The NRA's Image Improves as Support for Gun Control Slips

[Craftsman]

Public opinion surveys taken before the Virginia Tech shootings, showed that over time Americans had become less disposed to support gun control measures than they were in the years surrounding the Columbine school shootings in 1999.

For example, Americans have a better opinion of the National Rifle Association these days than they did in the mid 1990's. Over this same period, public calls for stricter gun-control laws have also quieted somewhat. A recent Pew nationwide survey found a 52%-to-32% majority of respondents holding a favorable opinion of the NRA, which will hold its massive annual convention on April 13-15 this year in St. Louis. While this is the first time since 1994 that the favorability rating of the group has crossed the 50% mark, positive views of the NRA have been inching upward in Pew polls in recent years.

Opinions of the NRA have improved among most demographic and political groups, but the anti-gun control advocacy organization has made its greatest gains among its traditional constituencies - men, whites and Republicans. Favorable views of the NRA among men, for example, jumped 11 percentage points, from 51% in 1995 to 62% in 2007. By contrast, favorable views among women stand at 42%, little changed from the 1995 level. And, while favorability rose 8 points among whites between 1995 and 2007, favorable views among blacks were essentially unchanged.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/443/the-nras-image-improves-as-support-for-gun-control-slips

[Craftsman]

1. Like it or lump it gun control is a losing issue

And has been since 1994.

[LeftHander]

13. NRA talking point....move along nothing to see here...

As one who grew up with guns...in a true GUN CULTURE...not a RAMBO MENTALITY Killing culture with fantasy "weapons"....


Most people even gun owners don't really like the idea of selling MILITARY WEAPONS and law enforcement weapons to civilians.

[Craftsman]

17. The largest segment of gun owners now do not hunt

The may own guns for any number of reasons, but the old we have nothing againt hunter routine is not working anymore. It hasn't for years.

[gatorboy]

44. See these are the gun nuts.

At least with the hunters, they use them as tools. Some of these other creepy folks simply like the power trip the guns give them.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. NRA saw to it that Cho had all the guns he could afford to buy.

[Craftsman]

5. Saying things like that will keep democrats losing elections.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. They lose a lot of elections lately?

[Craftsman]

10. In many case those who won were progun

Nick Lampson won Tom delay's old district. He had the endorsement of the NRA and the TSRA.

[gatorboy]

11. I'm sure he hopes so.

Probably half the members of the NRA pose like Cho did with their guns. It's an odd fetish. Kinda like Trekkies.

[The_Casual_Observer]

15. Kinda like Trekkies with the potential to blow your kid's head off.

But it's their "right".

[Craftsman]

19. Yes it is their right, and you can not defend one set of rights in the Constitution and not defend

others. Don't like amend it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Miller vs US look it up

it is just one example...

[Craftsman]

22. I forget the case name but a few months ago the Federal court said it was a individual

right. Next stop the SCOTUS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Will see

If they do, they will be trowing away closet to 200 years of precedent

Sure you want to read the Constitution STRICTLY?

[Craftsman]

33. And that has stopped this bunch when?

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. True but I am sure you do not want to talk

bout the disdain the current administration and current USSC justices have for the Consittuiton.

You really want to go there?

[jmg257]

52. Actually, they will only be affecting 70 years of QUESTIONABLE

precedence spouted out by anti-gunners as supporting a "collective" view, as we saw what Miller REALLY says below.

Dred Scott is the a definitive SC decision mentioning this issue, and they favored the individual intent. A third, a footnote in Lewis v. United States, indicated only that "these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms" — a ban on possession by felons — were permissable . But since felons may constitutionally be deprived of many of the rights of citizens, including that of voting, this dicta reveals little.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.

[Thothmes]

92. 200 hundred years of Precedent

That is not quite accurate, In a SCOTUS case in 1858, gun ownership was an individual white mans right. See Dred Scott Decision.

