Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Note to readers and a heads up
Next Post: Will they keep him or dump him?
Posted in:
* The Sun-Times editorial today suggests passing four federal gun control laws in response to the recent US Supreme Court ruling…
• • The gun show loophole: Congress needs to close a legal loophole in many states that allows people at gun shows or flea markets to peddle their weapons without conducting background checks on potential buyers. Illinois has closed the loophole partly, but not entirely. In this state, gun show vendors must do background checks, but a person who simply sells a gun to a guy in the neighborhood or to someone answering an ad does not have to do a background check. […]
• • Gun store employee background checks: Of course, felons can’t have guns. But right now, there’s no federal requirement that gun dealers perform felony background checks on their employees — a step that even a gun industry association endorses. […]
• • One gun a month: Illinois lawmakers repeatedly have rejected proposals to limit gun sales to one a month per person. Putting aside fears of creeping over-regulation, there’s just no excuse for rejecting such a limit. The proposed limit is aimed at gun traffickers who buy multiple weapons and resell them to criminals.
• • Lower the volume: State lawmakers also have refused to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines — ones that hold more than 10 rounds.
Such a ban would do nothing to prohibit a homeowner from defending himself against a burglar.
Thoughts?
* Related…
* Victims, survivors show need for more gun control
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:37 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Note to readers and a heads up
Next Post: Will they keep him or dump him?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m not really clear on the “one a month” rule.
While it goes after people who buy to re-sell to felons, it would also seem to do a lot of damage to real collectors.
I would suspect that gun collectors would buy guns like I buy wine — a few times a year at auction. In order to prevent a few bad guys from getting guns, a lot of people who should have guns (people who are genuinely enthused about guns, gun history, etc. and who are more likely to be responsible owners) are going to suffer the harm.
Comment by Dr. Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:48 am
— One gun a month. I guess I have a couple of issues with this. If someone wants to buy someones gun collection (yes people do collect guns) would he be out of luck.
High-Capacity magazines. Do people actually use these in crimes? I would agree you don’t need 10 rounds to protect yourself. But I would like to know if this actually going to address a problem.
Comment by OneManBlog Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:49 am
At first glace I hoped “lowering the volume” would address a strict dB limit on the gunshot. I know sometimes it can be hard to sleep in the city…
Comment by Learning the Ropes Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:53 am
The first two seem more than reasonable. The last two, not so much. If we’re worried about legit collectors being harmed, let’s make it a finite number per year, rather than per month, eh?
Comment by The Doc Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:11 am
As a city guy I have to ask: How many gun collectors are out there really? and if you aren’t a gun collector, why would you NEED to buy more than one gun per month, did you break your other one?
Comment by HV in HP Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:20 am
They just can’t help wanting to regulate things to death! States that have very liberal gun laws have the lowest amounts of gun crime. A thug thinks twice when his victim might be armed,he thinks twice when that store clerk might shoot back. In Chicago only the crooks and cops have guns. The only way you will make gun control work is a shoot on site law that says if you have a gun where it is illegal the cops can open fire!
Comment by nieva Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:20 am
We run into the states rights buzz saw with this proposal. It seems obvious that the gun control legislation needs to be different in Alaska and Florida.
I have no problem with background checks as long as the government provides a simple system which can be accessed by anyone at a reasonable cost. e.g. if I am a seller of an individual gun, then the buyer must provide me the needed information I can put into a web site, or call a phone number. I then must receive some sort of document which confirms the check was done and the result was satisfactory.
The second item troubles me. I accept that a felon cannot own a gun, but am troubled that they would be restricted from having a job. Is it currently illegal for a felon who has completed their sentence and/or is on probation to work in a gun shop?
The last two items are from the playlist of those who want to ban guns completely and are there just to make the the editors and lawmakers look like they are doing something.
The vast majority of the gun violence comes from the criminal enterprises dealing with drugs and vice. (kind of like it was in the days of prohibition). They have no access to the legal system to handle their ‘business disputes’ so the handle it on their own. Unfortunately innocents are caught in the crossfire. (or the bad aim)
All the gun laws do is penalize the plain individual who follows the current and future regulations. The criminal class currently operates outside the law and will not change their behavior regardless of what laws are passed.
