Do cities have the authority to ban handguns (or all guns)?

[Statistical]

In light to the two recent Supreme Court decisions

So held: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

So held: The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

DC v. Heller (2008)

Support nationally for handgun bans is very low (~30% depending on poll). I am curious what % of DU believes cities have the authority to ban firearms.

The poll is simply about banning handguns not registration, or licensing or other reasonable (or not so reasonable) restrictions. It isn't about machineguns or rocket launchers on pickup trucks. The poll has nothing to do with conceal carry or open carry. The poll has nothing to do with the individuals on Supreme Court but rather the belief (or lack of one) in individual right to own firearm.

Do you personally believe that cities have the authority to ban handguns?

The point of the poll is YOUR PERSONAL VIEW not the conclusion reached by Supreme Court. If you feel Supreme Court is wrong then vote based on your personal opinion.

Mods please don't move this thread.... at least not initially I would like to get a broader sample of public opinion.

[Deep13]

1. SCOTUS pretty much answered this question in the negative.

They do not have the authority to ban handgun possession in ones own home.

[slackmaster]

2. No, especially here in California, where the state has sole authority to regulate firearms.

:hi:

[jschurchin]

3. Personally, I don't own a handgun

Nor am I interested in having one. That said, I am a firm believer in our right to lawfully own and possess a handgun. I believe the amendments to the U.S. Constitution gives us this right. City government DOES NOT supersede the constitutional rights that ALL of us hold dear.
JMHO.

[Callisto32]

144. Please consider the following:

The constitution grants no rights. It is the statute of a corporate entity, with no rights, only powers. Natural people have rights. The Constitution only recognizes those rights that already exist.

[damntexdem]

4. Yes, unless you believe that the felonious SCOTUS majority has defined the law forever.

Let's hope that we will someday get back to a SCOTUS that will rule using a reasonable, socially-responsible reading of the Constitution.

As to the individual-rights issue, that has always been ambiguous (although prior SCOTUSes never ruled in its favor). By one reading of the 2nd Amendment, it is only about a well-regulated militia. By another, in order to further a well-regulated militia, individual rights to guns was seen as a necessity. In any case, any individual right was subsidiary to the well-regulated militia, not some free-floating "natural individual right." And any reasonable interpretation notes the "well-regulated" aspect of the militia, meaning that most gun controls are quite constitutional in their regulation of guns.

[Statistical]

6. My quesiton was more your view not decided law.

"Do you personally believe states/cities can ban handguns without violating the 2nd amendment?"

I take it if you could change your vote it would be "No based on 2nd protecting a collective right".


Sorry if I wasn't clear. I will edit OP to emphasize this.

[spin]

68. A "socially responsible reading of the Constitution" ...

That sounds like politically correct speech for interpreting the Constitution in what ever manner the party in power desires and the Supreme Court justices appointed for life by a powerful party desires.

If you seriously feel that the Constitution should be interpreted in in a socially responsible manner, then why not push to amendment it.

Some very wise and unbelievably well educated people (for their time and even in our time) sat down and created a document that has proven to be able survive the ages and still be relevant today. The founding fathers would have been amazed at how successful their efforts were.

But, obviously, times change and we were able to adapt and improve the Constitution to more modern times through the amendment process.

I realize that many who oppose gun ownership or would greatly like to restrict it, hope that Obama will be able to nominate Supreme Court justices who once confirmed, will overturn the courts recent rulings on firearms.

Such tactics could backfire when a more conservative President came into power and managed to shift the balance on the court. If so, any ruling (such as an overturning of the recent Heller and McDonald cases and Roe v Wade) might occur.

I'm not opposed to many of the current regulations on firearms ownership and feel that most are reasonable, worthwhile and very useful. The NICS background check has proven to be such a good regulation and IMO opinion should be extended to all private purchases. Licensing individuals who carry firearms concealed in public is another example of a good regulation.

But an honest citizen of the United States should be able to own a handgun for self defense if he meets some basic requirements. It matters not if he lives in a rural community or a large urban area. Such ownership should not be limited to those who are wealthy or politically connected or celebrities. The restrictions on ownership should be reasonable, simple and inexpensive enough that a person who lives in poverty but has a clean record and does not suffer from serious mental health issues, can meet and afford. Such people often have far more reason to own a weapon for self defense than a rich individual who lives in a safe gated community with security guards.

The recent rulings by the Supreme Court did not eliminate all regulations. The courts may reject the regulations imposed by such cities such as Washington D.C. or the proposed regulations by Chicago in the future. Imposition of draconian regulations to make it merely impossible for the average citizen to own a firearm for self defense will probably (and should be) rejected by the legal system.

One of the problems with interpreting the Constitution is that, in those days, writing a many thousand page document with definitions was impossible. Like the early days of computing, the founders had to be concise. Over time meanings change. "Well regulated" had a different meaning as did militia.

I prefer to look at what the founding fathers had to say about the Second Amendment.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

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

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

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

Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns.
Government | Benjamin Franklin quote

You state: "most gun controls are quite constitutional in their regulation of guns." I agree most are. Some however are not.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

107. Dude, you killed it!

I couldn't state it better myself.

[spin]

117. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

[SteveM]

153. Damn! You had the quote I was going to subject-line. Good job.

[Callisto32]

143. HAHA..

You mean the reading that ignores what the statute says?

Priceless.

Fucking priceless.

[SteveM]

152. Again, your "militia clause" argument passes the Fail Test...

Most constitutional scholars who have written on the Second do not agree with you; even Laurence Tribe, the poo-bah of the "militia clause" for some 20 years, has since written (in 1999, I believe), that 2A recognizes an "individual right."

This argument that firearm possession/bearing is dependent on one's status in a militia has been dealt with here, time and again. You really should do some research on your own; don't belabor the grammatical structure, just get into the history of the Second.
Your "reasonable" interpretation is shared by some in MSM, the gun-control movement, a minority in academia, and.... that's about it.

Try viewing the Constitution in this manner: The Bill of Rights was a RECOGNITION of certain rights of the individual (quite broad) by the government, with specific prohibitions on the Federal government from infringing of those rights. The militia is dealt with in the Articles, which can be seen as a document which identifies the power of the Federal government (some rights are I.D'd -- like Bills of Attainder in Art. 1). So in the Second, the militia portion only is a reminder of what powers the government has under the Articles; the rest -- the OPERATIVE portion -- is a CONSTRAINT on the powers of the federal government with regards the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. You should be cued by the reference to "security of a free state," which is the purpose of the militia. That is rightfully the Fed's business, the militia, but no more; otherwise, the people have a right to keep and bear arms. And that OPERATIVE language is similar to other individual protections in the BOR.

[DissedByBush]

166. Do you read all rights so restrictively?

There's no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but I'm sure you agree with the right to an abortion.

Do you only choose to read the Second Amendment so restrictively?

If so, why?

Why would a freedom-loving person read any right restrictively?

Given what the Bill of Rights is about, restricting government to protect the rights of the people, why would any responsible SCOTUS read it in a way that gives power to the government at the expense of the rights of the people?

[elleng]

5. OK with me,

'traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,' NOT on city streets, tho.

[GreenStormCloud]

131. Why not have the ability to defend oneself with a gun on the city streets?

Are you saying that there is no street crime? Why should I be defenseless when I am on the street?

[PavePusher]

136. "..keep AND BEAR..."

You are leaving part of it out...

Why should self-defense be restricted in public?

[Callisto32]

145. One gives up the right to self-perservation on the public thoroughfare?

So, free reign for the petty tyrants and predators, then?

[SteveM]

154. Uh, the statement you quoted doesn't mean "NOT on city streets..."

The ruling is limited, and gives an example; specifically, the remedy McDonald was seeking. They did not rule on concealed-carry, nor on "shall issue" licenses, nor, for that matter, on the cause of the vacuum leak in my GMC van.