[jmg257]

24. Yep - the Miller decision will show why M16s and M4s should be legal.

Them being military equipement in common use, the citizens able to arm themselves, the importance of the armed people being the Militia etc.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. You sure you reaad the decision?

By the way, silly me M-16s have always been legal, within an ORGANIZED militia, better known as the National Guard

[jmg257]

43. Sure - I 'll quote it for you...

" The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress
power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With
obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the
effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the
Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied
with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and
train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to
keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time
strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that
adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the
Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from
the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of
Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A
body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further,
that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time.

See - it is VERY clear that if Miller was carrying a BAR instead on a SO Shotgun - autos would be fully legal today - as that part of the NFA would have been deemed unconstitutional.


Good catch though - I should clarify a point - M16s are somewhat legal - they are restricted, there are taxes, forms etc. What this ruling said is that ALL people - at least those meeting militia qualifcation, would be able to buy, keep and bear them.

[BOSSHOG]

23. They have the right to what?

To bear arms FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY. Its not ambiguous. Its clearly stated in the second amendment unless one wants to argue otherwise because one has an agenda.

And to think, conservatives always want the constitution strictly interpreted.

[Craftsman]

25. I disagree, and I am not alone

Like it or not, the progun side is winning. The NRA will see a spike in membership, HCI will not,

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. The supreme court and OTHER courts have yet to rule

that there is an absolute right for the individual to bear arms

by the way, you read US History wrong, every time we have a shooting like this one the NRA looses ground EVERY TIME.

[gatorboy]

29. A spike in membership thanks to Cho?

Gezz, some of you folks do earn that gun nut title...

[Craftsman]

32. No the knee jerk talk of more gun control gets them new members

I know my brother upped his annual to life Tuesday on this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

And I tell you that what people have asked for

is rational

Licencing,

Gun saves

Gun Locks

Background checks to prevent people like Mr Cho (there were many failures in the system by the way) in aquiring a single weapon, let alone two

Why is this so threatening to the NRA?

I mean a gun is a deadly instrument, not more nor less than my car. Yet I need to go through quite a bit more to get a driver's licence.. granted I am not going to mow people wiht it, but if I decided to, I could kill or seriously injure quite a bit of people (and as a medic I have seen the damage a car can do... to a point more impressive, if just as lethal, than a gun)

Why is this getting your knickers in a twist?

[Craftsman]

42. Many I kow do not consider licencin to be rational.

We have background checks now, most cities require guns to be stored safely.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. The FEDERAL ban (which has the backgrounds in there

that were more stringent than most states) is no longer active

Don't try to fool us

And licensing, why not?

I have to go through the DMV to get licensed to use a LETHAL instrument

Why shouldn't I be required to prove I can use another LETHAL instrument safely before I can take it home? Oh and prove proficiency every so often as well, lets say every five years.

What is so irrational about that?

Your fear that guns will be taken away?

You are aware that BlackWater took legal weapons from citizens during Katrina... or the NRA forgot to tell you this

Oh and when that happened, all we heard from the NRA were crickets

[beevul]

60. Point of clarification, and point of contention:

"I have to go through the DMV to get licensed to use a LETHAL instrument."

You have to go through the DMV to get a liscense to something NOT specifically protected in the constitution, to use that lethal instrument in PUBLIC. Not on private property.




"Oh and when that happened, all we heard from the NRA were crickets"

"NRA FILES SUIT TO STOP FIREARM SEIZURES IN NEW ORLEANS"

"Thursday, September 22, 2005"


"(Fairfax, VA) - Today, the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a motion in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking a temporary restraining order to block authorities from confiscating law-abiding citizens’ firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6531

[beevul]

62. What federal ban is no longer active?

The one you your talking about that has more stringent background checks, what was it?