Our local police chief is a great gun control proponent, but has his head in the sand about local gang activity and no one is pressing for more proactive policing. I guess it will take a number of tragedies to get some action here.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:25 am
A private sale of a firearm in Illinois still requires the buyer produce a valid firearms owner ID card and the seller to keep a record of purchaser information for 10 years. There is no private sale loophole.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:28 am
HV in HP
Do you own more than one car?
Comment by Leave a light on George Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:31 am
Just enforce the laws already on the books….too many restrictions already, and one size doesn’t fit all.
Comment by Ultra50k Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:32 am
All gun control laws should be repealed. The 2nd Amendment states that the right “shall not be infringed.” Each state government should pass tougher laws, with longer prison terms, for criminals who use guns. More of those violent criminals should stay in prison for their full sentences, without parole or time off for good behavior.
Comment by PhilCollins Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:39 am
What does 1 per month prevent? Still can be gotten around with 1 per month at different dealers OR grab 10 friends and you have 10 guns. Why not 1 per year or 1 per day? To really regulate this [national database of gun owners?] would be very difficult.
High capacity magazines: look at all of the homicides in Chicago by gun…. most of these are over with within 3 shots and 2 seconds. While it FEELS good to ban something [magazines, guns, AK-47s etc] it does nothing to address the problem: bad behavior, lack of accountability. CPD Richard Francis is dead today, due not to any illegal gun or high capacity magazine, but due to a malcontent who didn’t hesitate to kill a police officer. 1 per month had nothing to do with it.
Treat guns the same as vehicles: before you can drive one, you need to go through education, testing and apply for a license to use. IF IF one is in violation of ANY gun law, send him/her away for 10 years minimum. Unlicensed and USE a good in commission of a crime? 15 years minimum…. go up from there. No parole, no time off, no day-for-day. If done correctly, those who would do harm with guns will be off the streets.
Comment by North of I-80 Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:42 am
Guns don;t kill people, bullets do. It’s just the guns which make the bullets go really really fast. Thus we need to outlaw bullets
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:55 am
high capacity is to reduce drive-by shootings. Often, when you hear about some little kid getting gunned down on the west or south side, its because of a drive by.
If a gun runner gets ten friends to buy ten guns a month, that’s ten “friends” he has to cut in on his action. Yeah, that’s gonna happen. With a law like that, then a lot of gun traffickers will go out of business. You’ll have to cross state lines in order to buy a lot of weapons at once, which ups the risk factor.
Felons as gun shop employees. Well, for starters, a gun shop would be stupid to employ a felon.
Unfortunately, I don’t think a requirement to make someone do a background check when selling a weapon to a person in the ‘hood is going to dampen those sales. But, it creates an opportunity to prosecute the guy who sold a gun to the crook who uses it to kill someone. As far as background checks go, there should be a website through the State police or something similar to enable people to perform the check.
Comment by jerry 101 Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:55 am
Hey Phil Collins,
Take another look at that Amendment. It says “keep and bear.” It says nothing about “own.”
If you are going to go by a “strict construction”, then the feds would have the full authority to ban ownership. People could “keep” and “bear” guns owned by the government, but couldn’t own guns.
Despite the rantings of the Scalia-ites, this issue is far from simple. Anybody with any integrity should acknowledge that the issue is far from clear.
Comment by Dr. Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:58 am
Following up on my last post, I happen to think that the 2nd Amendment has a a PENUMBRA that includes “own” (i.e. in order for the amendment to make sense, you need to read “own” into it).
But I admit, I sometimes favor an activist court. How do the Scalia-ites get past the lack of the word “own”, since they don’t like activists?
Comment by Dr. Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:00 pm
Ghost: it’s index fingers that squeeze the triggers. Ban all index fingers [or ban hands with more than 1 finger per month; or high-capacity hands with more than 2 fingers].
Comment by North of I-80 Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:00 pm
Skeeter, its simple, let everyone keep and bear a black powder pistol or musket, all with unrifled barrels. These are the arms our forefathers would have in mind when they drafted the provision.
it would make the pace of a drive by shooting very slow if you have to stop and repack your weapon after each shot…. now we may see a rise in sabre and bayonet injuries.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:02 pm
Allowing private citizens to conduct background checks on other private citizens bothers me somehow. But, I might not have a problem with it if it is tightly controlled to prevent abuse. The problem with past bills designed to close the supposed “gun show loophole” have always included a lot of other junk like licensing, registration, etc. That’s why they are so vehemently opposed.
