Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#11

Post by hga »

jsz0 wrote: post #4

I wonder how this will effect the provisions of the Brady bill such as background checks, waiting periods, bans on felons buying weapons, etc. I'm all for gun rights but these seem like common sense restrictions. If it invalidates these provisions an escaped convict could walk into a gun store and buy guns. A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun. By the strictest sense of the law it…

The majority justices in both decisions have clearly states that they do not preclude regulations about commercial sales of firearms.

Note, the Brady bill waiting period was automatically retired as each state implemented their part of the nationwide "Instant Check" system.

"A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun."

Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" (formally the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban) makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes.

WRT to all the above, most people who aren't part of the gun culture have no idea how highly regulated guns are in the US today.

WRT the Second Amendment's explicit restrictions, like the other parts of the Bill of Rights it doesn't get into the necessary details, and no one reasonable thinks ones like it are "absolute". E.g. you don't have right to shout fire in a theater (unless, of course, there really is a fire). That's not set out in the First Amendment but no one has trouble with that restriction.

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#12

Post by hga »

awzum wrote: post #9
russell_h wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wont. This ruling (as I understand it) mainly has the effect of incorporating[1] the 2nd amendment onto state and local governments, and doesn't deal much with with actual interpretations of the amendment itself. In fact according to the article Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation. Alito sai…

Yea but the anti-gunners say that a whole lot of new cases will inundate our courts for the next 10 years...as if that's a bad thing. California passed AB 962 which bans ordering ammunition online, and requires a thumb print and ID when purchasing ammo in person. I hope that gets fought.

Well, states and municipalities could decide to observe the Constitution and preemptively fix their laws; 4 Chicago suburbs with total handgun bans including the notorious leader Morton Grove were defendants in the original lawsuits and 3 gave up rather than fight.

And who knows, the really bad states are also in the worst financial shape by and large (strange, that...), they're going to be under new management sooner or later (already are in NJ, the other big ones would be NY, MA, IL and CA).

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#13

Post by awzum »

ramy_d wrote: post #10

i dunno, i thought i would share this: http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89716716_fully-automatic-a...

A lot of anti-gunners are afraid of guns or have been negatively impacted by some type of gun-related crime. Remember, criminals will still have guns and some argue that banning guns increases the crime rate.

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#14

Post by hga »

ramy_d wrote: post #10

i dunno, i thought i would share this: http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89716716_fully-automatic-a...

I haven't watched this, but I'll note two facts:

There are about 100,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US.

There are 3 known crimes that have been committed using a legally owned one, but two don't exactly count: one was by a cop and the most recent was that insane case of criminal negligence where a pre-teen was handed a Micro-Uzi and allowed to fire it without an adult helping.

I wouldn't fire a Micro-Uzi without slowing working up to the point where I was sure I could handle it. One parent on a gun politics mailing list that I'm on who owns full auto weapons and who let his kids fire them emphasizes how he makes sure he has a "death grip" on the weapon to ensure it stays under control.

That said, the large number of people who've fired rented or borrowed full auto weapons at events like Knob Creek without incident shows it's not terribly dangerous.

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#15

Post by CWuestefeld »

hga wrote: post #11
jsz0 wrote: post #4

I wonder how this will effect the provisions of the Brady bill such as background checks, waiting periods, bans on felons buying weapons, etc. I'm all for gun rights but these seem like common sense restrictions. If it invalidates these provisions an escaped convict could walk into a gun store and buy guns. A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun. By the strictest sense of the law it…

The majority justices in both decisions have clearly states that they do not preclude regulations about commercial sales of firearms. Note, the Brady bill waiting period was automatically retired as each state implemented their part of the nationwide "Instant Check" system. " A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun. " Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" (formally the Domestic Violence O…

Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes.

That's not exactly correct:

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. [1]

Logically, then I think that the latter part (about the domestic restraining order provision) ought to be vulnerable now. However, I really doubt that Court would be willing to reexamine this in the current context, since in Emerson it was judged Constitutional. [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_...