[jmg257]

63. Hey - didn't we dispose of the "NRA - Katrina" myth already? GET FACTS!!

THE NRA SUED AND GOT A RESTRAINING ORDER - A LAW WAS PASSED PREVENTING IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

"Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco has signed into law the "Emergency Powers Protection Act" (HB 760). The new law prevents local governments from confiscating firearms during a state of emergency, as it happened in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
Days after Hurricane Katrina hit, then New Orleans Police Chief Eddie Compass issued an order to confiscate all firearms – including those from law-abiding residents.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), in a release, applauded Gov. Blanco for signing into law the new statute, "that will prohibit the kind of sweeping firearms seizures from law-abiding citizens that happened in New Orleans in the wake of last year's devastating Hurricane Katrina."
The new state law, which took effect immediately, makes it clear that emergency powers granted to the governor and local officials "do not authorize the seizure or confiscation of a firearm, weapon, or ammunition from any individual if the firearm, weapon or ammunition is being possessed or used lawfully."

SAF was joined in the landmark New Orleans lawsuit last September by the National Rifle Association on behalf of SAF and NRA members residing in the storm area. After New Orleans police and visiting officers from other jurisdictions began taking guns, attorneys for the two groups secured a restraining order from federal Judge Jay Zainey that brought the gun seizures to a halt."


PLEASE stop posting bullshit - it confuses people who like the truth.

[jmg257]

65. You can buy a car without a license, and there is NO history of the

government confiscating cars, though they are used to kill WAAYYY MORE people then guns.

IF the licensing was done in such a way as to keep what guns I owned from ANY govt record - I would give it some thought. The problem is it still tells the govt who is likely to be armed and who isn't, instead of letting them assume "everyone" is armed as was required by the constitution. It also gives them a power they don't have constutionally, and yet more control over the people. Proficiency test could be cool though - and fun.

Hmmm...

[Irreverend IX]

87. What I ask for...

Is correct spelling.

"Licencing"

"Gun saves"

Anyway, background checks are already mandated by law. The NICS system does a good job of preventing felons from legally buying guns, but someone definitely needs to improve the system for flagging people as mentally ill in the NICS database, since there appear to be gaps in communication. That is what's needed, not new laws. I don't see why licensing would stop someone who was bent on getting a gun in order to kill, especially someone as devious and patient as Cho.

If you want to require that people to buy "gun saves," you're putting legal self-defense out of the reach of the poor. A better way to encourage safe gun storage would be to give tax credits for the purchase of a gun safe, which would make the decision to buy one a lot easier. Gun locks provide no security whatsoever; depending on the type, they can be defeated with a plastic pen or a set of wire cutters.

And licenses are requires to drive cars on public streets, not own them. It's the same with guns; you don't need a license to own, but you do need one to carry concealed in public (outside of Vermont and Alaska, which strangely have some of the US's lowest homicide rates).

[gatorboy]

37. You're not part of the NRA?

[Craftsman]

39. Life member NRA, Annual Member TSRA

[murloc]

67. I know its a one-off but my brother in law just joined the NRA

as a direct result of this shit in V.A.

We were having a family argument/discussion about gun control yesterday(resulting from talking about the VA massacre). As usual everyone got pissed at each other, but we all still love each other.

Anyway, just this morning he dropped me an email(to irk me no doubt) to let me know he just joined the IRA to help fend off the coming gun control measures from "us liberals". <sigh>

He might be BS'ing me, but the gun-lovers are definitely coming out of the woodwork - paranoid as hell about "gun grabbers".

He's a nut though.

[BOSSHOG]

36. And why do you disagree?

Because you don't like what it says? It would be like disagreeing that two plus two equals four. The second amendment is not ambiguous and does not need to be amended. It needs to be scrapped and updated to the realities of the 21st century.

And I agree, the progun side is winning. I read the police reports everyday. They are having a resounding victory. With each crime commmitted by a person with a gun the progun side wins.

Become a victim of a crime involving a handgun. Have a loved one injured or murdered and you can thank the NRA. Or maybe just maybe you might have a son or a daughter slaughtered on a college campus by a person who might have mental problems who legally purchased a handgun. But the NRA is chock full of conservatives so you won't dare get them to accept responsibility for anything. Thats a conservative value.