Most gun dealers I know require employees to have FOID cards. Can’t get a FOID if you are a prohibited person.
One gun a month schemes are bad public policy. Where else does a government impose rationing? As it stands, the government confiscates about half my salary through taxes. What business do they have telling me what I can do with what is left over?
One cannot legally buy guns until they are 18. The actuaries say that we live to 77 years of age on average. Under a one gun a month scheme, one could buy 708 guns in their lifetime. If these bills were entitled “708 Guns Per Lifetime,” they wouldn’t be so popular.
Regulating magazine capacity is pointless. The 11th round won’t kill you any deader than the 10th. Besides, the #1 murder weapon in Chicago is the good ol’ .38 revolver, which has a capacity of 6 rounds.
The gun-grabbers should just give it up once and for all.
Comment by Frosty Da Snowman Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:09 pm
Frosty, first the current background check is just a thumbs up or thumbs down from the hotline the dealer calls with the buyers info. So no personal info outside of identifying info.
Second, “Can’t get a FOID if you are a prohibited person.” this is not completly accurate. There is a loophole in the State law which allows persons who are prohibited under federal law from haviung guns to get a FOID card. under federal law if you are convicted of a domestic battery offense you can not own a gun or ammunition. Under the FOID law if you are convicted of such and offense you can ask the States Attorney to agree to let you have a FOID card; and this requires the ISP to issue you a foid card despite you being a prohibited person under federal law.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:40 pm
It is perfectly fine for citizens to do what they believe needs to be done to reduce crime in their communities. What happened last week was the demand that when citizens do this, they must not step on their own rights.
What we have witnessed has been attempts to fight crime by fighting the Second Amendment. The bottom line is that this shouldn’t be necessary. Everyone opposes crime. What we need to do now is to respect one another in our attempts to fight crime.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:53 pm
Ghost –
you must not have read the decision. As the court said that the First Amendment applied to modern communications, so does the Second. After all, they founding fathers never thought of tv, radio or the internet.
The court said your lineof thinking is wrong.
This decision is far from being the end of the topic. it is just the beginning. but look at the fact that two towns have already suspended their gun bans. the so called assualt weapons bans are now toast.
the antis will be left with crumbs from the table.
todd
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:09 pm
You can’t merely require only weapons of the period, that’s absurd. The 1st amendment does not protect only a hand or foot-powered manual press.
Licenses and tests: Tests will be found unconstitutional, as are poll tests. Fees for licensing and registration will also be found to be unconstitutional, like a poll tax.
I have a voter registration card, it cost me nothing. If I forget to carry it, or lose it, it’s no big deal. Compare that to the FOID card, both cards are “required” in order to exercise the respective right…
Have the guns with an expired FOID, or without your card, you’re a felon.
Comment by naive mw Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:10 pm
Skeeter, doesn’t the term “keep” in “keep and bear” imply that you get to, um, keep the gun? In other words, the 2A says you can both “keep” (i.e., own) AND “bear” arms. How else do you define the term “keep”?
Comment by another progunner Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:12 pm
Todd,
Really? You think assault weapons bans are gone?
And you claim to have read the opinion?
You might want to read it again, since Scalia is pretty clear that assault weapons bans might well survive. Moreover, the opinion states clearly that the 2A only applies to the feds.
Maybe the gun flacks read but don’t understand. That’s the way the gun lobby likes things. Ignorance is bliss.
Comment by Dr. Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:15 pm
In any case, the Sun-Times’ wish list will remain just that - a wish list.
Hey, anyone hear about the big rally the gun guys are having at the Thompson Center on the 11th of July? Is it true?
Comment by Frosty Da Snowman Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:15 pm
Well, as one of those “collector” types, the one/month thing doesn’t bther me so much as not make any real sense… Not a whole lot of the things I collect hitting the market, but should a few at a time hit… Eh.
I am more concerned about the whole 10 round limit on magazines. If they do this, will police be also limited? You read about things like the NYPD shooting an unarmed individual something like 80 times, makes me a bit nervious with the demonstrated lack of fire control there…
Comment by pchappel Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:21 pm
“another progunner”,
I often “keep” a laptop computer that belongs to my employer. I don’t own it.
