Amendment, so meh.

Zax, these people haven't noticed that Democrats have stomped all over the 10th Amendment, so meh.

Yup, you're most certainly correct.

Republicrat government--controlling all around. Joy. :mad:

Most US states now have concealed carry permits on a "shall issue" basis.

You're living in a US where if you tried to overturn that, you would be touching the third rail.

I'm not saying overturn that. I'm saying that my friend who has a concealed carry permit is not welcome in my home. He has the right to carry that gun. I have the right to say the gun won't come in my home.

Yup, you're most certainly correct.

Republicrat government--controlling all around. Joy. :mad:

That's the thing that bothers me.

Republicans run on a platform designed to appeal to people who want more individual rights - but they're willing to ban abortion, curb free speech through big brother methods, etc. But you can have your guns.

Democrats run on a platform designed to appeal to people who want more rights for the "common" man - but they're willing to ban guns, curb free speech through political correctness intimidation, etc. But you can get an abortion.

Neither are consistent, and given that neither has a truly solid political philosophy, it's hard to make a decision on either party except by specific issues that appeal to you.

Not much of a choice.

I'm not saying overturn that. I'm saying that my friend who has a concealed carry permit is not welcome in my home. He has the right to carry that gun. I have the right to say the gun won't come in my home.

You most certainly do--just as any buisiness should have the right to say if weapons are permitted on the premises.

But that opens up the "public" smoking ban issue. :D Which laws does an individual get to make regarding their property?

That's the thing that bothers me.

Republicans run on a platform designed to appeal to people who want more individual rights - but they're willing to ban abortion, curb free speech through big brother methods, etc. But you can have your guns.

Democrats run on a platform designed to appeal to people who want more rights for the "common" man - but they're willing to ban guns, curb free speech through political correctness intimidation, etc. But you can get an abortion.

Neither are consistent, and given that neither has a truly solid political philosophy, it's hard to make a decision on either party except by specific issues that appeal to you.

Not much of a choice.

Hence my sig line....there is just too much hypocrisy in the "big two" parties to give them any sort of credibility in any sense.

I'm not saying overturn that. I'm saying that my friend who has a concealed carry permit is not welcome in my home. He has the right to carry that gun. I have the right to say the gun won't come in my home.

You most certainly do and I support that decision on your part.

You most certainly do--just as any buisiness should have the right to say if weapons are permitted on the premises.

But that opens up the "public" smoking ban issue. :D Which laws does an individual get to make regarding their property?

In Virginia, if you're a store owner or restaurant owner, you can't prevent someone from entering who is carrying openly, or carrying concealed with a carry permit.

If you do attempt to throw them out, a call to the police will get the store owner lectured on the law.

But that opens up the "public" smoking ban issue. :D Which laws does an individual get to make regarding their property?

It's different. A gun, that doesn't go off, can harm nobody. A lit cigarette, by its very nature, is harmful to the employees of (indoor) public places. To me, that's why all (indoor) public places should be non-smoking. Outdoors, bans/restrictions are ludicrous - except in the case of "You may not smoke in front of the only door that leads into the property." You can smoke outside, as long as you are not forcing those who enter to walk through your smoke.

In Virginia, if you're a store owner or restaurant owner, you can't prevent someone from entering who is carrying openly, or carrying concealed with a carry permit.

If you do attempt to throw them out, a call to the police will get the store owner lectured on the law.

See, while I like the idea of my right to carry to not be infringed by anyone, I can't agree with that law, from a philisophical standpoint, on restricting that business owner's right to control their property.

Unfortunately, with individual freedom, comes loss of certain controls, if you don't own everything.

I'd just have to boycott the particular businesses that didn't want my money.

In Virginia, if you're a store owner or restaurant owner, you can't prevent someone from entering who is carrying openly, or carrying concealed with a carry permit.

If you do attempt to throw them out, a call to the police will get the store owner lectured on the law.

In PA, firearms aren't allowed in any business that serves alcohol, regardless of the permit. Only police are allowed to carry guns into a restaurant with a liquor license - unless I'm not remembering the ordinances correctly.

Interesting that the laws are so different...

In PA, firearms aren't allowed in any business that serves alcohol, regardless of the permit. Only police are allowed to carry guns into a restaurant with a liquor license - unless I'm not remembering the ordinances correctly.

Interesting that the laws are so different...

I believe you are indeed correct.

In PA, firearms aren't allowed in any business that serves alcohol, regardless of the permit. Only police are allowed to carry guns into a restaurant with a liquor license - unless I'm not remembering the ordinances correctly.

Interesting that the laws are so different...