[Craftsman]

38. I have twice had to pull my gun to protect myself

Both times I never had to shoot, just displaying it was enough to get the ARMED perp to back off. I was glad I had it. ANd I do have a legal carry permit.

[gatorboy]

41. Neighbors too loud?

[Craftsman]

45. No, I worked in a bad area of town for one, I was walking to my jeep

to deposit the daily receipts when three people came around the corner, one had a shotgun under his coat, I ducked behinf the jeep and pulled my gun, they ran. The second time I was cut off and honked at the guy, he followed me to a parking lot and got out of his car with a knife. I just has to show the gun and he left.

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. I have worked in a bad area of town for 30 years

and never once have I needed a gun. Not once.

[Craftsman]

57. You aren't me. I have. I hope your luck continues,

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. I know it will

Sorry you are so paranoid.

[Craftsman]

64. I had a cousin who was killed in a robbery

He was the assistant manager of the store and they slit his throat to keep him from id'ing them. He did what they told him and he died anyway. It is dangerous out there.

[gatorboy]

66. How do you know he did what they told him?

[Craftsman]

93. Security tapes

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. Wait a minute - if he died, how do you know he did what they told him?

[Craftsman]

94. Security video tapes

[jmg257]

61. Good for you Craftsman - stay safe! And practice! nt

[jmg257]

34. Where does it say that in the 2nd? I KNOW "for the common defense" was NOT

added by the 1st Congress after "bear arms" when suggested.

Lets see:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Nope - nothing in there about "defending our country" being the only purpose for the people to have the right to arms. THAT was already secured in the Militia clauses - the Militia WERE indeed responsible for a "defense" role (repel invasions), and deemed necessary by the declarative clause of the 2nd. The restrictive part of 2nd protected the right for the people to keep and bear for any lawful purpose, just like all the other individual rights enumerated in the BOR.

[BOSSHOG]

47. Where does it say "for any lawful purpose?"

Its a sentence written more then 200 years ago. For the security of a free state it is necessary that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its really quite simple.

Share with me Mr Madison's intent that college campuses be shot up by a man with potential mental problems because he has the right to bear arms?

[jmg257]

50. I am pretty sure that was not Madison's intent. But that IS the law of the Land.

No argument they might not have envisioned the carnage capable, but that is irrelevant, and beside the point of the Constitution as we are discussing here.


Don't LIKE it, then amend it!

[BOSSHOG]

73. I don' want to amend it

I want to update the second to reflect the 21st century. Armed citizens (with handguns) won't do much relative to protecting the country against attack from foreign countries now as opposed to that necessity in the 18th century. Some yahoo like me who spent 24 years supporting and defending the constitution might look unfavorably toward the NRA since I might just think that they don't give a flying dog fuck about our country as long as they have the "right" to own guns. Arming students ain't gonna prevent another VT, just make the death numbers skyrocket. Because of the NRA's influence, Cho had the "right" to buy a 9MM and go on a killing spree. But the NRA won't accept responsibility because not accepting responsibility is a conservative value.

[jmg257]

74. That's cool - but you CAN'T update it without changing it!

It says what it says. Since it is NOT only about protecting the country, (although Berettas, 1911s, SIGS, et. al. are certainly military arms) but about personal self-defense too, then it has to be changed to reflect your feelings on this issue.

As a former LE, I see the need for the people to have the right (inherent anyway), and the capability of adequate self-defense. I, like you, took an oath to support the Constitution - NOT change what it means.

[BOSSHOG]

84. Roger that teammate

although I fail to see where it (the 2nd amendment) says anything other then protecting the country. Did cho buy arms to defend himself in a gun free zone? If he were gun free in a gun free zone would 32 students still be alive? Or should we arm all students to just blast the fuck out of one another? Yeah, lets do things the conservative way. Lets ensure there is more death, destruction and despair. Obviously that's how NRA members achieve orgasm.

