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

[Gus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/world/us ... 438332.stm

"The US's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional. J

ustices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.the purpose of self-defence.

The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the US states.

[Freepistol]

Alleluia

[Gus]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Fundamental :)

[joker]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/world/us ... 438332.stm

"The US's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional. J

ustices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.the purpose of self-defence.

The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the US states.

Breach of Forum Rules.

Quote:-

Any messages not having to do with the aspect of Olympic style shooting (sport shooting as its commonly known in Europe) will be removed. This site is not about hunting animals or self-defense.

[Philadelphia]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/world/us ... 438332.stm

"The US's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional. J

ustices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.the purpose of self-defence.

The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the US states.

Breach of Forum Rules.

Quote:-

Any messages not having to do with the aspect of Olympic style shooting (sport shooting as its commonly known in Europe) will be removed. This site is not about hunting animals or self-defense.

I can forever practice sport pistol without going to Switzerland. The individual right to own guns, including handguns, has been explicitly recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right of we the people by our highest Court. As a Constitutional right it can't be legislated away by hysterical pols. It is a big deal here.

Next up for our high Court -- Heller is now suing D.C. for its infringement of his Constitutional right to bear arms, as in carry in public. Given the Court's present composition, and what it already said in the first Heller case, he will soon be carrying, including to the range, without any government interference.

I love the smell of burnt gunpowder in the morning; it smells like . . . freedom. ;)

[Freepistol]

Breach of Forum Rules.

Quote:-

Any messages not having to do with the aspect of Olympic style shooting (sport shooting as its commonly known in Europe) will be removed. This site is not about hunting animals or self-defense.

Those who don't study history will repeat previous acts:

http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php ... ht=#131252

[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.

[Freepistol]

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.

In my opinion, this woman explains it best at the very end of the video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7893819675#

[Pat McCoy]

Only small areas of the United States are very dangerous, and you will find they are the same areas that have the most restrictions on firearms ownership and use.

Even the District of Columbia has seen a reduction in crime since the Heller decision, with only about 800 licenses issued. The thing is, the bad guys don't know which 800 have the guns, so they must be more careful of their targets than in the past.

Even in states with large numbers of people licensed to carry concealed, most don't do so most of the time. Again, the bad guys don't know who is or isn't carrying, so they have to curtail their activities.

Lawmakers will have their attitudes shaped by those who elect them, and more voters are learning the when seconds count the police are only minutes away; the courts have repeatedly said the police owe no duty to protect any individual. Individuals are beginning to accept the responsibility for their own safety (responsibility is the obverse side of the coin of rights).

Firearms are the one tool which allows the elderly or physically infirm to be on a somewhat even basis with any assailant.

[TomAmlie]

WARNING! WARNING! OFF TOPIC POST!

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?

This could be fodder for a very lengthy and interesting discussion. Perhaps there's some deep-seated societal difference, where there's a sense of self-reliance or self-sufficiency that differs from other cultures. The idea that my physical safety is dependent on the state is as abhorrent as the idea that my economic security is dependent on the state. The idea of the "nanny state" providing for our safety and security is much more advanced in other countries. Aside from this, the fact of the matter is that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Perhaps there's a greater attachment to private property, and we're more willing to take matters into our own hands to protect it?

Or maybe we're all bloodthirty paranoids?

I can't believe that, in the current political climate, the self defence argument is likely to be well regarded by the law-makers.

What other argument is better?

For hunting or target shooting? Those can be dismissed as the hobbies of a small segment of society.

For Constitutional reasons? For the moment we've got a small moral victory. Clearly it would have been a disaster had the decision gone the other way, but "winning" this one provides only temporary respite. Taxing ammo out of existence, or requiring microstamping, etc., is going to be pushed in an attempt to bypass the 2nd amendment. For that matter, the Constitution is viewed as irrelevant (or as an impediment) by many lawmakers, their oath of office notwithstanding. I doubt the Constitution has any effect on the decisions of many legislators. In fact, I'd guess that a large percentage of them couldn't pass a short quiz on the Consitution.

For defense against an out-of-control state? This was one of the initial reasons for the 2nd amendment 220 years ago, but I doubt lawmakers would be sympathetic to this reason.

If we no longer argue for gun ownership as part of self-defense, what other arguments are remotely as good?

[2650 Plus]

I am not pleased. Four supream court justices cant read and I am not sure about the other five . All first ten amendments place restrictions on the power of the federal government.and retain power to the states or the people. The line about the reason for the admendment reffering to a well regulated militia does not restrict federal power, It only acts as justification for the active statement that " The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and that is the restrictive statement . No where is that right of the people restricted to self defence,but is a direct statement of the means used to win our independence from the British Crown. It might as well be the right to arm bears or some other nonsense. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[Guest]

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.

[pilkguns]

I am in complete agreement with Joker that this thread is a violation of forum rules. (but thats about all I agree with Joker about on this subject :^)

That said, personally I am extremely pleased with the decision, and since we have some serious and some polite questions and answers, I will leave it for the moment, after I cut some of the yahoo remarks. The discussion can continue in a worthwhile and decorous manner, if it slips into name calling again, then it's gone.