Read a dictionary definition of “keep.” There are many uses of the word that do not necessarily mean “own.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/keep
Comment by Dr. Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:32 pm
“There is a loophole in the State law which allows persons who are prohibited under federal law from haviung guns to get a FOID card.”
That’s not really a loophole. It’s called a process by which one can show they made a mistake once in their life, have been a good citizen for many years, and would like to have their right to own a gun restored. The state can look at the evidence, and either approve the restoration, or deny the request. The feds have a similar process, although it currently does not operate due to lack of funding. I don’t see a problem with a 40-year-old who has spent the last 20 years as an upstanding citizen getting his right to own a gun restored. Just because he made a mistake when he was 20 (and I’m not talking about murder or armed robbery, I’m talking about relatively bland stuff, like geting busted with a bag of weed) shouldn’t mean he has to lose a right and be defenseless for the rest of his life.
Comment by another progunner Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:41 pm
I’m a 20 year police veteran. I share the views of most police officers. Police ADMINISTRATORS who have politically sensitive jobs often espouse these laws as crime reducing, but at least some of those administrators have personal beliefs that conflict with their public position.
It is my opinion that the four proposals above, especially magazine capacity restrictions, have no effect on crime. What they DO tend to affect is law abiding citizens incorrect perception that law enforcement as a whole support them and their perception that police are against legal gun ownership. I have witnessed first hand the resentment that I as a police officer could own a 15 round magazine when they could not. That resentment makes it harder to do my job and it increases the growing wall between law enforcement officers and the public.
I’m just going to throw out some observations in random here from my perspective as a street cop and gun owner-
Gun laws don’t work with criminals. Criminals ignore laws. Laws regarding felons in possession of firearms, possessing a firearm while committing a crime have real teeth. We have very good laws dealing with criminals who use guns. Use them. It is said that a small percentage of criminals are responsible for most of the crime. I agree. Put them in prison whenever you can and you will reduce violent crime.
Plutocrat is right. Gun violence and drug violence are tied together. Drug enforcement units seize illegal guns. People who commit drug felonies use guns. Putting these people in prison without making excuses for their behavior is a necessity. (Don’t even bring up the legalization argument here. I don’t believe in it and won’t discuss it today.)
I don’t believe that high cap mags affect drive by shootings. Bear with me here- you won’t hear this anywhere but from a cop- Most drive by’s are committed with low quality rusty handguns that jam before the deed is complete- Secondly, and here is a big one, I cannot remember EVER seizing an illegally possessed weapon from a felon or crime scene with a full magazine. Even when more ammo is available. I don’t know why. The high cap mags are about half full of a hodge podge of junky ammo. Now when I’ve come across legally possessed pistols by non-felons, they are fully stoked, cared for in good condition and often high in quality.
I could (but won’t here) suggest a much more deadly weapon for drive by shootings and it is a very common hunting gun that is available in every hunting sporting goods store in this country. It has none of the characteristics of the banned weapons and it will fill the gap nicely (or better) if the assault weapon ban comes back or handguns are banned.
Speaking of the assault weapon ban- No one wanted an AR-15 until they were banned. The ban created a manufacturing industry in western Illinois where many very reputable manufacturers exist.
I have never seen an “assault weapon” used in a crime. Ever.
A law limiting gun purchases to one per month would only inconvenience the law abiding. By the way, “gun runners” don’t buy guns in Illinois, they buy them in places like Mississippi so again, it would have no affect on crime, so there is no purpose for the law.
When Florida passed concealed carry, I thought it would create a bloodbath. It didn’t happen. I was wrong. I support a concealed carry it the form it has been created in many states.
Let law enforcement do our jobs. Enforce the laws we have. Quit giving thugs second chances, put them in prison. Like someone else said, just enforce the laws we already have.
The laws are not the weak link in the system. It’s lack of cops and lack of will by lenient judges.