And I have never changed what the constitution means. The 2nd amendment says what it says. I haven't changed a goddamned thing, the NRA has because it is conservative to alter meanings if original intent is inconvenient. The same applies to christians and the bible.

[jmg257]

90. The 2nd amendment is pretty simple. The constitution gave powers to the Congress

which were formally powers of the states - to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining THE Militia of the several states, and to provide for how they would be called forth. (which they 1st did in the Militia Act of 1792 - people armed themselves as always, discipline was via Van Stuben's Blue Book, organization was spelled out, the Militia would be called out for/when etc etc.)

In the Bill of Rights, WHICH AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION, the people wanted to MAKE SURE the Congress with their new power would NOT infringe on THEIR Right to keep and bear arms, and would NOT do away with THE armed and well-trained militia - so they protected the former, and further recognized and "required" the latter, in the 2nd Amendment. Infringement is unconstitutional, and so is malfeasance.

Because the 2nd ALSO became part of "the supreme law of the Land" - state laws or constitutions notwithstanding, NEITHER could the States infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, nor make THE Militia obsolete.

That is it - it protects the Right of the people, AND requires the well-armed well trained Militia. ALL as the supreme Law.

That is what the NRA defends, just like all the other Rights of the people - NOT murder, not some fuck-wad shooting up schools, but an unalienable and protected right of the people. Rights - like life, liberty and property can ONLY be disabled or deprived through due process.

[jmg257]

58. It doesn't, but since it protects an unalienable right, one that can only be

disabled via due process, I would think doing something illegal, even when a right is absolute, would cause one to be subject to having that right disabled.

The 5th says: No person shall...{nor} be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

A private gun is property, life is obvious and includes/overlaps self-defense, liberty is unalienable rights, etc. A felonious or otherwise unlawful act opens one up to due process.

[Xenotime]

85. I have done some reading up on history...

Common defence is in the Preamble of the document which holds the 2nd Amendment.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What exactly does the Second Amendment say?

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Break it down:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” The state needs an organized military force to defend itself and its citizens.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the people in contrast to the militia. It doesn’t say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it’s the right of the people.

Why the word “people”? The people who wrote this had just fought a war for 2 years against a tyrannical state militia. They knew the time might come when they would have to do that again. So the made the possession of weapon a right the militia could never take away.

[beevul]

49. Enough to endanger a womans right to choose. N/T

[kerry-is-my-prez]

51. This shouldn't even be a partisan issue. Maybe we should highlight the Repubs who support it.

n/t

[TX-RAT]

48. And how did they do that?

[gaspee]

3. I'd like to see

A new opinion poll in about a month.

[wtmusic]

4. Wonder if it changed AFTER the VT shootings

They use an awful lot of present tense, considering public opinion may have changed considerably in the last two days.

[Craftsman]

9. Might not, I talked to my brother last night about a family BBQ

He is hosting on Memorial Day, he does not hunt and opnly owns 3 pistols he target shoots and carries, and on shotgun for home defense. He was a annual member, but upgraded to life on Tuesday too, "Protect my gun rights."

[eggman67]

69. I suspect you're right

My wife and I responded to this incident by signing up for NRA training at the local gun range and applying for CCW (PA is shall-issue). We'll be packing as soon as we feel qualified.

I can't see how you could get a better example than this for the NRA position.

Guns were outlawed on VT campus. Amazingly the only person who had one was the OUTLAW. Go figure.

[BOSSHOG]

6. The NRA

will guarantee there will be more cho's through their labeling the second amendment ambiguous (which it isn't), as focus on the family will ensure that supreme court justices and lunatic evangelical state legislators, not doctor's, will make medical decisions for women.

Conservatism is a malignant cancer on our nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Well I suspect the last week

has changed the cultural view of gun control

Hell I had to go through far more to get my driver's license than we had to do to buy my husband's guns

Why not make gun saves mandatory?

