Gun owners win in the Supreme Court, again! 5-4 decision

[Same guest again.]

Thanks Philadelphia.

Interesting how different societies can have very different philosophies, even though these societies share a degree (perhaps not as much as we might think?) of common descent in population and law (I'm talking about some English-speaking countries).

When I was interviewed whilst applying for my firearms licence, I was asked whether I would consider using a gun for self defence. Having previously been warned about the likely questions and acceptable responses, I knew that I was supposed to say 'No'. So this country doesn't like the idea of its citizens defending themselves, although police response times can be measured in tens of minutes. And yet the country is awash with firearms (mostly legal!) and gun crime isn't a significant problem. Whatever arguments have been used, historically, to justify gun ownership therefore seem to have worked. Self-defence obviously wasn't one. Having said that, there have been a few cases in which a gun was used in self defence. Although some of the gun users were charged, I don't think any were convicted, but each case caused a considerable hoo-ha.

[Philadelphia]

Thanks Philadelphia.

Interesting how different societies can have very different philosophies, even though these societies share a degree (perhaps not as much as we might think?) of common descent in population and law (I'm talking about some English-speaking countries).

While all humans share some common descent, they don't share a common culture. I think of all those who came here at great risk to their lives or great hardship for nothing more than freedom and the hope for a better life. I know in my own case my attitudes have been shaped by an understanding of and pride in U.S. history as well as the history of my direct ancestors. My ancestors came here not just to come to America; they came here wanting to become Americans and they did. With some self selection at work as to those who came here, along with knowing that our ancestors and our present service members fight and sadly far too many make the ultimate sacrifice to secure the rights and liberty we enjoy, there are plenty of us who maintain a healthy suspicion of dependence on government and a strong sense of self reliance. Any less would be a disservice to those who gave so much for what we have.

[Philadelphia]

It's worth pointing out that firearms laws rarely have an exemption for ISSF shooters.

While of course what Mike said is generally true, there is a significant exception in California. After the draconian and cynically named "safe handgun" law was passed, Sandy Santibanez and others managed to get an exemption for Olympic handguns through a very hostile legislature, while the NRA and CRPA dithered and expressed disapproval of the exemption, because they wanted the whole law repealed. As they well knew, that wasn't going to happen.

In states like California, Mass,, Maryland etc., it's possible that the only realistic approach for ISSF shooters is to promote exemptions for international shooting gear, by trading on the Olympic name, and using personal contacts with sympathetic legislators (there are a few). The NRA is not going to come to our rescue. In fact (and now I'm the cynical one), I sometimes think the NRA likes to see highly restrictive laws passed in one or two states, so they can point to the looming evil and raise more money.

FredB

I guess I have to post two in a row . . .

Dealing with, for example, quasi-socialist CA, two schools of thought:

1. go along to get along;

2. fight injustice and denial of our hardwon rights to your last breath.

You have to pick a point of view and stick with it. I'll go with #2.

Approach #2 worked in DC and soon Chicago. Might even work in CA some day. ;)

As another thought, maybe all Sandy and the others really did in the long run was get the target shooting constituency to back off the issue. Divide and conquer is a timeworn strategy.

[Freepistol]

Two posts in a row well stated, Philadelphia!

[Raymond Odle]

It will be interesting to see the new restrictive pistol ordinance adopted by Chicago. After going through alot of red tape an International style pistol shooter may own a free, or rapid fire pistol, or a center fire pistol but a total of only one. He has to make a choice. This is an improvement, but not something a free man, a US citizen can brag about. I am 50 miles south of Chicago, so I am not under the thumb of the Chicago mob.
We must all be in this fight together.
I love this sport, but self-defense is the most honorable reason to fight this fight. This stems from our right to life, liberty and property. These three major fundamental rights are what are other fundamental rights originate from. There is no freedom without life, liberty and property.

[Kor]

Please excuse me hiding as a guest again.