Comment by I'm Anonymous! Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:05 pm
Skeeter,
The first four applicable definitions (2a,b,c,and d) clearly imply the person “keeping” must retain possession. And anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the ruling would understand that “keep,” in this context, means own. If you have a right to “keep” something, how is that a right if the government can simply say you cannot have it right now? Or are you saying the government cannot forbid you from possessing it whenever you want, but you do not, in fact, have true ownership. Your viewpoint defies logic. In fact, the ruling states, in part, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm….” The ruling uses the word “possess,” which is defined, in my dictionary, as “to have property; own.” It’s pretty clear what this court thinks about the term “keep,” in spite of your weak attempt to make a silly argument.
Comment by another progunner Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:07 pm
Another, you missed that whole thing about the gun ownership being illegal under federal law even with the FOID card. My point was not discussing the pros and cons of wife beaters getting their buddy in the States Attorney Office to get help them get their guns, my point was that it is still against federal law for them to have a gun or amunition. Therefore the FOID card does not indicate a person who can lawfully have the gun as a means of screening. FOID cards can be issued under IL law to people who may not legally own guns or amunition. Thus it is a loophole that Illinois issues a FOID card to somone who can not lawfully own a gun.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:19 pm
From todays Quad City Times:
Nicholas T. Sheley used an ax in at least some of the eight murders he allegedly committed over five days in Missouri and Illinois.
He faces charges in the death of Ronald Randall, 65, whose body was found Monday behind a grocery store in Galesburg, in northwestern Illinois, police said.
Sheley also is charged with murder in the death of 93-year-old Russell Reed in Sterling, according to the Whiteside County State’s Attorney.
Police believe Sheley also killed four people in Rock Falls, Ill.: Brock Branson, 25, and Kenneth Ulve, 29, both of Rock Falls; and Kilynna Blake, 20, and Dayan Blake, 2, both of Cedar City, Utah.
He then allegedly killed Thomas and Jill Estes of Sherwood, Ark., who were staying at a motel in Festus.
Police alerts in Missouri and Illinois described Sheley as a methamphetamine addict who recently told his ex-wife he had more killing to do.
One legally posessed handgun, or shotgun in a home added to situational awareness could have prevented all or some of this.
Comment by I'm Anonymous! Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:19 pm
===One legally posessed handgun, or shotgun in a home added to situational awareness could have prevented all or some of this.===
None of those IL communities have handgun bans as far as I know, and Chicago has no shotgun ban, and you don’t know if any of those victims had a gun in their homes.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:21 pm
Another Progunner,
First, it is “Dr.” Skeeter. If that guy from the GOP who is running against Sen. Durbin is going to be referred to as “Dr.”, then so am I. I am, after, a Doctor of Law. I’ve earned the title.
Back to the point:
I don’t agree at all, and I find it troubling that you fail to see how the 2A is ambiguous.
I “keep” a lot of things that I don’t own. If you look in my wallet, you will find that I “keep” credit cards that belong to the issuing banks.
As noted above, I often “keep” a laptop computer that belongs to my employer.
I “keep” space in a wine cellar that actually belongs to the owner of the building that houses the wine storage.
It is pretty common for me to “keep” things that I don’t “own.” If you can’t see that, I really doubt that you have the intelligence to own a gun. That should be part of the test for gun ownership. “Is the 2A ambiguous on its face?” If your answer is “no” then your application should be denied.
You get to your conclusion regarding the 2A by reading something into the 2A.
You found a sort of “penumbra” where “keep” to have meaning, must also mean “own.”
I happen to think that at times “penumbras” make perfect sense. The Bill of Rights is a great document, but it is a relatively short document. It does not necessarily state everything that should be said.
As a result, Courts look at the language and conclude that certain matters are implied. That’s a penumbra.
The bottom line remains that, like it or not, the Court’s decision was activist. It used a penumbra, despite the fact that Scalia hates that term. If honest gun owners were really honest, they would admit that the language is far from clear on the face.
Comment by Dr. Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:25 pm
I fully support concealed carry. So do the politicians in 48 - that’s 48 - other states. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states now that do not allow concealed carry. So when you travel in this great country, you can always wonder if the guy next to you is “packin’” Apparently the concealed carry laws don’t keep any of us from driving through those states or going to them for vacation so what is Illinois and Wisconsin worried about?
Comment by Little Egypt Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:29 pm
Rich, that’s true. My point is that gun laws don’t prevent crime (which is their stated purpose). Legally carried guns CAN prevent crime.