Now go to Illinois where the only people that have CCW are King Dick's political cronies while he violates federal law by preventing retired LEO's from having them.

I believe you are indeed correct.

I've been a restaurant manager for years (although I'm in Accounting now) and my husband is a chef. We've heard it over and over, but I'm not sure either of us has ever seen the actual ordinance - just been told by our employer(s) that it was the law. So, it's possible that we were taking their word on it when they weren't completely honest or accurate...

Either way, if it was company policy we were going to uphold it until we were informed, by law enforcement, that we were mistaken and that we couldn't legally enforce said policy...

It's different. A gun, that doesn't go off, can harm nobody. A lit cigarette, by its very nature, is harmful to the employees of (indoor) public places. To me, that's why all (indoor) public places should be non-smoking. Outdoors, bans/restrictions are ludicrous - except in the case of "You may not smoke in front of the only door that leads into the property." You can smoke outside, as long as you are not forcing those who enter to walk through your smoke.

It is NOT different--not in any way. A restaurant owned by a person is not public. Not in any sense. Only those places that we pay taxes for (like government buildings, parks, etc.) have any claim to be "public"--that includes anything outdoors that is owned by the government.

Employees have the same choices (whether people wish to see fact or not) as a customer has. Work there (shop there) or go someplace else. That's what freedom is. If the employees don't like the smoke--work someplace else. Yes, it may be for less money, but that doesn't give anyone the right to stomp on someone else's property rights. It belongs to the owner, and therefore, their decision to allow smoking or not.

Why not ban smoking outdoors on government property? Sidewalks and streets are generally owned by the municipality (due to taxes that were used to put them in)--there's the only place you COULD rationally ban smoking--where the government owns the property.

In PA, firearms aren't allowed in any business that serves alcohol, regardless of the permit. Only police are allowed to carry guns into a restaurant with a liquor license - unless I'm not remembering the ordinances correctly.

Interesting that the laws are so different...
That's the variation from state to state.

The only restriction on where you can carry is a Federal one - not in schools, hospitals, places of worship, or Federal buildings.

It is NOT different--not in any way. A restaurant owned by a person is not public. Not in any sense. Only those places that we pay taxes for (like government buildings, parks, etc.) have any claim to be "public"--that includes anything outdoors that is owned by the government.

Employees have the same choices (whether people wish to see fact or not) as a customer has. Work there (shop there) or go someplace else. That's what freedom is. If the employees don't like the smoke--work someplace else. Yes, it may be for less money, but that doesn't give anyone the right to stomp on someone else's property rights. It belongs to the owner, and therefore, their decision to allow smoking or not.

Why not ban smoking outdoors on government property? Sidewalks and streets are generally owned by the municipality (due to taxes that were used to put them in)--there's the only place you COULD rationally ban smoking--where the government owns the property.
In fact, if I were to own a restaurant, I would give a discount to anyone that would produce a CCW permit and weapon. I keep thinking of the Lubys massacre in Texas that would have been avoided, had the owners allowed concealed weapons to be carried into the restaurant.

Laws in Virginia:

* No person shall carry a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in §4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia, nothing herein shall prohibit any owner or event sponsor or his employees from carrying a concealed handgun while on duty at such restaurant or club if such person has a concealed handgun permit. NOTE: only concealed handguns are prohibited - openly carried handguns are allowed
* Private property when prohibited by the owner of the property, or where posted as prohibited. Violation is a trespass charge and not a firearms violation
* Carrying dangerous weapon to place of religious worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held unless you have "good and sufficient reason." There is no known definition of what a good and sufficient reason would be. Violation is a minor crime, punishible by a fine of up to $100.
* Courthouse. Violation is a high-level misdemeanor
* School property/school functions unless gun is unloaded, in an enclosed container (but NOT in the glove box or console) and in the vehicle. A car's trunk is considered an enclosed container. However, a concealed handgun permit holder can have a loaded, concealed handgun in the vehicle while in the school parking lot, traffic circle, etc. The concealed handgun and the permit holder must stay in the vehicle. Firearms are not banned from property open to the public where a school function is being held unless that property is being used exclusively for the school function. Violation of this statute is a felony
* Virginia Commonwealth University (8VAC90-10-50). Violation is a trespass charge
* Non-secure areas of airport terminals are off limits unless you are a passenger and you have your gun unloaded, in a locked container in your checked luggage, and declare the gun at the check-in counter. Violation is a high-level misdemeanor.