Remember -- and many gun-control liberals should remember this -- this is a "conservative" court, and makes its rulings (however crappy some are) on the narrow issues brought to them. A more expansive ruling (in either Heller or McDonald) might clear up a lot of ambiguity and REALLY remove "gun-control" as an issue from the body politic; be thankful the Court has not yet done that.

[sandnsea]

7. Yes

I don't ever want to live where there are machine guns and rocket launchers on the back of pick-ups. Every single one of the Bill of Rights has restrictions applied. Guns should be no exception.

[mcollins]

8. Does freedom of speech have restictions?

What about religion?

[Statistical]

10. Of course they do .... however if we could keep the thread on topic.

Usually those rhetorical questions tend to spin out of control quickly.

The question is simply; do cities have the right to ban HANDGUNS?

[The_Commonist]

11. You can't falsely yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater...

...and you can't perform ritual human sacrifice.

[DatManFromNawlins]

54. Apples and oranges

A handgun ban is the equivalent of a city banning the population from being able to criticize its leadership.

[Ter]

162. +1

Yelling fire is to speech what banning rocket launchers is to guns. A reasonable exception.

[virginia mountainman]

59. Ahh YES YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN...

But your actions will have consequences later...

No one sews your mouth shut, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT yell "FIRE"... They just punish you after you do it.

Same with the human sacrofice...Go ahead, you can do it...BUT, their will be punishment after you do it.

NEXT WEAK ARGUMENT PLEASE......

[X_Digger]

66. The equivalent analogy would be..

.. that you have to wear a gag on entering a theater, so that you don't yell fire.

[Statistical]

71. Or worse you are simply prohibited from having a mouth because you *could* use it in a criminal way

[cherokeeprogressive]

90. That statement ALWAYS makes me laugh. Of course you can.

I've done it. No one even seemed to notice.

I don't know why people keep on saying that.

[jdp349]

119. Yes - to put it quite simply

Fighting words and libel are not protected forms of speech

And yes there are also religion is restricted. You have the right to believe in whatever you want but that does not give you the right to act on those beliefs and use your religion as a get out of jail free card. So long as the state can demonstrate that it pursues the reasonably least restrictive measures in prohibiting certain actions and can demonstrate a compelling state interest to do so.

[Statistical]

9. Well the quesion was about "HANDGUNS" but thank you.

:)

We will save machine guns and rocket launchers for another day.
BTW even if not prohibited locally machine guns and rocket launchers are regulated under the federal National Firearms Act of 1934 (and have been for nearly 8 decades).

[sandnsea]

13. Handguns mounted in window sills

Whatever. Point is that if one type of weapon can be regulated, any type can be.

Whether they "should" be is an entirely different question.

[Statistical]

16. The question wasn't about regulation. and it wasn't about "should".

The question was very specific. "Do cities have the authority to BAN (BAN as in prohibit completely not regulate) HANDGUNS?"

Oxycontin is regulated. Heroin is banned.
Pornography is regulated. Child pornography is banned.
Practice of medicine is regulated. Practice of assisted suicide is banned.

[sandnsea]

17. And my answer was YES

I believe they can and I believe the precedence is established. If you can place regulations, or bans, on any given weapon - then you can do it for a handgun. The end.

[Statistical]

18. Interesting. So if a right is subject to restrictions (any restrictions) then it can also be banned

Given the govt has already placed restrictions on free speech (hate speech, slander, creating a public panic, child pornography, truth in advertising, etc) wouldn't the govt then have the precedent to completely ban free speech?

Not much "right" in the Bill of Rights if that is true; the whole proverbial give an inch take a mile. Really the BofR provides no real protection against govt infringement of any right. Since all the rights are subject to restriction and none are unlimited then they any of them can be banned at will.

Still thanks for your point of view.

[mcollins]

20. exactly. In the past rights have been restricted for the good

of the people. Why not guns?

[Statistical]

25. Restricted - yes. completely banned - no.

Guns are already restricted. Felons and mentally ill can't purchase firearms, neither can minors without parental consent. You are restricted on where, when, and how you can carry them. You are restricted on where, when, how you can fire them. Locally regulations may be even more restrictive controlling licensing, testing, fees, fingerprinting, etc.

The idea there is no restrictions on firearms is silly.

The question is can cities COMPLETELY BAN HANDGUNS? Looks like majority of DU says no.

[sandnsea]

23. Guns are always dangerous

They destroy lives in the much the same way child pornography does. I don't think there is much of an equivalence between guns and free speech. There is a survival argument. Some in rural areas need guns for hunting and because there truly isn't any local security. But that's not true in cities, or at least there's no real reason for it to be true. The people could put the amount of money they spend on guns into increased on the street security, and actually create a secure city which is what they say their goal is.

[Statistical]

26. Rights don't require a need.

You have explained your point well. You don't believe the "right to keep and bear arms" exists (or at best doesn't apply to individuals).

If the right exists and applies to individuals than the concept of equal protection under the law applies. Those in cities have the same rights as those in rural areas.

If the right DOES exists people in cities don't need to rationalize a need they have the RIGHT regardless of need.
If the right DOESN'T then cities can ban them not due to a lack of need but simply because they can ban any non-rights (more commonly called privileges).

[sandnsea]

29. You already pointed to machine guns

I could use that same argument against you. If you believe machine gun ownership can be banned, then you don't believe in the 2nd amendment.

Of course that's absurd.

[Statistical]

31. Machineguns aren't banned and never have been, merely restricted. n/t

[sandnsea]

33. When did it become legal to buy machine guns? n/t

[Statistical]

34. It has always been legal to buy machineguns.

If you wanted to buy one today you could. I thought you knew that. :)

It is complex, expensive, requires a lot of approvals and paperwork so I wouldn't recommend it but you can own a machinegun.

Always have been able to. The National Firearm Act of 1934 simply made them heavily regulated not banned. Prior to 1934 you could buy one with no permit at a hardware store.

[sandnsea]

37. You need federal approval

So I guess if you support that, you support the equivalent federal approval to own any gun.

That's your argument.

[Statistical]

41. Which says nothing about a ban.

First thing is that the NFA doesn't allow an arbitrary ban. If you meet federal criteria for owning a machinegun you can and the federal govt can't stop you. It is very very very expensive but it can be done. That is a far cry from a ban where the govt says nobody can have a handgun and you can't do anything about it. The court has already made it clear that handguns (and other arms) are different than machine-guns and heavy weaponry because they have a legitimate legal purpose and are overwhelming used by the law abiding.

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home ‘the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,’ would fail constitutional muster.

I think we have gotten a little off track.

I will leave it at you believe the govt can ban any right (including right to keep and bear arms) which IMHO would make the Bill of Rights meaningless. Might as well cut it up and use it as rolling papers because it serves no other purpose.

[sandnsea]

42. But this was not supposed to be about courts

It was supposed to be my opinion. And my opinion about the right of cities to ban guns is no different than the right of the federal government to ban, or rigidly restrict so as to equivocally ban, machine guns.

[Statistical]

44. Ok.

If the govt can ban a right that even you accept IS a right then I stand by my point that the Bill of Rights is utterly worthless.

That is actually far worse and far dangerous than people who say the 2nd doesn't apply to individual or doesn't apply to states. In that instance the people are saying the right DOESN'T exist thus any infringement wouldn't necessarily apply to other rights (which hopefully) do exist.

If you say right exists but the govt has right to ban the exercising of that right then IMHO we have no rights. None what so ever and anything the govt wanted to do tomorrow would be Constitutional.

"You have a right to religion but the govt has the power to banned unacceptable churches, books, music, and congregations".

What in your mind would be Unconstitutional, if the govt can at the same time recognize a right and ban it?

[sandnsea]

45. So what of the rights already banned?

Do we have to have the right to print child pornography to prove the Bill of Rights isn't utterly worthless?