What's the legal position in USA of someone who guns down an assailant in self defence? Does the law allow the use of guns for self defence? Are you constrained to use only reasonable force to defend yourself?

I'm aware of the reports of concealed-carry regions having seen violent crime decrease. Is this effect maintained, or has an arms race ensued? As you may be able to imagine, other countries' law-makers don't like to be told that the way to cut violent crime is to arm the population! Political expediency has little regard for the facts...

This is a valuable discussion, I believe, because we shooters in other countries are seeing our position threatened all the time. Look what happened to UK.

In the US, when you are in your residence, if someone breaks in, you may use lethal force and it's very likely you won't be charged with anything. Just their presence is enough, they don't need to be carrying a weapon. Because clearly common sense would show they aren't there to tuck you in to bed. The Castle doctrine I believe. Ergo, no one who lives in the US would ever walk into a stranger's house without the thought in their mind that that they may be shot and killed. Criminals know this.

Now when out in public carrying concealed, it depends on the state you are in as to what is "legal". Earlier laws stated that a potential victim had a duty to retreat if possible. More recent laws allow for a "stand ones ground" or as named by the anti-gunners, the "make my day" type laws. I'm not sure if there is a map showing this specific requirement on a US wide scale.

[FredB]

It's worth pointing out that firearms laws rarely have an exemption for ISSF shooters.

While of course what Mike said is generally true, there is a significant exception in California. After the draconian and cynically named "safe handgun" law was passed, Sandy Santibanez and others managed to get an exemption for Olympic handguns through a very hostile legislature, while the NRA and CRPA dithered and expressed disapproval of the exemption, because they wanted the whole law repealed. As they well knew, that wasn't going to happen.

In states like California, Mass,, Maryland etc., it's possible that the only realistic approach for ISSF shooters is to promote exemptions for international shooting gear, by trading on the Olympic name, and using personal contacts with sympathetic legislators (there are a few). The NRA is not going to come to our rescue. In fact (and now I'm the cynical one), I sometimes think the NRA likes to see highly restrictive laws passed in one or two states, so they can point to the looming evil and raise more money.

FredB

I guess I have to post two in a row . . .

Dealing with, for example, quasi-socialist CA, two schools of thought:

1. go along to get along;

2. fight injustice and denial of our hardwon rights to your last breath.

You have to pick a point of view and stick with it. I'll go with #2.

Approach #2 worked in DC and soon Chicago. Might even work in CA some day. ;)

As another thought, maybe all Sandy and the others really did in the long run was get the target shooting constituency to back off the issue. Divide and conquer is a timeworn strategy.

This post is so fundamentally wrong, that it demands a response. I know Sandy Santibanez would have had some pretty strong words to say about this, but sadly he no longer here to reply, so I guess I'll have to do it.

The two options listed above had nothing to do with California, and in general have very little to do with any gun-rights issue in the US. It sounds so manly and self-reliant to say "fight injustice and denial of our hardwon rights to your last breath," but what does it actually mean? Specifically, Philadelphia, what fighting of injustice have you done? And if you so abhor the idea of "go along to get along", have you therefore stopped all your shooting in solidarity with your no-longer-able-to-shoot brothers and sisters in DC, Chicago, and, yes, even California? If you're still shooting, just because you live in a less-restrictive state, aren't you going along to get along?

In fact and reality, our two options in California regarding the "safe handgun" law were:

1. do nothing while the NRA and CRPA kept promising that some day, in the undefined future, they might file a lawsuit contesting the law (never actually did it, as far as I can tell);

2. do whatever we could manage to do in order to maintain our right to shoot international pistol and bullseye.

We chose number 2, and thankfully are still able to shoot our handguns in public matches here. If we had not acted, that would no longer be true. If that constitutes "backing off the issue", then you live in a strange world indeed.

FredB

[Philadelphia]

This post is so fundamentally wrong, that it demands a response. I know Sandy Santibanez would have had some pretty strong words to say about this, but sadly he no longer here to reply, so I guess I'll have to do it.