Employees have the same choices (whether people wish to see fact or not) as a customer has. Work there (shop there) or go someplace else. That's what freedom is. If the employees don't like the smoke--work someplace else. Yes, it may be for less money, but that doesn't give anyone the right to stomp on someone else's property rights. It belongs to the owner, and therefore, their decision to allow smoking or not.


Obviously, that has been determined to be legally untrue.. Restaurants are basically the last "public" place that still allow smoking. It's been legally banned in office buildings, in hospitals, in malls. All of which are privately owned, but legal stipulations ban smoking, not property owners. If those bans are legal, smoking ought to be banned in restaurants.

If smoking should be legal in restaurants, then smoking should be allowed in all of those places, too. There is no difference.

Obviously, that has been determined to be legally untrue.. Restaurants are basically the last "public" place that still allow smoking. It's been legally banned in office buildings, in hospitals, in malls. All of which are privately owned, but legal stipulations ban smoking, not property owners. If those bans are legal, smoking ought to be banned in restaurants.

If smoking should be legal in restaurants, then smoking should be allowed in all of those places, too. There is no difference.

Is it legally banned in all office buildings? Or is that just a PA law? I don't really know. And they really aren't public places--I just used the quotes to point that out, so let's stop calling them that. If it is federal, then that's still wrong to do--they're privately owned pieces of property, and the decision should still rest with the owners. Just because it's already done, doesn't make it right. That's not enough reason to "just get it over with".

I agree, smoking should be allowed, if the owner wants it.

Is it legally banned in all office buildings? Or is that just a PA law? I don't really know. And they really aren't public places--I just used the quotes to point that out, so let's stop calling them that. If it is federal, then that's still wrong to do--they're privately owned pieces of property, and the decision should still rest with the owners. Just because it's already done, doesn't make it right. That's not enough reason to "just get it over with".

I agree, smoking should be allowed, if the owner wants it.

I'm pretty sure it isn't a state law. I'm pretty sure whatever decisions have determined it are federal, although I could be mistaken.

I do agree that "just because it is already done" doesn't make it right - although I'd argue that since it is already done so often there has to be a reason. I could be wrong in my argument, but obviously some court or legislature somewhere has made a convincing argument that it should be banned.

If that argument is valid, then restaurants ought to fall under the ban. (FWIW, you and I aren't on the same side of this - I think it ought to be banned in all of those places.) My point is just that restaurants ought not be a special case. If the argument stands for malls, office buildings, etc... then it stands for bars and restaurants. If it does not, then make smoking legal everywhere, even though I would prefer a ban...

People will always try to find ways around the contitution and impose their will on others. I don't see how, without a constitutional amendment, anybody can severely restrict gun ownership.

oh, but we don't have to change the Constitution with amendments, because it's a living document.

All we have to do is bend it a bit to suit our purposes. rofl

I'm pretty sure it isn't a state law. I'm pretty sure whatever decisions have determined it are federal, although I could be mistaken.

I do agree that "just because it is already done" doesn't make it right - although I'd argue that since it is already done so often there has to be a reason. I could be wrong in my argument, but obviously some court or legislature somewhere has made a convincing argument that it should be banned.

If that argument is valid, then restaurants ought to fall under the ban. (FWIW, you and I aren't on the same side of this - I think it ought to be banned in all of those places.) My point is just that restaurants ought not be a special case. If the argument stands for malls, office buildings, etc... then it stands for bars and restaurants. If it does not, then make smoking legal everywhere, even though I would prefer a ban...

Yeah, I know we're not on the same side, I was just saying that it should be all or nothing (like what you were saying)--but in my case the nothing, rather than the all. :D

Unfortunately, those that want to control the behavior of others did some kind of convincing to allow at least some bans. It's never made any logical sense how they could get to this controlling nature from our founding documents and laws.

Anyway, back to guns! Yay!

I'm pretty sure it isn't a state law. I'm pretty sure whatever decisions have determined it are federal, although I could be mistaken.

I do agree that "just because it is already done" doesn't make it right - although I'd argue that since it is already done so often there has to be a reason. I could be wrong in my argument, but obviously some court or legislature somewhere has made a convincing argument that it should be banned.

If that argument is valid, then restaurants ought to fall under the ban. (FWIW, you and I aren't on the same side of this - I think it ought to be banned in all of those places.) My point is just that restaurants ought not be a special case. If the argument stands for malls, office buildings, etc... then it stands for bars and restaurants. If it does not, then make smoking legal everywhere, even though I would prefer a ban...
It's never made sense to me that the government was able to ban smoking in places that are privately owned. This seems like a case of too much governmental power interfering with the rights of private citizens. I agree that restaurants should not be a "special case," because I think the government ought not to be able to ban smoking in any privately-owned place of business.