I love to read this site, but one of the quirks here is that in the debate of laws and proposed laws many here completely disregard the opinions of those who actually work with those laws.
While many here discuss, theorize and speculate about how to protect the public, I DO IT nightly. Yet people tend to diregard the opinions practitioners who deal with crime and criminals. I guess those involved in the political debate of such laws don’t need our opinions.
Again, I enjoy the site and the occasional chance to chime in.
Comment by I'm Anonymous! Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:46 pm
===I DO IT nightly===
Right, and you are fully trained and receive regular reviews and updates in your training.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:54 pm
Leave a light on George -
I only own 1 car. But even at 1 a month, you can own 12 a year; why do you need to be able to by more than that if you aren’t a collector?
Comment by HV in HP Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 3:19 pm
Rich, Very true!
Yet ordinary people can do extraordinary things!
Still, I don’t have much fear of law abiding citizens who are armed. It’s merely a training issue for police and the permit holders. My fears of what would happen in concealed carry states didn’t come to pass.
I don’t think we will ever see concealed carry her in Illinois but it wouldn’t be the end of civilization.
Let the debate continue! I’m off to work, but I expect the Capitalfax crew to have this resolved by tomorrow morning when I get home!
Comment by I'm Anonymous! Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 3:30 pm
England has a total gun ban. In a Dept of Justice study they found that the murder rate in the US was 6 times higher per 1000 pop then in the us. they also found that firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the United States than in England. According to 1996 police
statistics, firearms were used in 68%
of U.S. murders but 7% of English
murders, and 41% of U.S. robberies but
5% of English robberies. Overall we were roughly even with england in other crimes, robbery, assualt etc. Part of the problem with approved handgun ownership is it makes the weapons easier to aquire by criminals by keeping them in circualtion and in supply. This lawful handgun regualtions have the side impact of providing a source for those who seek handguns unlawfully.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 3:43 pm
Can we put an outrageous tax on the bullets that are sold too?
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 5:32 pm
Apparently gun laws didn’t help with the Sheley killing spree. But the smoking ban did since he was arrested when he went outside to smoke. Seems a bit ironic, doesn’t it?
Comment by Jack Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 7:04 pm
One handgun a month is 12 per year. State law already limits drinkers to ordering 12 cases of wine a year via the Internet. If the state can limit how many cases of wine consumers may purchase, why not the number of handguns?
Comment by reformer Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:03 pm
Skeeter,
I never said the 2A is not ambiguous. What I contested was your weak argument regarding “keep.” And this is even weaker.
Your examples of “keep” not meaning ownership are all well and good. I can also show examples where “keep” does mean ownership. That doesn’t prove anything.
But you did carefully ignore my question regarding your interpretation of “keep.” Let me repeat, since guys with legal backgrounds tend to try to avoid the questions they can’t answer in a way that will support their positions.
If you have a right to “keep” something, how is that a right if the government can simply say you cannot have it right now? Or are you saying the government cannot forbid you from possessing it whenever you want, but you do not, in fact, have true ownership?
And since you have all this legal background, how about you lay some of it on me? Point me to where I can find a ruling of some sort that says the term “keep,” in either the 2A or some other legal document, does not imply possession.
What we have here is a bit of a disagreement over the meaning of a word. But your “strict construction” argument is unsupportable. Just because you say “keep” doesn’t mean possession doesn’t make that a fact. You need to support such a statement, and with more than just silly wordgames. But if that’s the best you can offer, then all that fancy schoolin’ was a waste.
Oh, and when you say, “You get to your conclusion regarding the 2A by reading something into the 2A,” I guess I could say the same to you. There is absolutely no difference between me saying “keep” also means “possess” and you saying it does not. Unless, of course, you can dazzle me with some legalese that actually supports your position.
Comment by another progunner Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:39 pm
Skeeter –
yes I’ve read it. Maybe I can help you understand it.
“We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Pg 52
“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” Pg 53
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” Pg 55
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.” Pg 55
So weapons in common use at the time. i.e. semi-auto rifles are the most popular today. and the black rifles like AR-15 are amoung the most popular “lawful” firearms. They are not M-16s or M-4s. They are not machineguns and therefore treated very differntly.
I know the antis will try to make much out of the “dangerous” term used. But a 223 AR-15 is no more dangerous than my 223 bolt gun.