We obviously disagree.

The two options listed above had nothing to do with California, and in general have very little to do with any gun-rights issue in the US. It sounds so manly and self-reliant to say "fight injustice and denial of our hardwon rights to your last breath," but what does it actually mean? Specifically, Philadelphia, what fighting of injustice have you done? And if you so abhor the idea of "go along to get along", have you therefore stopped all your shooting in solidarity with your no-longer-able-to-shoot brothers and sisters in DC, Chicago, and, yes, even California? If you're still shooting, just because you live in a less-restrictive state, aren't you going along to get along?

I don't have a local vote in any of those places so I'm not going along with anything. Likewise, I wouldn't visit them if you paid me. If what goes on in CA happened in PA, the responsible pols would be run out of office before their bottoms could hit their chairs. Among other battles I fight "for truth justice and the American way" which are really none of your business, I am a member of and support the efforts of the NRA rather than bash it on a list serve.

In fact and reality, our two options in California regarding the "safe handgun" law were:

1. do nothing while the NRA and CRPA kept promising that some day, in the undefined future, they might file a lawsuit contesting the law (never actually did it, as far as I can tell);

2. do whatever we could manage to do in order to maintain our right to shoot international pistol and bullseye.

Those your only options. OK, if you say so.

We chose number 2, and thankfully are still able to shoot our handguns in public matches here. If we had not acted, that would no longer be true. If that constitutes "backing off the issue", then you live in a strange world indeed.

FredB

OK, have fun with microstamping, registered serialized ammo, GPS in the gun, etc., etc. Let me know how the sport fairs in CA when all that starts. I can see the target shooting guys have it all under control out there. My mistake. ;)

ETA and PS: I was reading an article this moring that got me to thinking about CA and it convinced me that both the big picture NRA / 2AF approach (lawsuits, lobbying, and generally keeping the pressure on) and the local grassroots chipping away little by little are necessary. What I'd ask you to consider is while you are chipping away to keep sporting use of pistols practical in CA, you don't bash the NRA just because it is looking at a bigger picture and longer term outlook. We do need both.

[alb]

... what surprises me is that there seems so much, almost hysterical, enthusiasm for keeping guns for self defence in USA. What is the reality? Is USA really such a dangerous place to be, or is the population unrealistically scared of imagined threats? I can't believe that, in the current political climate, the self defence argument is likely to be well regarded by the law-makers.

When you ride in a car, do you wear a seat-belt? Do you have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen?

People carry a weapon when in public for the same reason they wear a seat-belt or keep a fire extinguisher where they might start an accidental fire: it enhances your chances of survival in those extremely rare and unpredictable situations that arise without warning and tend to have catastrophic consequences.

I’m 59 years old, and I can count on 2 fingers the number of times in my entire life that I’ve been in a serious traffic accident. I can count on 1 finger the number of times in my entire life that I’ve had a fire in my kitchen. And I can count on 2 fingers the number of times in my entire life that I’ve been the victim of a violent crime. Every one of those 5 situations was bad enough that if nothing like that ever happens to me again, it will still be too soon. And I certainly don’t want to ever face such a situation in the future completely unprepared.

Violent crime has gotten so bad in Chicago that some politicians there have been calling for the national guard to patrol the streets. The reason is basic economics 101: When you decrease the opportunity cost of something, you get more of it; when you increase the opportunity cost of something, you get less of it.

Gun control laws increase the opportunity cost to law-abiding people of owning guns. So you get fewer law-abiding people owning guns and being able to defend themselves, as is the case in Chicago, which has very strict gun control laws. Fewer people being able to defend themselves lowers the risk, and therefore the opportunity cost of committing a violent crime. So you get more of it, as is the case in Chicago.

It’s both a personal safety issue and a social/economic issue.

Al B.