[Statistical]

47. Something called 'strict scrutiny' limits government action in Constitutional rights.

The govt has no authority to arbitrarily ban things protected by Bill Of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Sex with a child is illegal thus material promoting that isn't protected. The govt couldn't simply decide that English literature was likewise banned. It wouldn't rise to the level of strict scrutiny.

If however there was Constitutional right to have sex with a child (not that there ever should be) I doubt the ban on child pornography would be found constitutional.

In the instance of firearms there mere ownership doesn't violate anyone elses rights. What you are banning is the potential which would be ok if the right to keep and bear arms didn't exist.

No way a gun ban passes strict scrutiny if you look at it logically.

What is the governments compelling interest?
What is the most narrowly defined method to achieve that interest?
Is the method chosen the least restrictive method?

[sandnsea]

51. So we're back to discussing the court

Killing someone with a gun is illegal, so promoting an item created for that purpose, would pass your strict scrutiny.

In any event, again, you said you wanted people's opinions, not court rulings.

If you agree that it's acceptable to equivocally ban machine guns, then by your own argument, you must agree it's acceptable to ban all guns and the Bill of Rights is worthless.

[Statistical]

56. I would say it goes beyond the court and more is a philosophy.

Strict scrutiny is a compromise between unlimited rights (would never work) and the govt having unlimited ability to restrict those rights (would provide no protection and make the concept of "rights" meaningless).

"In any event, again, you said you wanted people's opinion"

I do and maybe it would be easier for me to accept if you felt the 2nd didn't protect an individual right. I would disagree but I can understand that interpretation.


I just find it scary that you think the govt can accept a right and at the same time completely ban it without violating the protections of that right in the Bill of Rights. If there no limits to govt ability to restrict rights? If not then the concept of a "right" is worthless. It is simply a privelidge that the govt has decided to let you have for right now. Thankfully that opinion seems to be the very small minority. If it were the majority we would have no protections of any rights (not just RKBA).

Lastly once again:
Machine-guns aren't banned and never have been. If I wanted a machine-gun I could have one. If a citizen in Chicago wanted a handgun (prior to McDonald v. Chicago) they could not. That is the difference between restrictions and a ban.

[sandnsea]

57. So let's put the machine gun requirement on all guns

and how long would it take the NRA to scream that it's an effective ban.

Get real.

Cities do not have the right to ban every single gun in existence. They do have the right to ban guns that cause excessive problems in their city. Ban, or restrict to the point of a machine gun purchase, either way.

[Statistical]

58. Which wouldn't be a ban.

So you agree cities can't ban handguns just heavily restrict them?

As far as machineguns vs. handguns strict scrutiny covers that.

A machinegun has far more potential to cause damage than a handgun thus strict scrutiny says govt restrictions can be more restrictive. Of course if some future court case finds that the govt "compelling interest" can be achieved with less restrctions than the court would have no choice but to find current restrictions on machineguns to be Unconstitutional. However even for machienguns (which can cause a magnitude more damage) they have never been banned. The bar certainly can't be placed LOWER for the less dangerous handgun than it is for the more dangerous machinegun. That would be arbitrary at best.



If you don't believe in strict scrutiny then do you believe there is nothing that limits government restriction on a right? If govt ability to restrict is unlimited then we have no rights and that goes far beyond handguns.

Is there anything that is Unconstitutional (not just related to handguns)?
If so why? When you can define why one restriction is Constitutional and another is not then you have defined your own personal strict scrutiny equivalent. :)

[sandnsea]

64. No I don't agree, with any of that

In fact, I don't agree that machine guns can't be 100% banned, only that it's been easier to 98% ban them through licensing and other highly restrictive procedures.

I also don't agree that a machinegun has potential to cause more damage than a handgun, which I think is clearly proven by statistics.

I think there is every bit as much compelling interest to restrict handguns. The easier access children have to them is much more compelling, for instance.

I never said I didn't "believe in" strict scrutiny. I said you keep bringing legal arguments into the issue when you specifically said you weren't interested in court decisions or legal arguments.

I happen to think a lot of things are UnConsitutional that are allowed to go on. Our rights are trampled every minute of the day. If it's okay to trample my rights to take a picture of me at a traffic light, I'd say it's okay to try to prevent murder with guns.

[dems_rightnow]

78. Killing someone with a gun is not illegal

There's no crime called "Killing".

It depends completely in what context such killing was done.

[PavePusher]

137. My guns were not created or promoted for the purpose of killing.

But you knew that.

Stop the hyperbolic conflations and extrapolations already.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Approval is contingent only upon a clean criminal record, and a 200$ fee.

Which, actually sounds a lot like a poll tax to me, but hey, who's keeping score.

[jeepnstein]

142. Not really "approval"...

You need a tax stamp approving the transfer. Uncle Sam doesn't care what you own as long as you pay the tax and file the proper papers. There is a questionable ban on post 1986 production but anything produced prior to that is available every day. The paperwork really isn't that daunting. The law, known as NFA, applies to things like destructive devices, machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, or "any other weapon".

[MicaelS]

32. What you are essentially saying

Is that in cities you only want law enforcement to have guns. Citizens in cities should have no need, or right, to own a gun for self or home defense.

The same law enforcement that is often accused, and rightly so, (here on this very same website), of being racist, sexist and homophobic.

Is that a correct analysis of your position?

[sandnsea]

36. Two separate issues

The problem of racist cops can't be solved with the ownership of guns. In fact, the ownership of guns actually gives cops an excuse to shoot people at will. If people didn't have guns, cops couldn't say they thought a wallet was a gun, or plant a gun after the fact.

I also never said I think handguns *should* be banned in every city in the country, or any city in the country. I simply said I think cities have a right to do it. More specifically, I think they have a right to target any weapon that might be creating a particular problem in their city, much like switchblades have been banned or restricted.

[SteveM]

156. Problem, here...

"...I think cities have a right to do it ."

No, they don't. If a right to firearms encompasses handguns, then a city cannot ban those items. That would be in violation of the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause, the bulwark of many civil rights acts and court decisions. I must note that no where in the Constitution does a entity like "cities" or "states" enjoy "rights." They do have powers. As long as they don't violate the Constitution; most particularly the 14th Amendment.

[Callisto32]

146. Argumentum ad antiquitatum.

NEXT!

[SteveM]

155. Interesting as to motivations of gun-controllers/banners...

"If you can place regulations, or bans, on any given weapon - then you can do it for a handgun."

That is precisely what the "paranoid," "undies in a twist" "gun n__s" have warned against. And here you reveal the subterfuge which leads to the real goal: progressive prohibition.

[proteus_lives]

12. Deflection fail.

You'll have to try another anti trick.

[timo]

93. hmmm

Mexico has really strict gun laws, hardly anyone is allowed to have them...of anykind...but there are plenty of machine guns and rocket launchers there.

[HockeyMom]

14. No, BUT,

and even ultra conservative Alito said this, they can place restrictions; such as banning felons, mentally ill, and require backhground checks, licensing, registration, permits, safety classes, etc., etc., and charge fees for all this.

Personaly, I wish the climiate would change and nobody would WANT to own one.

[Statistical]

19. One correction the quesiton of fees has NOT be addressed (one way or other by the court).

Interestingly prior to Harper v. Virginia Board of elections taxes on voter registration were considered Constitutional. Today we would laugh at such an idea but for almost 200 years poll taxes were legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_Board_of_Elections

So Held: A State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Does conditioning ones right to keep a firearm based on payment of a fee or tax violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th?
:)

[HockeyMom]

21. Is it illegal to charge for a Driver's License?

Driving classes, road tests,permits, etc, etc. Even from a practical point of view, they have to PAY staff for the paperwork, testing, etc., for just about anything from driver's licensing, fishing licensing, passports, etc., etc.

You might have an argument for excesdive fees, but not for some kind of fee to cover the cost of processing.

[Statistical]

24. None of those are rights.

The court didn't say a fee to cover cost of election was acceptable. That was exactly the argument the State of VA made. Elections cost money, verifying registration cost times, resources, and money thus charging a fee to cover that costs was valid.