[visitor]

For defense against an out-of-control state? This was one of the initial reasons for the 2nd amendment 220 years ago, but I doubt lawmakers would be sympathetic to this reason.

It isn't so much what people don't know as what they do know that isn't true.

The "well regulated militia" WAS the state. Remember how the founders abhorred standing armies? This was their solution to that problem.

Everybody also knows that the Constitution was written as a reaction to the absolutism of the British government. Well, that was certainly in the back of their minds, but mainly it was a reaction to the total powerlessness of the central government under the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution - even with the Bill of Rights - was the greatest "power grab" by the federal government in its history.

[tilly]

[quote="pilkguns"]I am in complete agreement with Joker that this thread is a violation of forum rules. (but thats about all I agree with Joker about on this subject :^)


Glad to see that this forum has a moderator now and then (btw, you going to Perry?) and you see the relevance to this subject and our sport where others do not.

[TomAmlie]

For defense against an out-of-control state? This was one of the initial reasons for the 2nd amendment 220 years ago, but I doubt lawmakers would be sympathetic to this reason.

It isn't so much what people don't know as what they do know that isn't true.

The "well regulated militia" WAS the state. Remember how the founders abhorred standing armies? This was their solution to that problem.

Hmm, going off topic on an off-topic post, but I'm game. An early Supreme Court Justice (Joseph Story) wrote some of the earliest and most extensive commentaries on the Constitution. In his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" (1833) he wrote (paragraph 1890, p. 746):

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

He (and other contemporary writers) go on at length about the dangers of a standing army versus the virtues of an armed free populace. The armed populace was thought to be a better and more motivated defense, as well as a check upon the government. Even as far back as Machiavelli (in his Discourses, not in The Prince), for whom the most dependable protection against corruption was the economic independence of the citizen and his ability and willingness to become a warrior.

Everybody also knows that the Constitution was written as a reaction to the absolutism of the British government. Well, that was certainly in the back of their minds, but mainly it was a reaction to the total powerlessness of the central government under the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution - even with the Bill of Rights - was the greatest "power grab" by the federal government in its history.

As originally written I don't see it as a huge power grab, although I agree it contained far more powers than in the Articles of Confederation. The way it has been implemented over the past 220 years (the last 100 or so, especially) is another matter.

The enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) are limited, and Madison wrote repeatedly that the 17 powers listed there were in fact an exhaustive list of what was intended under the first tortured sentence of that section. The power grab came when politicians and the courts subsequently interpreted it to mean that the government could do anything it pleasedas long as they claimed it was for the "general welfare". Similarly, the "Commerce Clause" was originally intended to ward off trade wars between states and to provide for consistent trade rules between states, andwith other nations and Indian tribes. The Congress and courts have now perverted that so that any activity which is remotely associated with interstate commerce comes under Federal rules.

[Raymond Odle]

I wonder if the pistol shooters in the UK (the few left) would agree that this subject is not pertinent to Olympic shooting? Do they still go to France to practice?
How many International style pistol events are currently being held in the city of Chicago?
It's hard to compete if the sport equipment is illegal.
A fundamental right exist regardless of the motivation for wanting and exercising that right, self-defense, defense of one's country, hunting, plinking, competition, etc.

[Mike M.]

It's worth pointing out that firearms laws rarely have an exemption for ISSF shooters. This is a significant protection for our sport.

[Philadelphia]

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.

To answer your questions, every U.S. state is slightly different, but the general rule paraphrased is . . . If you reasonably believe someone will imminently kill or seriously injure you, rape you or kidnap you, you may use lethal force, including a gun, to stop that threat. You may also use lethal force under similar circumstances in defense of another. The foregoing embodies the concept of using reasonable force under the circumstances. If you reasonably believe that someone is going to kill you, it is reasonable to use a bullet (or two or ten or however many it takes) to stop them from doing that. Likewise, however, once that threat has been stopped, you must stop the use of lethal force -- so if one shot does the job to stop the attacker, you can't pop a couple more in as what amounts to revenge.

As far as "concealed carry regions," the data generally shows that areas with more lawful gun owners experience less crime. The very few places that outright prohibited handgun ownership (and as soon as the Court's ruling is implemented there will be none) are generally some of the most dangerous places in our Country. For concealed carry, data indicates that a state that previously banned concealed carry which then lifts that ban see a reduction in crime (Florida is one example that comes to mind).

I don't think the importance of this Court decision can be overstated. The right of self-defense is a natural right of all humans. A government that denies its citizens the use of effective tools (a gun being a good example) to effectively exercise that right has denied that right. It does me no good to have a recognized natural right to self defense but no right to portable tools when my attacker is double in number and double in size/strength and double in possibly guns, knives, bats, clubs, etc.

I can't speak for anyone else but when asked if I would really exercise my right to self defense and defense of others (such as my family) if threatened, I am as surprised by the question as maybe they are at the response. Of course I would. My sense is the majority of adult Americans (roughly a third of the total population owns at least one gun) would do the same.

[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