[jhmartin]

... what surprises me is that there seems so much, almost hysterical, enthusiasm for keeping guns for self defence in USA. What is the reality? Is USA really such a dangerous place to be, or is the population unrealistically scared of imagined threats? I can't believe that, in the current political climate, the self defence argument is likely to be well regarded by the law-makers.

When you ride in a car, do you wear a seat-belt? Do you have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen?

People carry a weapon when in public for the same reason they wear a seat-belt or keep a fire extinguisher where they might start an accidental fire: it enhances your chances of survival in those extremely rare and unpredictable situations that arise without warning and tend to have catastrophic consequences.

I'll weigh in here too .... 53 years old .... 3 serious traffic accidents (one was my fault) and have never had to put out a fire in the kitchen .... but I do keep an extinguisher there. A few years ago began carrying ... NEVER imagining that I'd EVER have to remove it from the holster. To my surprise less than 2 months ago I had to pull my firearm out and defend myself, my wife and another woman from a violent attacker. (turns out to be a punk beating up his mom for money and then assaulted us) There is no doubt in my mind that if we had not been there the gal would have been in a hospital or worse ... and since I chose to "get involved" the same for my wife & me. Just the fact of a small pistol with a 9mm hole in the end staring him in the face caused him to immediately stop & run off.

As I said ... I NEVER imagined I'd have to use this ... it just made sense that if I could carry, I should. Turns out it was a good decision. If I lived in Chicago, and obeyed the law, I'd probably still be in the hospital or 6 feet under.

[soapbox]I don't think the USA is any more dangerous than other places. We do have more media attention. We are very lax in enforcing our criminal laws, thus there is very little dis-incentive for self control and obeying those laws for some people. Then again here in NM we have one of the most corrupt state governments which is not the best example to some of the people that feel it's their right to be involved in criminal activity.[/soapbox]

[FredB]

ETA and PS: I was reading an article this moring that got me to thinking about CA and it convinced me that both the big picture NRA / 2AF approach (lawsuits, lobbying, and generally keeping the pressure on) and the local grassroots chipping away little by little are necessary. What I'd ask you to consider is while you are chipping away to keep sporting use of pistols practical in CA, you don't bash the NRA just because it is looking at a bigger picture and longer term outlook. We do need both.

As a long-time NRA member, I have observed its actions - and inactions - for many years. I don't feel that I am obliged to uncritically accept everything about it. Praise, when due; criticism, when due.

I certainly agree that the NRA is vital at the national level, although it should be noted that the Second Amendment Foundation originated and led the DC and Chicago suits, not the NRA. And the NRA is a vital force in most of the states. However, I've begun to feel that the NRA has effectively abandoned states like California and Mass., where tackling their absurd gun restrictions head-on is always a losing cause.

Losing is bad for maintaining an image of invincibility, and losing is bad for fund-raising. The anti-gun groups do the same thing. Ducking fights you know you're going to lose is one way big organizations perpetuate themselves. And self-preservation becomes the primary goal of all big organizations.

So yes, both "big picture" and grassroots actions are necessary. It's just very frustrating when the "big picture" organization discourages any grassroots action that it doesn't control.

FredB

[Waisted]

OK, have fun with microstamping, registered serialized ammo, GPS in the gun, etc., etc. Let me know how the sport fairs in CA when all that starts. I can see the target shooting guys have it all under control out there.

I'd like some expansion on that if possible… maybe it's just my foreign-ness, but I just don't really get what you're on about there. This being a Target Talk forum and all…

[FredB]

OK, have fun with microstamping, registered serialized ammo, GPS in the gun, etc., etc. Let me know how the sport fairs in CA when all that starts. I can see the target shooting guys have it all under control out there.