The court disagreed saying any fee no matter how small had an effect of discouraging the exercising of the right.

From a practical point of view an election requires the state to PAY staff for paperwork, voter registration, fraud detection, tabulation, certification, etc however the court found that poll taxes are still illegal. Today the cost of an election is paid for from general fund and registering to vote cost nothing.

Voter registration = Constitutional
Fee for voter registration = Unconstitutional

We can agree to disagree I was just pointing out it is an area of unsettled law right now. I expect within a couple years we will see a Supreme Court case on that exact issue using McDonald v. Chicago, DC v. Heller, and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections as precedent. Maybe the case loses (or maybe it is a marginal victory like no excessive fees) but someone WILL bring it to the courts that is virtually guaranteed.

[HockeyMom]

27. Should you be able to buy guns FREE?

If that is a RIGHT, then the cost of purchasing a gun should be free too.

[Statistical]

30. Of course not.

Should I get a TV station for free so I can exercise free speech? Of course not.

We aren't talking about subsidizing personal property. However any tax or fee imposed by the govt is an extra obstacle in exercising that right. The courts didn't say people have right to paid time off to vote, nor free transportation to get to polls, nor compensation for time spent studying the issue. The court simply said the GOVT couldn't impose an additional cost or buden on the citizens. The reason is that it would have a "chilling effect" on the exercising of that right. If people had to pay to vote some wouldn't.

$1000 permit to possess a firearm.
$1000 permit to practice religion of choice.
$1000 permit to avoid warrant-less search & seizure.
$1000 permit to avoid summary judgment and gain access to jury trial.
$1000 permit to vote in elections.

In each instance the state is placing an additional burden on the exercising of a right. The point isn't that a fee makes it impossible to exercise the right obviously even with the fee some people will still exercise the right. It is that the fee has an effect to discourage the exercising of the right ("a chilling effect") which is what the court found (in the case of poll tax) to be Unconstitutional.

I don't claim it is settled law though. The courts might disagree with me. Or they may determine excessive fees are Unconstitutional but govt can cover its costs. I was just pointing out that despite your claim neither Alito nor the SCOTUS made any determination of the Constitutionality of fees.

[HockeyMom]

49. So all these people in Chicago, or DC

who have the RIGHT to own guns to protect themselves in these dangerous cities, and now can own guns by of the rulings of the SC, are STILL being denied their consititutional right to own a gun because they don't have the the MONEY, putting aside fees, to buy them?

Pray tell me, what is your solution to this? Have the government supply all US citizens with guns? It's their CONSITITUIONAL RIGHT to have them!

[Statistical]

55. Yup as soon as the govt supplies everyone with a free printing press and TV station.

The govt has no obligation to provide anything however the court has found in certain instances (like poll tax) that it is prohibited from placing a BURDEN. Differece between an obligation and a burden.

The Bill of rights doesn't define what the govt MUST DO for its citizens. It defines what the govt must NOT DO.

Thus you don't have a right to have a firearm provided to you. You simply have a right to own a firearm free of government infringement.

You have a right to free travel but that doesn't mean FREE travel. Your ability to travel may be limited by your means but that doesn't mean the govt can restrict your movements because of your means ($1000 tax to cross state lines).

You have a right to not be discriminated on based on race, religion, or sex when looking for a job but the govt has no obligation to provide you a job. Similarly you also have right a right secure housing free from discrimination based on race, religion, or sex but the government has no obligation to provide you a house for free.

I think you can easily tell the difference between an obligation and a burden.

Do you believe that the Supreme Court was wrong (in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections) and poll taxes should be legal (you have a right to vote but the govt has a right to charge you for exercising that right)?

[HockeyMom]

61. None of those are rights in the Constitution

Just as you mentioned the Constitutional right to vote free of charge, if owning a gun is a Contitutional right why should somebody have to pay for that right? What about the militia concept? Only people of money there too? If you are poor, you cannot be part of this "militia"?

[Statistical]

70. You should read the bill of rights.

Two points

a) We have things called Unenumerated Rights. Everything I listed is a right under Constitutional law.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
- Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Right to privacy, right to free travel, right be free of discrimination based on race, religion, gender are all Unenumerated Rights. Our rights aren't solely limited to 8 items thought up 200 years ago. Many of our Unenumerated Rights come from other portions of the Constitution; many rights come from "due process" clause and "equal protection" clause despite the actual right never being named.

b) OBLIGATION vs. PROHIBITED

The govt doesn't have the OBLIGATION to provide you a firearm. That isn't the same thing as saying the govt isn't PROHIBITED from creating an unnecessary barrier.

The courts didn't say people won't incur a costs to vote just that the state can't be the source of that cost (via tax or fee).

Obviously they do:
* Someone might have to take time off from work without pay (not Unconstitutional)
* Someone might need to pay for childcare to go vote (not Unconstitutional)
* Someone might need to pay for transportation (not Unconstitutional)
vs
* The state can't charge a tax or fee on voting (Unconstitutional).

The Bill of Rights doesn't protect you from your boss not paying for time off, or taxi driver demanding payment for fare (even to an election). The Bill of Rights restricts the actions of governments.

A state that doesn't provide paid time off, free childcare, and transportation reimbursement for elections isn't violating the Constitution. The state has no OBLIGATION to make elections without any cost. Elections obviously have cost to participants. If they chose to exercise that right it costs them something at a minimum it costs them time. While the state has no OBLIGATION to make elections without cost at the same time they are PROHIBITED from adding a fee or tax on the exercising of that right.

[gravity556]

129. Seriously?

Just as you mentioned the Constitutional right to vote free of charge, if owning a gun is a Contitutional right why should somebody have to pay for that right? What about the militia concept? Only people of money there too? If you are poor, you cannot be part of this "militia"?


Using that same logic, books, paper, pencils, pens, TV broadcast time, computers, typewriters, iPads and every other communications device should also be free in support of the 1st Amendment. Which is preposterous (not the 1st, but the thought that goods should be free).

[PavePusher]

139. Nope, not playing at all. Sigh. n/t

[HockeyMom]

50. So all these people in Chicago, or DC

who have the RIGHT to own guns to protect themselves in these dangerous cities, and now can own guns by of the rulings of the SC, are STILL being denied their consititutional right to own a gun because they don't have the the MONEY, putting aside fees, to buy them?

Pray tell me, what is your solution to this? Have the government supply all US citizens with guns? It's their CONSITITUIONAL RIGHT to have them!

[Callisto32]

149. Hmm, maybe I explained it better in this old post.

A different view on "right."
Posted by Callisto32 in Guns
Mon Dec 21st 2009, 11:46 AM
For those of you from outside this forum, or who have forgotten about me in my long absence here is the same old disclaimer: I am a libertarian, (note the lower case "l"), not a Democrat, or anything that could probably be confused therewith.

I would say that if the bill states that you cannot get an abortion on the public tab, it is fine. Of course, I don't think that the state should be paying anybody's medical bills, and certainly not calling it a right to receive health care. Here is why. For something to be a right, I believe, it must be able to be fulfilled entirely by the voluntary actions of the person asserting the right. So, for example, you would have the right to enter into contracts with medical professionals for the tender of care in exchange for any valuable consideration you may agree upon. You cannot simply have a right to health care. Because if you have a right, you cannot rightly be denied it, and so someone HAS to provide that service for you. This is tantamount to enslaving the person who is forced, by your "right," to provide a service. Firearms are the same way. If there was a bill that was going to use tax (read: "stolen") funds to provide the populace with firearms, that would be wrong too because of the force involved in moving the wealth around. But, if someone can acquire a firearm and all of the accoutrement, and use that firearm, both in ways that do not harm others or the property of others, then he has a right to possession of that firearm.

[spin]

100. Were firearms free in colonial days or after the Constitution was ratified? (n/t)

[PavePusher]

138. Now you're just playing stupid.

At least, I hope you're playing...

[Callisto32]

148. You don't have a RIGHT to a gun.

If that were so, the people that make guns would be your slaves, because they would be required to perform labor for your benefit, without compensation.

No you have a RIGHT to acquire a firearm through non-violent, voluntary exchange of goods or services.

Once you have the gun, you have a RIGHT to keep and bear it, so long as you do not aggress against others with it.

[Ter]

164. Sounds good to me

n/t

[-..__...]

35. Wrong...

(at least partially).

The only infringements the SCOTUS addressed directly were...

the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," as well as "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" are all permissible.

.

Nothing else in their opinion suggested that "backhground checks, licensing, registration, permits, safety classes, etc., etc., and charge fees for all this" are permissible.

[HockeyMom]

62. I said that

and Scalia even wrote his own separate brief on this. People can look it up.

[HockeyMom]

63. It's a very basic concept of our laws

Actually, it goes way back to common law; the greater good. Some laws may infringe on individual rights, but are held constitutional for the greater good of society (the masses).

This is the concept of eminent domain, for example. Government can seize a private property to build a road. While you may have a right to enjoy your personal property, more people will "enjoy" and benefit from a road being built where your property runs.

All these background checks (felons/mentally ill), etc., serve the greater good of the masses to protect them.

[spin]

104. Does the "greatest good" imply that criminals have firearms ...

while honest citizens are disarmed?

You could argue that the "greatest good" would be no firearms allowed in our nation, but the problem is that all the laws you pass would never accomplish this. Prohibition was a total failure as is our current "War on Drugs".

Of course, if by some MIRACLE you actually succeed in eliminating all firearms from private ownership, eventually we would end up with a tyrannical dictatorship that would trample all rights for their power and profit.

[Callisto32]

147. How about...

nobody wants to own one for nefarious purposes?

Around here, a lot of people EAT because of guns.

A second hand rifle and a box of ammo puts a helluva lot more meat on the table than the equivalent money. Plenty of folks are pretty poor...

We play games of skill with guns, and just enjoy time on the range with buddies.

None of this stuff is evil.

[SteveM]

157. Can you give me some cites or links?...

"...require background checks, licensing, registration, permits, safety classes, etc., etc., and charge fees for all this."

This is quite a shopping list. Where did Alito say that these actions were held constitutional?

[Ter]

163. If he said that he's an idiot

Safety classes, get real...

[MicaelS]

15. Absolutely not...

Contrary to the propaganda of those who are anti-gun, a handgun is still the best weapon for home defense. It is smaller than a rifle or shotgun, thus easier to maneuver and properly use. It is less powerful than a rifle or shotgun, thus less liable to penetrate an internal wall and hurt someone else. It is much easier and cheaper to secure in a steel lockbox since it is so much smaller than a long gun.

[X_Digger]

94. Takes one hand, so the other can have a cell phone or flashlight. n/t

[Callisto32]

150. Not sure about easier to properly use.

They are smaller and easier to maneuver, which makes it a lot easier to muzzle something you didn't want to. They are also more difficult with which to become proficient, requiring many times more practice to maintain skill.

A perfect medium seems to be small, pistol caliber carbines. They bring the ease of use of a rifle, and the "less likely to penetrate walls and hurt someone" part of pistol rounds.

[michreject]

22. Not only no

but hell no.

[Abq_Sarah]

28. No

And that's a good thing. If states had the right to prohibit constitutionally guaranteed rights, we'd have no rights other than those given to us. What the government gives, the government can take away and personally, it will be a cold day in hell before I beg permission from any government to exercise my rights.

[-..__...]

38. Absolutely not.

And given the rights affirmed in Heller and McDonald, I eagerly await further actions by RKBA advocates in striking down
existing gun control legislation at all levels... be it local, state or federal.

[spin]

39. Do cities have the right to ban free speech?

Do cities have the right to say what religion you can belong to?

Do cities have the right to regulate what the newspapers inside the city print?

Do cities have the right to set up a literacy test for voting?

[NYC_SKP]

40. Exactly what I wanted to say.

Seems like that should settle it.

:P

:patriot:

[sandnsea]

43. But they do

They ban parts of speech and restrict it to certain areas. They limit what can be printed and who it can be sold to, when it comes to pornography. And religious would argue that their speech is controlled as it is "banned" in schools and various government agencies.

All the rights have limitations that, in some cases, amount to outright bans.

[slackmaster]

60. None of them ban the posession of porn or what you can say in your own home

Public behavior is certainly subject to restrictions that cannot be applied to private behavior.

[sandnsea]

72. Not true

I already had this discussion above. Feel free to make your argument and then insert any answer I've already given.

[slackmaster]

130. Your point about child pornography is a good correction, but it's not a valid comparison IMO

By its very existence, child pornography is proof that a crime (abuse of a child) has already been committed. A firearm presents no such moral conundrum.

[spin]

105. True, we are losing our rights ...

for example BP seems to be able to curtail the free press.

[Callisto32]

151. Why not consider that those restrictions are also wrong, rather than being an authoritarian?

[Fla_Democrat]

46. No

:smoke:

[eridani]

48. Not by law, but by regulation

If a restaurant can say No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service and enforce that without passing a law, why can't a city or any other venue?

[Statistical]

52. How can a restaurant enforce that?

Does that "regulation" extend past private property?

Or is it simply a private property owner making a rule about what is acceptable on his/her property.

I could require that you only come in my house wearing a tuxedo. I am classy. :)
That doesn't given me any authority to ban non-tuxedos outside my house though.

[eridani]

84. So, why can't owners of public property do the same?

IF you can ban non-tuxedos in your house, a city can ban guns in public venues for the same reason.

[Statistical]

85. Because city doesn't own public property.... the "public" (PEOPLE) does.

As in the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. :hi:

[eridani]

102. The hell it can't, just like noise ordinances don't contradict the first amenment n/t

[X_Digger]

113. Those are 'time, place, and manner' restrictions.

And they do face intermediate scrutiny (if the law is content neutral; if the law is content specific, strict scrutiny applies).

Technically, they do infringe the first amendment, but they pass the test for judicial review, depending on the standard.

[X_Digger]

97. Private v Gov't

As an individual, I can put up almost any arbitrary restriction on my property. I can ask you to not enter my house without wearing a red shirt, or no shirt at all. If you refuse to leave when asked (for any reason or no reason), you can be charged with trespassing.

As a business NOT open to the public, I can place many of those same restrictions on you, the visitor (it gets a bit different for employees).

As a business that IS open to the public, Title II of the 1964 civil rights act limits my ability to discriminate against you, the visitor, based on set criteria like race, religion, sex, nationality, etc.

The bill of rights is an admonition against the government, not people or businesses.

[eridani]

101. People in cities have the right to make rules for those cities n/t

[X_Digger]

111. Not in contravention of their state or federal constitution, no.

A set of rules that violates* one or both of these bounding documents will be struck down.

No city could outlaw demonstrations.

No city could allow slavery.

No city could force people to testify against themselves.

No state can outlaw a religion.

Each of these is a protected right, explicitly enumerated in most state (and certainly the federal) constitutions.

Government (local, state, federal) operates with restrictions that do not apply to you and me. Power flows up, from the people, not down from the government.


* violates to the extend that it doesn't pass judicial review. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

[Statistical]

114. So Atlanta has the right to bring back slavery if Atlanta wants.

Richmond has the right to prohibit mosques.
State of Delware could institute a poll tax to disenfranchise the working poor.

Sorry Constitutional rights don't work that way. The majority have no authority to trample the rights of the people.

Cities and states have no rights. None. Not one, ever in any instance. They have powers. Powers the constitution says are limited.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

- 10th Amendment to United States Constitution.

[spin]

106. Can a restaurant ban blacks or hispanics?

[TheKentuckian]

53. Nope, they can regulate but I'm not in favor of that either. My line is at nukes

and I don't want any possession of such weapons worldwide by individual or government.

That might be my condition for any weapons ban, that not one entity anywhere has one.

GI Joe or Officer Charley has it then so should anyone, that's balance of power.

[mopinko]

65. the city of chicago has home rule powers, so if illinois

can ban guns, so can chicago. home rule powers are extended to large cities, so that they can deal with overarching problems, like people getting shot, and make their own laws.
so, any tiny town might not have the right, but cities with home rule powers can if anyone can. do you think states should be allowed to make gun control laws?

and fwiw, i would wager that everybody in chicago that wants a gun has one. people who see gun ownership as a constitutional right tend to rationalize local prohibitions. especially here i al capone-ville.

[HockeyMom]

67. Again, greater good

Maybe they cannot totally ban them, but they can place restrictions on them for the greater good. Otherwise, any law remotely regulating gun ownership would be found unconstitional. That hasn't and won't happen.

[Fast Dude]

74. Greater good of who?

The criminals who will ignore the law anyway?

[HockeyMom]

79. The general public/masses

This is a BASIC concept of law and that is why even a Scalia, conservative and strict Consititionalist, will never strike down restrictions to gun law control laws.

Read his briefs. Take a law course.

[Statistical]

82. "will never strike down restrictions to gun law control laws. "

it would depends on the restriction. Specifically does the restriction pass strict scrutiny.

The court never said all restrictions are valid.

This is what the court said:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

What if Chicago instituted a $20,000 annual fee for firearm license? Not going to strike that down?
What if Chicago prohibiting ownership from persons under 21? Not going to strike that down?
What if Chicago required people travel 35 miles to get training? Not going to strike that down?

[HockeyMom]

86. Depends, now doesn't it?

While $340 (NYC) fee be be pocket change for some, $20 maybe be prohibitive for others. As I said before, many poor people won't even be able to afford the cost of the gun, let alone any fees.

I do agree that 18 should be the minimum age. They can vote, sign contracts, join the military, marry, so that should be the age minimum.

[Statistical]

87. So the court might strike down some gun control provisions (like one prohibiting an 18 year old).

While a gun may be too expensive for someone to purchase it isn't the state's role to ensure it is with excessive fees.

Maybe the person inherited a firearm. Should they be forced to give up their right because the state want's $1,000 in licensing?

Poor people *might* not be able to afford transportation & time off to vote so would it be ok if States brought back poll taxes?

Also if you require training at a range but don't allow any ranges in the city wouldn't it seem the intent is to deprive people of the right? Would it be ok if the city had polling places 35 miles outside the city? If the intent is to deprive then the provision is Unconstitutional.

[HockeyMom]

89. I didn't learn to drive until 30

I lived in a suburb w/o public transportation. I can call or write to the League of women voters or my party. They do arrange transportation to vote, you know. They will even send you an absentee ballot which you can mail.

That one doesn't cut it, from a person who didn't know how to drive.

[Statistical]

91. You not learning to drive is not the same as the city intentionally depriving you of rights.

Equal protection under the law. No city could get away with polling places being 35 miles outside the city. DU would be up in arms demanding a lawsuit and impeachment overnight.

The courts would call that an "impermissible burden" as I hope they will with many of Chicago provisions.


I am glad you at least accept that Chicago prohibition of handguns for people aged 18-20 is blatantly Unconstitutional. Likely the courts will find that isn't the only provision Unconstitutional.

[HockeyMom]

92. I only support that

because an 18 year old is no longer an Infant (Minor) under the law.

[SteveM]

159. If somehow 2A rights were being denied citizens due to the cost of guns....

that could be remedied rather easily by a few billion dollars, upon proof of sufficient "impoverishment." Foundations and clubs could contribute money.

This seems thin gruel to base on argument on.

BTW, "melting point" laws and the requirement to buy only certain expensive arms has been tried to deny citizens the RKBA -- by Southern states during the Jim Crow era. Trouble is, a lot of poor whites got caught up in this rank subterfuge.

[Fast Dude]

83. So, restricting gun ownership for law abiding citizens..

...is good for them?

I couldn't care less what Scalia thinks. When they try to restrict my gun rights, I will simply be considered a criminal. I will not obey such laws.

[SteveM]

158. The "greater good" must pass Constitutional scrutiny.

Otherwise, subterfuge will rule the day.

The Constitution protects the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. The Government has the power to promote the "general welfare" -- but not by countermanding to the Constitution. That is why I think universal health care should be provided; not because it is a right, but because the Constitution doesn't per se prevent that action. Some right-wing blowhard may make the argument that such provision is un-Constitutional, but I can't see where it is prevented.

The Second Amendment forbids the Federals from infringing the RKBA; the states are prevented from doing so by the 14th.

[spin]

75. What type of restrictions do you suggest? ...

Many areas of our nation (including large urban areas) have requirements that I consider reasonable. For example, the current laws of Florida, where I live.

Chicago is proposing restrictions which would make it difficult or impossible for poorer residents to obtain a handgun for self defense. These are the very people who might have the most reason to own a firearm. Why should only those who have the financial resources, time and the means be the only residents who enjoy the privilege of a tool to possibly avert tragedy?

[HockeyMom]

81. Again, putting aside legal arugments

these very people probably won't even have the money to buy a gun, let alone the license, permit fees. They will be "denied" gun ownership solely for financial reasons. You want to donate a gun to them?

BTW, I lived in NYC for over half a century and for three in Florida.

[spin]

108. A used .38 revolver in good condition can be obtained at a very reasonable ...

price and is an excellent self defense weapon.

If you lived if Florida, you should realize that there is no license or permit fees.

I live in the poorest county in Florida and one of the poorest in the nation. I know many poor people who are armed.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

124. You must support poll taxes then...

Hey, you can exercise your rights... if you can afford to.
... real progressive, there :puke:

[PavePusher]

140. The horse is nothing but mush now...

you can put that stick down...

[spin]

69. I agree that everyone who wants a gun has one in Chicago ...

but should an honest citizen who lives in a bad neighborhood and has reason to fear for his life, be forced to violate the law to obtain that protection.

If so, why should I be allowed to legally own and have a license to carry a firearm in Florida?

Some poor soul who lives in Chicago but is still a citizen of our country should not legally have the same rights to self defense as I enjoy. What sense does that make? I lived in the large urban area of Tampa Bay for 37 years and always had a handgun for self defense.

[HockeyMom]

73. But they still can regulate your carry

as in your cannot bring your legal carry gun onto school property, even in Florida It isn't anything goes. There are still restrictions. Didn't you have to pay for a permit, get a background check, and take a gun safety course in Florida? The state of Florida still regulates, places restrictions, and charges for that carry permit.

[spin]

98. I have no problem with the current Florida restrictions ...

they are reasonable. I just renewed my permit and it only cost $65 plus the cost of a passport photo and is good for 7 years. I was able to get the necessary forms online and didn't have to get the approval of the local law enforcement.

For the original license the cost would have been $117 which includes a $45 dollar fee for fingerprints. Since I was in the military, I was able to get the original license without going through a concealed carry class. The cost of this class varies, depending on the location. When I obtained my license, I had been a regular and frequent handgun shooter for twenty five years and personally knew instructors who had taught the course and was very familiar with the laws in Florida. Had I not been knowledgeable with handguns and the law, I would have spent the money to take a course from a good instructor rather than get one at a gun show. (I feel that for anyone unfamiliar with handguns or the law, the only way to go is to get the best class you can find in your area.) I have known individuals who have taken a really good course and the cost was far from prohibitive. At a gun show, the class might cost $45. The student has to go to a gun range and discharge a provided firearm for $5.

http://www.suncoastgunshows.com/html/concealed_weapons_permit.htm

I personally feel that carrying a firearm concealed should require more range time. It's an enormous responsibility and a good instructor can teach a lot even to a newbie shooter. Such courses might cost two or three times as much.

I've watched students who went through the short class qualify on ranges I shot at. The target is placed at 15 feet to 21 feet. The overwhelming majority of those I watched hit the target with no problem, and those who had problems got SOME additional training. After such a course, I hope that the student would have the commonsense to practice on a regular basis and improve his/her ability.

Of course, you can own a firearm including a handgun in your home in Florida by merely going to a gun store and filling out the necessary paperwork and passing the NICS background check. There is a "3 day waiting period" for handguns which is actually a 5 day waiting period as the day of purchase or the day of pickup doesn't count. Since I have a concealed weapons permit, I bypass the waiting period. I still have to fill out the required paperwork and pass the NICS background check. There is no requirement to have the police register the firearm or test fire it to obtain a shell casing.

Even without a concealed weapons permit, I can carry a loaded firearm in my vehicle as long as it is securely encased (in a glove box).

Florida law also allows an individual to "stand his ground" and use lethal self defense rather than retreat. In most cases a individual can leave his firearm in his locked vehicle at work (if he has a concealed carry permit).

There are restrictions on where I can carry my firearm even though I have a carry permit. None are unreasonable in my opinion.

I can't carry my weapon in the open as in some states. While there is an open carry movement in my state, I have little or no problem carrying concealed with my license. I usually carry a snub nosed .38 in my pants pocket, but have on occasion carried a full sized .45 auto. With the proper holster and clothing, nobody knows I'm "packing heat". I don't attract negative attention nor do I want to.

The Florida concealed weapons law is unique in that it allows me to carry weapons other than firearms concealed. Many states tightly regulate weapons such as knives even with a concealed firearms permit. Since I am not a trained knife fighter (a martial art in itself) so I don't carry a knife as a weapon, but as a multipurpose tool. I usually carry two knives, one a fully serrated 4" pocket knife and a 4" fixed blade in a sheath on my belt. Each serve different purposes but in an urban environment I can legally conceal them. I see no reason to disturb those who fear knives. My son in law and my daughter often carry switch blades concealed with their license. I have bought my daughter a high quality Benchmade pocket knife which opens as fast as her switchblade with practice and my son in law a Benchmade fixed blade which he occasionally carries. Both, of course, have concealed weapons permits and they use their knives as tools rather than weapons. Youth sometimes fails to realize the wisdom of age. A pocket knife with a good lock that you can open one handed, or better yet a fixed blade is a better choice than a complicated mechanical device such as a fairly cheap switchblade which might fail. (Of course, for self defense both my daughter and my son in law carry firearms.)

So yes, Florida has restrictions. Some who feel that the Second Amendment allows everybody to carry everything would find Florida laws oppressive. I don't.



http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0790/titl0790.htm

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

[mopinko]

76. it's not really my intent to argue the question, just

to point out that, legally, chicago has a large enough population to qualify for home rule power. iirc, this is a raygun era legal device.

[Statistical]

77. Home Rule power is granted by the states to municipal entities

It doesn't give that entity the authority to violate civil rights though.

Thus Home Rule power would only apply if you believe that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right, which is a choice in the poll. In that instance is a state allowed firearms (as a privilege not a right) a city if granted that Home Rule Power (which is not unlimited in scope) could prohibit it within its borders.

If Home Rule Power could allow willful violation of Constitution then Atlanta for example could re-institute slavery only in Atlanta or New York could pass a law enabling the confiscation of property from Jews located in New York.

Home Rule Power can't be used to violate the Constitution.

[spin]

99. So Chicago should be able to do anything it wants ...

merely because it has a large enough population?

If so, should Chicago be be allowed to become a country with its own constitution?

Mayor Daley would LOVE to be king.

[Statistical]

88. But can IL ban handguns? n/t

[Fast Dude]

80. Here's a novel idea....restrictions on the criminals

How about an ordinance like this one.

Law abiding citizens may own guns. Use a gun to rob, rape, or murder an innocent victim, we'll cut your head off and throw it at your ass.

[spin]

110. Cutting your head off might be a little extreme ...

enforcing existing law and punishing those carrying or misusing firearms would be a better approach. Plea bargaining because our prison system is overloaded with non violent people who violate drug laws is foolish.

Honestly, the solution to violent crime is not allowing gun ownership, but proactive law enforcement coupled with an effective judicial system that is not a revolving door. Allowing honest citizens to own firearms enables legal self defense and saves lives. Fair and responsible regulations for gun ownership helps to eliminate those who are too irresponsible to handle firearms safely. No matter what we do, tragic incidents will always happen, but more lives will be saved if honest citizens with a clean record in good mental health are allowed to own firearms for self defense.

[The Straight Story]

95. Can they ban free speech, freedom of the press? (nt)

[Dank Nugs]

96. Nope. Constitutional rights supercede city laws or state laws. Deal with it. nt

[ThomWV]

103. Exactly, besides, if a city could nullify your rights so could a dictator.

[jp11]

109. Other:

No, to banning all guns, maybe yes to handguns. Laws exist to limit what firearms a person can legally own, to me there is no difference between those limits and one limiting the use of a handgun provided some other firearm is permitted. What might be an issue is whether or not a city itself has the authority to enact such laws, perhaps they need to be enacted by the state, I'm not certain on that issue, or perhaps if a state permits handguns then a city can't override that.

The law if you read it as guaranteeing the right to own firearms does not say handguns, it simply says firearms which includes a multitude of weapons, if it is permissible to limit some of them, so long as all aren't limited, there is no clear legal standing in my view saying what can be limited and what can't.

The only exception would be if the laws denied people the use of firearms deemed lethal and only permitted them something like pellet guns or air rifles, as that I think everyone would agree goes against the intent of the 2nd amendment where a firearm was a weapon used to kill or defend with the power of lethal force.

[Abq_Sarah]

112. In the Heller decision

The court decided a city can't ban handguns because handguns have a common usage for self defense. McDonald applied 2nd amendment protections to the citizens of all states.

[X_Digger]

115. "in common use, for lawful purposes" was the language, iirc. n/t

[spin]

116. Handguns are an excellent tool for self defense ...

many recommend a shotgun for home defense and I agree that it is a good choice in most cases.

However, I live in what was once an old hotel and my family often has roomers who have visitors at odd hours of the night. The most recent example was a police officer in my local community who stayed with us for a year and a half before he bought his own home.

If I hear something really strange at night and I decide to check the situation out, I chose to drop a .38 snub nosed revolver in the pocket of my shorts. (I'm a light sleeper.) I usually found a stranger in the house who was merely a visitor of the police officer. Sometimes it was merely my imagination or one of my teenage grandchildren dropped a bottle and it broke. The officer who takes his job seriously had threats on his life.

Everything was always cool. Had I wondered out of my room with my double barreled 12 gauge coach gun, I would have scared the shit out of an innocent person for no reason. Of course, I could have stayed in my room behind my bed with the shotgun and waited or an intruder to break the door down. I have a daughter, her husband and two teenage boys in the house. It would take a nuclear attack to wake them up. While it isn't wise, I play Wyatt Earp and clear the house.

The choice of a weapon for possible self defense came down to:



or

[gravity556]

141. @ spin, RE choice of firearm

I love my coach gun, but as for a choice of home defense gun, I prefer an 870 or AR with a light and sling. A rifle is far more accurate than a pistol, and an AR has much less recoil than a .357 or .45, meaning that follow up shots can be made more quickly and accurately. Since I am responsible for every round that leaves the barrel, controllability and accuracy are paramount. Since malefactors are taking to wearing soft body armor in home invasions in my area, a rifle, again, is a better choice than a pistol.

As to cities having the authority to ban firearms of any sort, I'm on the fence. Many states have RKBA clauses in their state constitutions. That said, the second ammendment is just as much a right of the people as the first. My right to defend myself is just as important as my freedom to peaceably assemble or speak in opposition in a political discussion. I just can't get my head around the thought of needing to pay a fee to excersize a Constitutional right. And I *really* can't understand why some folks think that prohibitive fees and red tape are a good idea-quite often, the people that find themselves most needing an immediate ability to defend themself are unable to afford fees that are as costly (or more costly)as the firearm itself.

