Next phase of the Heller Case in D.C.
by CmdrFenix on Feb.23, 2010, under Political Discussion
First some background.
Back on June 27th 2008, the US Supreme Court held:
…the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.
This ruling was important for several reasons:
- It ended the miss-conception that the 2nd amendment right was tied to some kind of militia service
- It affirmed it was an individual right that ever American shares
- It completely threw out the D.C. handgun ban as being unconstitutional
There are only a very few instances I will consent to being disarmed by anyone. Here are a few of them.
- In a court house
- On an airplane (while no to firearms for what I think is obvious reasons, Tasers and other non-lethal alternatives should be allowed on)
- … and near the president
Let me be very clear about my feelings on “gun bans”. I am 100% against them. They have not been shown to be effective against crime, and if the situation did arise that it was needed, I would prefer to have that option available to me. Let me also emphasize this for anyone out there who took Professor Fong’s statistics and probability class back in college. I don’t care about statistics and that isn’t the purpose of this article. I don’t care what the percentage chance of violence against me is based on what city I’m in. This is about principles and fundamental rights. If you don’t agree with me, then fine. Does that mean I can carry a fully automatic AK-47 down the street on my shoulder? (even though it would be pretty bad ass…) No of course not, but before anyone says, “OMG you want to allow Bill Gates to buy an M1 Abrams tank and Warren Buffet to buy nuclear weapons…”. Putting the absurd nature of that statement aside, I think this sums it up:
Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.
Now post Heller, the Democratic majority (… of the two independents, one was a former Democrat and the other a former Republican) in the D.C. Council quickly rushed to change their laws and regulations and in typical Washington fashion, constructed stupid, and lengthy regulations to “allowed” the lowly people of the city to keep firearms in their house. In an ironic twist, Dick Heller was denied his application for a permit to have a firearm in his home because his 8rnd 1911 didn’t meet their regulations. The whole situation is completely foolish.
… and what does Police Chief Cathy Lanier feel on the topic? I personally loved this one, because it re-enforces the “Only One” mentality that David Codrea coined so aptly.
I think the reasonableness standard of the handgun laws in the District, which are not completely banned, because there is licensed handguns in the District of Columbia for law enforcement, retired law enforcement, federal law enforcement, security agencies. So, there is not a complete ban on handguns.
~ Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier
So what do I want out of all this? I want the gun bans in Chicago, San Francisco, and anywhere else they are outright banned, lifted. I want more uniform requirements and regulations from state to state. Driving a car isn’t in the bill of rights, but they sure did make it easy for my NH license to be valid in MA and other states. It also takes 2 weeks here in NH and about 8 months to get a MA permit. (if you can even get one) I want a nationwide CCW permit system setup that allows me not to worry if I accidentally parked my car in a certain area of the Sears parking lot at the Pheasant Lane Mall in Nashua, at which point I could be arrested for carrying illegally in MA. Do I feel like the laws are setting honest people up to fail? Some yes, and this is wrong.
If you don’t agree with guns, or my feelings on this. That is your right, but also let me say this, you’re feelings on the matter do not trump my rights to carry firearms on my person or have them in my home for whatever reason I deem fit. I do not OC (open carry) very much. I am not one of those people who likes to try and make statements or intimidate people. For the most part, I understand some people are uncomfortable with firearms, and I try to respect that, but if I’m at the hair salon and take my jacket off and someone sees my 1911, then too bad. I don’t care one iota if they feel it’s unnecessary. I will not go out of my way to show off, but if they see it, I’m not going to loose any sleep over it.
Now that I’ve gotten all that background out of the way, let’s talk about Tom Palmer. He’s a D.C. Resident currently suing the city for the right to carry his firearm on his person outside his home. It’s a good article and I definitely think it’s worth reading. You know, it’s a sad state of affairs when something that should be a fairly straight forward right is something we must actually bring legal proceedings and fight to be able to do. Why does Tom want the right to do this? Because it already saved his life once.
“We were what they perceived as a couple of faggots, which was the term they used, walking through their neighborhood,” he said. “And it would have been one of those modestly ironic moments if my colleague might have been murdered in a gay bashing, when he was straight.”
The threats were vivid and believable: “We’re going to kill you. They’ll never find your body.”
Palmer told his colleague to run. The thugs chased Palmer, who stopped under a streetlight and pulled out his gun.
“I did not say anything witty or clever,” he recalls. “In the movies, they say something very clever. I just said, ‘If you come closer, I will kill you.’ Very blunt. And they stopped.”
Amazing how that worked. He leveled the playing field and the aggressors here stops. Would pepper spray has been as effective? Who really cares…? No shots were fired and nobody was harmed. As expected the group at Handgun Control Inc (a.k.a The Brady Campaign against Gun Violence – yes they really were called Handgun Control Inc) have offered up their thoughts on the matter.
“To force the general public to be exposed to the risk of loaded guns when they are out with their family in public areas is outrageous and has absolutely nothing to do with the right to defend the home…”
Please see above statement about, “I don’t care one iota how xyz person feels about something that is not harming them.” I personally enjoyed the response to this argument from HCI.
The idea that the right to bear arms is limited to “walking around your house is silly.”
February 24th, 2010 on 3:24 pm
I think that a lot of people have fundamental misconceptions about the right to bear arms, and a lot of people have opinions (which they “defend” as factual) that fly in the face of 200 years of constitutional law.
Unfortunately, the law of averages is rarely broken, and some of those people get elected to public office, get jobs as police officers, or otherwise assume positions where their opinions actually “matter”.
One thing that I feel the need to mention, in the interest of playing the devil’s advocate .. you mention someones opinion not trumping your right .. but does your right to carry a weapon (gun, crossbow, etc) trump the right of someone else to be safe (since weapons are inherently unsafe) walking down the street, etc?
I’m not disagreeing, but I do suggest possibly refining your rationale .. it’s a very slippery slope to say that someone’s opinion of what deserves to be a classified document in the interest of national defense doesn’t trump your right to free press, or that someone’s opinion on how many people can safely fit inside a building doesn’t trump your right to assembly.
The one thing I do disagree with, I find it quite disturbing that you are unwilling to be “disarmed” inside a school or a mental hospital, or other institutional settings. Machismo not withstanding, you’re woefully confident in yourself that you couldn’t possibly be overpowered by a mob of angsty teenagers or mental patients (or whomever) intent on taking your weapon and abusing it. If you’re willing to be “disarmed” of a chainsaw in some given situation, you should be willing to be “disarmed” of whateverelse in that same situation. If you arent willing to be “disarmed” of a chainsaw while visiting an elementary school, you’ve got some paranoia issues to address
February 24th, 2010 on 3:38 pm
Also,
“Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.”
So you don’t think Mr Gates should have a military tank eh? Well Mr Gates doesnt think you should have a musket. What is a “reasonable restriction” to you might not be to someone else, and vice-verca.
In the end, people with stubbornly single-minded unchangable views about a subject are -always- going to be in a position where they are either forcing their views on “reasonable” onto other people, or -feel like- others are forcing their “reasonable” onto them.
The rationale you use here is self-defeating, since most people won’t agree (even if its just on minor details) about what is a “reasonable” restriction on the right to bear arms. So no matter what, somebody feels like their rights are being violated.
What makes you right and them wrong? Who’s to say what restriction on magazine-capacity is “reasonable”. 10 rounds? 100 rounds? No restriction? 500 Rounds? Who’s right, when it’s all subjective opinion?
The point is, if you are not willing to defer to the experts and accept their opinion on what is “reasonable” then you’ll never, -ever-, be satisfied with anything.
February 24th, 2010 on 6:34 pm
Yes it does, and that isn’t just my opinion, but the opinion of several court’s. I am hunting for the links, but basically, your fear (or someone else’s) over something I’m doing that in no way harms or impedes them isn’t my problem. It’s like saying, I have a fear about what you might say in the state house and as a result you shouldn’t be allowed to be on the ballot.
… also, when do weapons walk down the street unattended? I mean, holstered and on safety in a secure holster is not a problem.
Sometimes yes… sometimes no. Every situation is different and I will agree with you on that, but in this instance since the overall conversation feel to the carrying of firearms, I didn’t think the clarification was needed. I did say, “Does that mean I can carry a fully automatic AK-47 down the street on my shoulder? (even though it would be pretty bad ass…) No of course not…”
I obviously didn’t elaborate on “every” possible instance I would consent to being disarmed, but I assure you the list is rather short.
In terms of your second comment, which I think basically says, “Everyone’s view of reasonable is different”, and this I understand and agree with, but again who defines the lines? Right now we have stupid legislation put in place that doesn’t even solve the problems they says its going to solve. San Francisco did not have a violent crime rate drop. Neither did D.C. Keeping this discussion to the current issue, I will not concede that there is any justifiable reason to completely disarm a populace.
February 28th, 2010 on 2:06 pm
Are they completely disarmed? I’m ignorant of the specifics, am I allowed to carry a pitchfork in those places?
Or .. is your beef only when they restrict -firearms-? If that’s the case, then it’s NOT about “personal protection” or any of that ..