I'd like some expansion on that if possible… maybe it's just my foreign-ness, but I just don't really get what you're on about there. This being a Target Talk forum and all…

Microstamping has passed, but will not take effect unless and until the technology has proven itself (not that it ever will do what proponents allege it will do). Serialized ammo and fingerprint gun ID (not GPS) both failed to pass. They'll probably be back. None of these 3 is likely to affect target shooters directly at first, although there might be some effect in the long run. All 3 are really stupid laws/proposed laws, which are, at base, simply intended to make gun ownership and shooting nearly impossible.

FredB

[Guest]

I'm posting as a guest because I don't want my name associated with silly or rude responses in this important thread. However, I want to make a serious contribution.

Clearly, it's important that a country's constitution is not violated, and one should fight for it to be upheld. Therefore the ruling is understandable and 'good'. However, what surprises me is that there seems so much, almost hysterical, enthusiasm for keeping guns for self defence in USA. What is the reality? Is USA really such a dangerous place to be, or is the population unrealistically scared of imagined threats? I can't believe that, in the current political climate, the self defence argument is likely to be well regarded by the law-makers.

The true primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizens to defend themselves, rise up, and overthrow a tyrannical government. The constitution was written with a very long term view in mind. Sure, our government might be okay now, but in another 100 years, what if the US population is duped into voting for someone like Hitler? (Keep in mind, Hitler was elected to office.) In such a case, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to preserve the ability of the citizenry to rise up and rebel against a tyrannical government.
However, since that's not a very politically correct concept, self-defense against criminals is often cited. Most places in the US are safe.

[Guest]

Me, hiding as guest again - sorry.

I suppose elected governments which turn out to be evil, tyrannical or otherwise deserving of enforced removal start out popular (by definition) and might thus be able to pass disarming laws (look at UK). Certainly a tyrant would do their best to disarm the populace. Then, when the popular uprising came, with what would the revolting population arm themselves? I don't see this argument working.

I'm hoping that someone might be able to suggest a really good argument that can be used against the anti-gun lobbies in other countries. Self-defence just highlights the anti-personnel aspect of our guns and plays into the hands of those who think that all gun-owners are murderers just waiting to run amok or vigilantes with a shoot-first policy. Also, the need for armed self-defence doesn't seem very real for the vast majority of the population in most(?) civilized(?) countries.

[sparky]

Me, hiding as guest again - sorry.

I suppose elected governments which turn out to be evil, tyrannical or otherwise deserving of enforced removal start out popular (by definition) and might thus be able to pass disarming laws (look at UK). Certainly a tyrant would do their best to disarm the populace. Then, when the popular uprising came, with what would the revolting population arm themselves? I don't see this argument working.

Let me answer this part. The very reason for enumerating the right to bear arms in the Constitution via an amendment was so that a government, popular or not, would have a *very* hard time eliminating that right via simple legislation. Unlike the UK's parliamentary system where Parliament is supreme, the U.S. Congress is not...the Constitution trumps Congressional action. The only proper way to eliminate a constitutional right is via the constitutional amendment process that is much more onerous than passing legislation.

[sparky]

Me, hiding as guest again - sorry.
I'm hoping that someone might be able to suggest a really good argument that can be used against the anti-gun lobbies in other countries. Self-defence just highlights the anti-personnel aspect of our guns and plays into the hands of those who think that all gun-owners are murderers just waiting to run amok or vigilantes with a shoot-first policy. Also, the need for armed self-defence doesn't seem very real for the vast majority of the population in most(?) civilized(?) countries.

Regarding the second part, I admit, it's a tough argument for many. A lot of people like/want to see the good in people and would thus rather demonize and blame inanimate objects than admit there are are bad people out there. Furthermore, most people tend to live in the moment; they don't look to the future (certainly not outside their lifetime) and quickly forget the past. Thus it's hard for people to conceive of a future where their government might act tyrannically since things are fine now. Most citizens of the UK either don't remember or never knew that the U.S., in addition to providing Britain with lots of money and vehicles as part of the Lend-Lease Act of 1941, also provided a lot of firearms to distribute in case Britain was invaded by land, many of which were donated by private U.S. citizens (one that was returned to the U.S. is on display at the National Firearms Museum).