Federal laws defines those dangerous guns under the National Firearms Act. machineguns, short barreld rifles and shotgun, guns larger than .50 caliber. and those things with explosives are considered destructive devices. I think the frame work of the NFA, which also includes things like cane guns is what they were talking about since the others fit the definition of ‘commonly used or possesed’
If the opinion is only limited to the feds, then why is Wilmette and Morton Grove scraping their gun bans?
all the other individual rights in the constitution have been applied to the states’ as well. If we can apply the First amendment to the states, and local governments, with the preamble of “congress shall make no laws…” then gaining incorporation is not going to be that difficult.
The court only ruled on what they need to as Roberts suggested during oral argements.
The ruling went farther than a lot of people think. Illinois’ ban on carrying a handgun may be headed to the scrap heap. The opinion only affirmed banning of carrying guns in certain sensative places.
Illinois mandatory storage law is about as far as you can go. HB-731 proposed this session woul dnot pass muster. Further more, it looks like we closer to a strict scutiny standard.
Yea I read the decision, I suspect Daley’s lawers did too that’s why he is talking about changing their law and having such a hissy fit.
Todd
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:59 pm
Skeeter,
You say, “Scalia is pretty clear that assault weapons bans might well survive.” Point me to where you think that statement is supported. I’ve read the opinion, but can’t find what you are talking about. Educate me.
BTW, in reference to our other dialogue, since you dispute the meaning of “keep” based on its multiple potential meanings, do you also dispute the meaning of the words “well,” “right,” “bear,” and “arms” (just to name a few multiple-meanings words) in the 2A. What about the other Amendments?
Comment by another progunner Thursday, Jul 3, 08 @ 12:07 am
Todd,
Nice to see that you have decided what “dangerous” means. Thanks. Now we can move on. “That’s been settled. Next issue.”
Of course, your conclusion is laughable, considering that since this was a 5-4 decision the language was almost certainly included at the demand of Justice Kennedy. Do you really think that Justice Kennedy is going to strike down an assault weapons ban?
Remember, this decision refused — even in dicta — to suggest that the 2A might apply to the states (the Court could simply have said that the issue wasn’t before the Court so they take no position, but instead the court affirmed that prior precedent stands). They wouldn’t go that far, but you think state or local laws are all just going to drop away?
With Wilmette and Morton Grove: I personally have advocated on this very blog that Chicago scrap its ordinance. Not for the reason that the ordinance will fail, but because it will be very expensive to defend and we have better uses for our money. The other reason that I advocate that Chicago scrap the ordinance is that a town-by-town ban cannot work. When you can leave the City limits and buy a handgun, it is almost impossible to have it be effective.
The fact that the ordinance likely would survive doesn’t bear on my support for the repeal. This is about money, as it should be for other cash-strapped municipalities.
That being said, every time I hear the gun nuts [admit it, Todd — just as anti-gun extremists exist, so do “gun nuts”] talk, I start to reconsider my position. Too many of them are seem dangerous. People who want to have a gun for “confidence” as one person here wrote? People who think a handgun will work against a mugger? Those people are delusional and I sure don’t want them to have guns.
The problem that the gun lobby has, as I’ve said here repeatedly, is that it doesn’t know when to stop. Certain guns should NOT be sold, but the gun lobby refuses to consider any restrictions at all. People like me might think people should have a right to own a weapon, and we might even have been convinced by a Richard Clarke article in The Atlantic that concealed carry is a great way to prevent certain acts of terrorism, but then we hear gun advocates talk about shooting muggers and we start to reconsider. The more I hear the debate, the more I start to want to write a check for the “gun grabbers” simply because too many on the pro-gun side seem completely detached from reality. And then I step away from the debate and realize that we should not impose a rule just because the gun lobby is really bad at convincing moderate to join its side.
By the way Todd, since you are on the payroll and claim to be an “honest” gun supporter, don’t you think you should include that in your post? It is one thing for a person with a clear position on the issue to make comments (see “another progunner” above, who clearly has a position but to my knowledge isn’t being paid to take that position), but when you are actually getting paid to write stuff like this, it seems to cross an ethical line not to disclose that fact.
Comment by Dr. Skeeter Thursday, Jul 3, 08 @ 9:11 am