How about a mandatory safety course

Ballistics sample

And insurance for that gun

And depending on the state (this should be federal) if your gun is used in the commission of a crime and you never reported it stolen, you are an accessory to the crime

you think the NRA or the gun fanatics will fall into something like this?

Oh and to them, we have two guns at home so save your speech about gun culture.

[BOSSHOG]

18. As a private citizen

whose family is a potential victim of crime I am onboard with you to the hilt teammate. I'm all for gun ownership but to twist one 27 word sentence which was written more then 200 hundred years ago to show how big and bad you are is sad indeed. And the conservative rationale of literal translation of the constitution? That does not count relative to the second amendment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Well they forget the second part

about a well regulated militia

Unfortunately for them the Supreme Court and other courts has not

Every time the right of individuals has come before them they have ruled that the individual hasn't an absolute right to own weapons....

Miller vs the US is but one of many examples

Mention any of this and the fanatics will go quiet as well, crickets

[jmg257]

91. MORE BS - do you EVER get it right?? Another MYTH from anti-gunners!

Dred Scott - quoted enough here already. Individual Right? YES!

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus that a state cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms. To understand why, it is necessary to understand the statutory scheme the Court had before it.
The statute under which Presser was convicted did not forbid individuals to keep and bear arms but rather forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law . . . ." Thus, the Court concluded that the statute did not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

The Court, however, went on to discuss the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that "it is only the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States that the clause relied on was intended to protect." As the Court had already held that the substantive right to keep and bear arms was not infringed by the Illinois statute since that statue did not prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms but rather prohibited military-like exercises by armed men, the Court concluded that it did not need address the question of whether the state law violated the Second Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). In this case, the Court confirmed that it had never addressed the issue of the Second Amendment applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This case remains the last word on this subject by the Court.
Miller challenged a Texas statute on the bearing of pistols as violative of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. But he asserted these arguments for the first time after his conviction had been affirmed by a state appellate court. Reiterating Cruikshank and Presser, the Supreme Court first found that the Second and Fourth Amendments, of themselves, did not limit state action. The Court then turned to the claim that the Texas statute violated the rights to bear arms and against warrantless searches as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. But because the Court would not hear objections not made in a timely fashion, the Court refused to consider Miller's contentions. Thus, rather than reject incorporation of the Second and Fourth Amendments in the Fourteenth, the Supreme Court merely refused to decide the defendant's claim because its powers of adjudication were limited to the review of errors timely assigned in the trial court. The Court left open the possibility that the right to keep and bear arms and freedom from warrantless searches would apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.

[EstimatedProphet]

7. As a gun owner, I hate the NRA

They are at the core of the effort to divide the people of this country.

[wtmusic]

14. Interesting

As a quasi-libertarian and a firm believer in A2, I hate the NRA too.

Just as I hate all absolutist groups -- they scare the crap out of me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Count me as well in my dislike of the NRA

and lord we are also gun owners

[EstimatedProphet]

26. Once Wayne LaPierre took over in the 90's, it went way downhill

It really became an arm of the Repigs. Everything was about how Democrats want to take guns away. That's all they talked about.

[Craftsman]

30. The help a democrat win Tom Delay's seat

Nick Lampson got money from them, and their endorsement. They are willing to support progun democrats.

[EstimatedProphet]

35. I think that's an exception really

and it's also after Delay embarrassed himself on the national stage. If he had still been a viable candidate, I think the story would be different.

[Craftsman]

53. Not necessarily

Historically the NRA will suport any incumbant with a good record on guns, regardless of party. The issue is that many democratic incumbants have record that the NRA does not like. They will also support a challenger with a good record regardless of party against someone they dislike.

[EstimatedProphet]

54. OK

Although I do still think that LaPierre made it much more inflammatory

[PA Democrat]

72. Yep. Wayne LaPierre has funnelled a lot of NRA money to the RNC.

BLITZER: As has been the case in recent elections, most of the NRA's money is going to Republican candidates and the Republican Party. An analysis by CNN and the Campaign Study Group shows that so far this year, the NRA has contributed more than $650,000 to the various arms of the Republican National Committee. That's more than twice what it gave the GOP in the entire 1998 election cycle, and a whopping seven and a half times what it gave the party in the 1996 election campaign.