Sorry if I'm rambling-my back has been killing me for the past couple of weeks and I'm running on about 3 hours of sleep a day..:silly:

[SteveM]

165. No, I don't think so...

Even at the time of adoption, handguns, rifles, shotguns, even some prototype repeaters were around. The Second mentions "arms," generally defined as a firearm capable of being held and operated in one or both "arms." Selectivity as to which arms is and isn't OK was not in the context of debate at the time; the Founding Fathers were aware of the speed at which firearms technology was advancing (see: Lewis & Clark and the "repeater" they had for their odyssey). And selectivity was not what they had in mind with the "press" (Amendment I). No doubt, they knew that would change, and it did. I would also point out that a one-armed person, or an aged or infirm person, could not operate a long gun, and would be forced to use a handgun.

Cities are creatures of the state in which they are organized. They cannot "turn" on their creator! (Ha!)

I have to admit that a sub-machine gun (capable of firing pistol-sized cartridges at Full-Auto) and an assault rifle (capable of firing small "rifle-sized" cartridges at Full-Auto) DO fall under the definition of "arms," as I have outlined above, so that those who argue that full-auto small arms should be regulated in a manner similar to any other arm have a legitimate beef. But the 1934 Gun Control Act has placed severe restrictions on the ownership of these classes of weapons. If I were completely intellectually honest, I would have to call for the repeal of that Act. But I haven't.

[jdp349]

118. I'll defer that question to the supreme court to judge that matter

them being judges and all that

[JonLP24]

120. #2 Option

[Statistical]

121. So pretty interesting results before it moved to DU.

Roughly 80% believe handguns can't be banned because the 2nd protects and individual right.
That is slightly higher than the national average (usually around 70%). :)

[spin]

123. The support for gun ownership on DU amazes me ...

I was glad to see the poll survive as long as it did in GD.

[Statistical]

126. Yeah I thank the mods for that. Technically a violation of rules but glas they allowed it

at least for 8 hours. Got some good insight.

I think more and more progressives are waking up to gun control on three fronts
1) It doesn't work. Gun bans don't reduce crime, lack of gun bans hasn't made crime increase

2) It is hypocritical. If you accept the 2nd protects and individual right (and most do) then it is morally bankrupt to violate that right because you "don't like guns" while at the same time wanting equal protection under the law for other rights.

3) It is politically expensive. This is one of the few remaining wedge issues that Republicans have traction on and it is one of Democrats own making. If they were to embrance RKBA it would cost the Rep huge margins going forward and there is nothing they could do about it.

[onehandle]

125. Online polls are known for their accuracy.

And are never... gamed.

[Statistical]

127. Here a couple more scientific polls with same results

Pew Research Center. March 10-14, 2010. N=1,500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Thinking about gun laws: Do you think state and local governments should or should not be able to pass laws that ban the possession or sale of handguns in their jurisdictions?"

		Should 	Should Not 	Unsure 	  	 
		% 	% 	% 	  	 
3/10-14/10	45 	50 	5

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. June 4-5, 2008. N=1,035 adults nationwide. MoE ±  3.
"Preventing all Americans from owning guns"
		Agree	Disagree
6/4-5/08	13 	87

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Abt SRBI. April 23-27, 2008. N=1,502 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.  April 2007 & earlier conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

"Would you favor or oppose a law that banned the sale of handguns?"
		Favor 	Oppose 	Unsure 	  	 
		% 	% 	% 	  	 
4/23-27/08	36 	59 	5
4/23-27/08	36 	59 	5 	  	 
4/18-22/07	37 	55 	8 	  	 
3/15-19/00	47 	47 	6 	  	 
09/99		46 	50 	4 	  	 
05/99		44 	50 	6 	  	 
12/93		45 	51 	4

Couple things stand out there are no polls indicating a majority support banning even just handguns. None.

Second point is both in the Pew poll and Gallup poll we have seen a significant erosion over the course of decades. This isn't an overnight phenomenon but a long term trend. You are in the small and rapidly shrinking minority.

[onehandle]

132. Gallup polls DUers as a targeted group? (updated for clarification)

They haven't called me.

We were talking about an online poll on DU when you went elsewhere.

[slackmaster]

134. Gallup usually polls "likely voters"

So it's no wonder they haven't contacted you.

[Statistical]

135. I didn't get polled in last Presidential election.....

Guess that means that the polls saying Obama was going to win were bogus .... er wait.
Maybe there is something to that whole representative sample thing-ama-bob that Statisticians are always blabbering on about.

No there is no scientific poll of DU members but it is very clear that support for banning handguns has been on a long decline.

If you want to believe that despite overall trend that DU is some last bastion of gun banners then be my guess I won't interrupt your denial with any more pesky facts.

I am sure if the poll had been 80%+ saying they believe cities have the authority to ban guns you would be calling the results into question also. :rofl:

[slackmaster]

128. At least in a DU poll, participants can vote only once

It's a cut above typical online "polls".

But the fact that respondents select themselves is sufficient to prevent a DU poll from having any real validity.

[onehandle]

133. uh-huh. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

168. That poll was limited to DU. Not available to the general online public. N/T

[Euromutt]

160. I voted "other"; local government lacks that authority for other reasons

Those familiar with my posts have heard this before.

It's Political Science 101 that authority is the legitimate exercise of power and that the primary thing that grants legitimacy to the exercise of power is its being coupled with responsibility. Peter Parker's Uncle Ben was by no means the first person to come up with that concept. The government cannot legitimately deprive citizens of the means to exercise a right without accepting the responsibility of providing alternate means. There isn't a government in the United States--local, state, or federal--that accepts the responsibility to provide individual citizens with protection against unlawful acts of violence, and the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that they cannot be held responsible for failing to do so. Accordingly, by refusing to accept the responsibility to provide individual citizens with protection, government cannot claim the authority to deprive citizens of effective means to protect themselves, and given current levels of technology, firearms are the most effective means of incapacitating an assailant (which is why law enforcement and the armed forces use them).

While handguns do not have as much power to incapacitate as long guns, they have other characteristics that make them more effective than long guns as means of personal defense, such as portability, ease of concealment and securing (handguns can be stowed in a $100 quick-access lock box, rather than a $600+ safe), and ease of deployment (it's quicker to draw and aim a holstered handgun than a slung rifle or shotgun). Which is why Chicago aldermen cherish their ability to carry concealed handguns in a state where nobody else can.

[NewMoonTherian]

161. No. I might feel differently...

if cities or states had unilateral authority to determine the level of gun ownership rights.

If a given city or state could deregulate "machine guns"(and all the components randomly classified as machine guns), then another city or state(or, for some bizarre reason, the same one?) should have the authority to ban handguns.

As it stands now, the federal government has overstepped its role via the NFA, GCA'68, machine gun registry and so on, so for the time being, we'll have to polish the federal turd as best we can.

[jody]

167. Our Constitution cannot be amended to "to repeal the 2nd ammendment to allows handgun bans" or any

other inalienable right.

SCOTUS said in Heller:

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16

Either SCOTUS meant what it wrote in agreement with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison or rights do not exist under our government but are mere privileges granted by an omnipotent government.

[Statistical]

169. In theory I agree with you but history is written by the winners.

So the US does amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd and the SCOTUS rules it is valid. Then what? Your only option is accept it or revolution.

The UK had a RKBA protection until they amended it out of existence and that is that. The difference between political theory and reality. I think if the 2nd was ever repealed we would follow the path of the UK.

[jody]

170. If SCOTUS were to accept an amendment that alienated inalienable rights it would stand stare decisis

on its head, wouldn't it?

If We the People did not revolt at the ballot box and if that failed take other measures, then we would have lost the very soul of democracy and our national awareness of the value of each individual.

The winner would be a corporate state with all the totalitarian results already experienced under communism and fascism.

My view of the new pledge for that government.