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#16

Post by hga »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #15
hga wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority justices in both decisions have clearly states that they do not preclude regulations about commercial sales of firearms. Note, the Brady bill waiting period was automatically retired as each state implemented their part of the nationwide "Instant Check" system. " A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun. " Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" (formally the Domestic Violence O…

Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes. That's not exactly correct: The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. [1] Logically, then I think that the latter part (about the domestic restra…

Given that restraining orders are handed out like candy and have been used to strip future victims of self-protection, it indeed ought to be vulnerable now. We'll see; that and the ex post facto nature of Lautenberg really need revision, since the prior regimes for both didn't take into consideration that a restraining order or misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would strip someone of a fundamental right.

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#17

Post by CWuestefeld »

hga wrote: post #14
ramy_d wrote: post #10

i dunno, i thought i would share this: http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89716716_fully-automatic-a...

I haven't watched this, but I'll note two facts: There are about 100,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US. There are 3 known crimes that have been committed using a legally owned one, but two don't exactly count: one was by a cop and the most recent was that insane case of criminal negligence where a pre-teen was handed a Micro-Uzi and allowed to fire it without an adult helping. I wouldn't fire…

I agree with the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it's a fair argument to discount the negligent pre-teen. The fact that you and other responsible adults would never allow this to happen really doesn't change the fact that someone did allow it, so it's an honest data point.

Even so, 2 out of 100,000 compares quite favorably to the proportion of automobiles that have been used in violation of the law, or 1040 forms that have been used similarly.

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#18

Post by hga »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #17
hga wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't watched this, but I'll note two facts: There are about 100,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US. There are 3 known crimes that have been committed using a legally owned one, but two don't exactly count: one was by a cop and the most recent was that insane case of criminal negligence where a pre-teen was handed a Micro-Uzi and allowed to fire it without an adult helping. I wouldn't fire…

I agree with the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it's a fair argument to discount the negligent pre-teen. The fact that you and other responsible adults would never allow this to happen really doesn't change the fact that someone did allow it, so it's an honest data point. Even so, 2 out of 100,000 compares quite favorably to the proportion of automobiles that have been used in violation of the law, or…

I discount it as a "true crime", it wasn't someone using his weapon to shoot someone with malice, it was a criminally negligent accident. E.g. if you bundled someone of the same age into a running car and let them have at it on your own property we wouldn't say that had anything to do with driver's licenses, if the vehicle was properly registered with up to date license plates/tags, etc.

Heck, a Micro-Uzi is essentially a big handgun, you should never give a handgun to someone that young without intense training and supervision. I started shooting long guns in kindergarten but was a teen before my father started me on handguns (other more handgun oriented parents have started their children on handguns earlier; Massad Ayoob's daughter was winning competitions as some insane age like 7 or 9).

And that's 100,000 over decades; the law dates back to FDR's first year or so in power and the number was frozen by another law in 1986.

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#19

Post by CWuestefeld »

hga wrote: post #3

NO "cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago [and one of its suburban towns] and Washington [, D.C.]", which have/had full, absolute and total bans on handgun possession by ordinary citizens (maybe with some grandfathering). Therefore the immediate and direct result will be limited (although it should be noted that 3 other Chicago suburbs including the infamous Morton Grove dropped their bans rather than f…

Right now I'm reading Scalia's opinion, in which he's tearing Stevens apart. For example:

That JUSTICE STEVENS is not applying any version of Palko is clear from comparing, on the one hand, the rights he believes are covered, with, on the other hand, his con­clusion that the right to keep and bear arms is not cov­ered.

I've never read a set of opinions in which one member of the court so clearly slams the opinion of another (although IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS expert). Does this signal anything about the future of the court, or about the Chief Justice's leadership?

Re: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

#20

Post by hga »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #19
hga wrote: post #3

NO "cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago [and one of its suburban towns] and Washington [, D.C.]", which have/had full, absolute and total bans on handgun possession by ordinary citizens (maybe with some grandfathering). Therefore the immediate and direct result will be limited (although it should be noted that 3 other Chicago suburbs including the infamous Morton Grove dropped their bans rather than f…

Right now I'm reading Scalia's opinion, in which he's tearing Stevens apart. For example: That JUSTICE STEVENS is not applying any version of Palko is clear from comparing, on the one hand, the rights he believes are covered, with, on the other hand, his con­clusion that the right to keep and bear arms is not cov­ered. I've never read a set of opinions in which one member of the court so clearly slams the opinion of…

Don't know, but today is Stevens last day on the Supreme Court....
Post reply on HN