Though it has supported some Democratic candidates, the NRA hasn't contributed to the Democratic Party at all.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/23/i_ins.00.html


LaPierre was a big Bush fundraiser as well.

[roamer65]

68. I'm in the same boat as you.

I'm a gun moderate, and the extremism of the NRA does not at all represent my beliefs.

[HughMoran]

76. Gun owner, NRA hater here too

I will never ever change my mind about the NRA.

[whoneedstickets]

56. This article could be retitled....

White, Republican Males love NRA even more!

Everyone else's view pretty much unchanged....

[ComerPerro]

70. Well, if that's your political strategy, lets come out against gay marriage too

because its not a winning issue to support rights of homosexual Americans.

Support for gay marraige is only around 25-30%. And even adding in those who would allow some degree of civil unions only brings the total to just around half.

So, hell, fuck it, lets just drop every unpopular position the left has, and run like Republicans, eh?

[Madspirit]

75. Guns, guns and more guns

Making guns more difficult to get for the law abiding citizen is not going to help anything.
If this boy hadn't been able to get these guns from that gun shop, he would have gotten them somewhere else. Guns are easy to get. It was his mental illness that caused the crime. The guns were the instruments with which he carried out the crime. It would have been lovely if someone could have stopped him from having guns but as things are, he would have gotten them one way or another. It would have been lovelier if someone had REALLY dealt with his mental illness. Then no one would have ever had to deal with his guns.

In fact, illegal guns are most often sold to felons, juveniles, convicted domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill.
Go check the government stats at NIH. This IS who buys illegal guns.

So making guns more difficult to obtain isn't really going to stop anyone but a few already law-abiding folks. We need to address the issues that cause people to feel they need and want guns in the first place.
Lee

[Geek_Girl]

77. If he bought them illegal that would be one thing

But it really bothers me that someone with a history of mental illness and a stalker. Is able to go into a gun shop and legally by guns. That should not be allowed to happen. I'm not talking about banning guns just some common sense gun laws.

[Madspirit]

78. I agree!

That gun shop dude should be prosecuted. Does anyone have any info on that? Is the gun shop owner going to face any problems? Didn't the check on this boy not clear and the guy sold them anyway?

No need for anyone to yell if I'm wrong. Those were questions.
Lee

[Geek_Girl]

79. It really wasn't the gun shop owner's fault

He did everything by the book. Cho cleared the background check for both weapons. Virginia State gun laws seem to be very laxed.

[beevul]

80. Even in Virginia...

He had to pass a federal background check. Its federal law.

[Madspirit]

83. Thank-you

Someone who knows how to answer a sincere question with a sincere answer. I appreciate it a lot.

Thanks. Wow...that is lax.
Lee

[virginia mountainman]

81. For what??

He followed the law, Do you also wish to hold Chevy dealerships accountable for Drunk Drivers..

That is your very flawed logic

[Madspirit]

82. LOOK

Don't talk to me that way and I said they were questions. Frak you.
I thought and I was probably wrong...THUS THEM BEING QUESTIONS AND ALL...that he failed the registration thing and the owner still sold them to him. THEY WERE QUESTIONS SMART ASS.
Lee

[virginia mountainman]

86. Failed WHAT Registration>?!

He PASS his NICS check..

For your info, the only firearms in Virginia that are registered are machine guns.

[Geek_Girl]

89. The problem is he passed a background check

He had a history of mental illness and complaints about stalking women. He should have not been able to purchase firearms. The laws need to be stricter in this matter. This wasn't the gun shop owners fault but it is the fault of the State and federal government IMHO as well as the pro-gun special interest groups.

[-..__...]

88. I need to upgrade my membership.

:smoke: :headbang: