#1
DC vs. Heller
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

-Heller is a security guard and was arrested for possession of a handgun in Washington DC. Which has a near complete ban on handguns.

-Heller claims such a ban is an infringement on his 2nd Amendment rights and his right to self-defense.

-Heller took the case to the DC circuit court and the court ruled in favor of Heller's argument, citing that the DC ban was an infringement on his rights.

-DC appealed to SCOTUS, claiming that DC has a right to ban certain guns handguns (cited in the case, but DC has an outright ban on NFA classified weapon/items and "assault weapons".) so long as they allowed other weapons to be legally owned.
The Court asked why DC can ban handguns, and still require long guns to be locked at all times. Citing that it is difficult to defend your home with a long gun if DC law does not cite when exactly you are allowed to unlock your firearm. DC stated that they would not charge anyone with illegally unlocking their firearm for use in self-defense, though it has happened.

- The Court debated the meaning behind the text of the 2nd Amendment, "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.". After debating certain aspects of the 2nd, the English Bills of Rights, and state Constitutions,A majority of the court decided that the 2nd Amendment is a personal freedom and a militia right, and not a right reserved to the states militia. i.e. The people are the militia, the militia the people. The people need firearms for self-defense, firearms training, and the ability to form a non-governmental militia from my understanding.

- From my understanding, the Court opposes outright bans on particular types of firearms (in this case, handguns), but is in favor of "reasonable restrictions", such as background checks. They also explored "darker" ideas like licensing and registration.

- They skipped on what arms were covered by the 2nd Amendment. Things that had little or no legitimate purpose, "plastic guns" are not, in theory covered because they would not aid the people ability to defend themselves and form a militia. Long guns, handguns and even automatic weapons are, in theory. protected because they have useful militia (< based on US military weapons" purpose.

- This will [most likely] have little impact on state gun laws, unless they invoke the 14th Amendment. In which case the states will be bound to follow Federal level restricting on firearms. Which is doubtful

- They are make a ruling in June, which the ruling, I assume, will reflect the individual right with reasonable restrictions mood of the Court.
Last edited by -Wolverine- at Mar 19, 2008,
#2
i saw that on the news last night and i didn't even no hand guns were banned in DC 4 personal use, but couldn't ppl just buy like shot guns and rifles? that wat the DC sniper did right?
Just because I play the drums doesn't mean I suck at guitar, or ams that I's iz stoopidz.


Space that ain't yours
#3
I'm still not too certain where I stand on this issue. I mean I'm certainly pro-gun, but at the same time there are so many stupid people that should not be allowed within 50 feet of a gun - or even a pair of scissors. Really the roots of all of these kinds of issues lead down to the individual.

I think the way I feel about this debated stuff - abortion, immigrants, gun rights - is to seek alternative solutions that improve the overall situation, instead of just creating a false dilemma and battling it out forever as oil to the political machine, so to speak. For example, I think that abortion should be legal and open to everyone, but I think funding for abortion clinics should be cut a lot and the freed resources be put to use by developing intensive programs that help mothers decide better and then help them deal with the situation. In other words, make it much, much easier for them to support their baby and stuff.

I dunno what the solution to handgun restrictions would be; maybe better gun education. I am mostly pro-gun. You see what I'm saying, though? Theres no need to create a false dilemma with all of these issues, there are other possibilities and alternatives.

Oh and just as a side note, Heller was the guy on Mystery Men! That made the blame thrower!! 'Say it with me - HELLER.'
We're only strays.
Last edited by Martyr's Prayer at Mar 19, 2008,
#4
i saw this thing on the history channal where companies r starting to make guns w/finger print and genetic locks that would stop any1 from the owner from using it but ppl could still proly buy and find illigal pistols like yhey do know
Just because I play the drums doesn't mean I suck at guitar, or ams that I's iz stoopidz.


Space that ain't yours
#5
Quote by majonior
i saw this thing on the history channal where companies r starting to make guns w/finger print and genetic locks that would stop any1 from the owner from using it but ppl could still proly buy and find illigal pistols like yhey do know


Thats bad, it can be easily turned for better control over an unarmed population. Anything that gives the citizens more power is good, but unfortunately too many citizens these days are complete tools.
We're only strays.
#6
yea its like they could stop making dangerous weapons today but ppl would still have easy ways to get them, like a few months ago here in sacto, ca the cops bust a teen gang w/ a garage full of over 32 illegal firearms they had AK's and tech 9s and sawn off shotguns

its like no matter how much u say ppl can't do something they'll still do it
Just because I play the drums doesn't mean I suck at guitar, or ams that I's iz stoopidz.


Space that ain't yours
#8
Quote by majonior
i saw that on the news last night and i didn't even no hand guns were banned in DC 4 personal use, but couldn't ppl just buy like shot guns and rifles? that wat the DC sniper did right?

The DC sniper bought his XM-15 in Virginia if I remember correctly, the XM-15 is illegal in DC, and isn't sold there.

Long guns, like shotguns and rifles, are allowed to be owned in DC. But they must be licensed and lock at all times. Hence the comments from the court whether or not someone could really use them for self-defense if they must remain locked at all times (DC law doesn't state when you are allowed to unlock them in self-defense).

Quote by Martyr's Prayer
I'm still not too certain where I stand on this issue. I mean I'm certainly pro-gun, but at the same time there are so many stupid people that should not be allowed within 50 feet of a gun - or even a pair of scissors. Really the roots of all of these kinds of issues lead down to the individual.

I think the way I feel about this debated stuff - abortion, immigrants, gun rights - is to seek alternative solutions that improve the overall situation, instead of just creating a false dilemma and battling it out forever as oil to the political machine, so to speak. For example, I think that abortion should be legal and open to everyone, but I think funding for abortion clinics should be cut a lot and the freed resources be put to use by developing intensive programs that help mothers decide better and then help them deal with the situation. In other words, make it much, much easier for them to support their baby and stuff.

I dunno what the solution to handgun restrictions would be; maybe better gun education. I am mostly pro-gun. You see what I'm saying, though? Theres no need to create a false dilemma with all of these issues, there are other possibilities and alternatives.

Oh and just as a side note, Heller was the guy on Mystery Men! That made the blame thrower!! 'Say it with me - HELLER.'

I agree, the key is to find restrictions that actually work, but do not infringe on people right to purchase and keep a firearm.

Like background checks, they do not infringe on the peoples rights to a great degree because it stops those who are barred from purchasing a firearm, and only those people from buying a firearm (legally).

Licensing, or classes is sorta touchy with me atleast. I am totally against licensing, simply because the right would trivialized if you need a license to exercise it. Like saying you need a permit to speak out against the state, is speech really a right? I think not. Classes are availible, so I don;t see a need to force people who already know how to use a gun to take the course. We should force people to take a class before riding a bicycle given that more people die in bicycle accidents than gun accidents.
Last edited by -Wolverine- at Mar 19, 2008,