[Jose Rossy]

In the US, when you are in your residence, if someone breaks in, you may use lethal force and it's very likely you won't be charged with anything. Just their presence is enough, they don't need to be carrying a weapon. Because clearly common sense would show they aren't there to tuck you in to bed. The Castle doctrine I believe. Ergo, no one who lives in the US would ever walk into a stranger's house without the thought in their mind that that they may be shot and killed. Criminals know this.

Now when out in public carrying concealed, it depends on the state you are in as to what is "legal". Earlier laws stated that a potential victim had a duty to retreat if possible. More recent laws allow for a "stand ones ground" or as named by the anti-gunners, the "make my day" type laws. I'm not sure if there is a map showing this specific requirement on a US wide scale.

Kor, your summation is quite accurate.

Let me just clarify one minor point. I live in a state where one who is legally armed in public must attempt to disengage from a confrontation. That does not mean one is barred from fighting back. If things continue to escalate after one's attempts to disengage/retreat, then deadly force an be legally brought to bear if in the defender's mind there is a reasonable expectation that one will be killed OR severely injured. Severe injury are things such as broken limbs, severe cuts, etc.

So while it may be surprising to some from other countries, we can use firearms to defend against non-firearm related threats of deadly force. Multiple unarmed attackers, and attackers with blunt impact (clubs, bats, pipe, hammers, etc) and edged (knives, machetes, etc) weapons are considered here deadly force and will warrant an armed response to a credible threat.

[Jose Rossy]

Me, hiding as guest again - sorry.

I suppose elected governments which turn out to be evil, tyrannical or otherwise deserving of enforced removal start out popular (by definition) and might thus be able to pass disarming laws (look at UK). Certainly a tyrant would do their best to disarm the populace. Then, when the popular uprising came, with what would the revolting population arm themselves? I don't see this argument working.

That presuposes that the population would be inclined to obey disarmement laws. We Americans happen to be a rebellious lot. And since there is no firearm registry that captures 100% of the extent of firearm ownership and transfer in the US, good luck with that.

Self-defence just highlights the anti-personnel aspect of our guns and plays into the hands of those who think that all gun-owners are murderers just waiting to run amok or vigilantes with a shoot-first policy.

With a good estimate of roughly 80 million gun owners in the US and some of the most liberal laws in the world regarding the use of firearms for self defense, about 95% of firearm-caused deaths in this country are still caused by criminals. If you cannot use that factoid to argue your case, there is no help for you. Just resign yourself to have your guns taken at the will of the majority.

Also, the need for armed self-defence doesn't seem very real for the vast majority of the population in most(?) civilized(?) countries.

What seems real to the majority is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is real to the victims of vicious, violent crime that had nothing to fight back with. One of them is one too many.

[Raymond Odle]

"Self-defence just highlights the anti-personnel aspect of our guns and plays into the hands of those who think that all gun-owners are murderers just waiting to run amok or vigilantes with a shoot-first policy. "

I have never been given a good answer as to why those who think as above don't attribute this belief also to the government. If it's unwise for a non-govenment worker then it is logical that it is unwise for a govenment worker to possess a self-defense tool Being paid by a govenment doesn't make one more honorable or more righteous or more trust worthy then a non government paid citizen.
Our "fore Fathers" tried to establish a government that would provide equal protection and laws for all without class distinction. What was illegal for the little guy would be illegal for all (not as now). What the government could possess so could all. This is a simple definition of "freedom". The right to life, liberty and property. To deny any one of these is to deny the right to all three.
Any government that denies its citizens a self-defense tool in fact is a criminal organization simple because it in fact supports and protects the criminals ability to prey on the weak and helpless. There is no middle ground.
A free people can participate (at their will) in shooting competition. This is a wonderful way to learn and maintain safety, technical and performance skills.