yardbarker

OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification

Moderators: moocow007, magnumt, NoLayupRule, Brooklyn_Yards, mrpoetryNmotion, j4remi, Knickstape1214, GONYK, Thugger HBC, Thorn

Post#151 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:00 pm by johnnywishbone

LoyalFan wrote:
times are not changing my friend. you live in a bubble,



Definition of Projection wrote:Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]


I live in a bubble?

LoyalFan wrote:
one in fact filled with ignorance. in the end all of this is empty talk of useless opinions. you will sooner see george bush elected president again before any congress or senate is able to pass any sort of assault weapons ban. this is a sad PR stunt by the president to save face and show he is doing something.


6 months from now people will not even remember this, just like their trayvon martin hoodies................


The times aren't changing? We have an African American President, Gay people can serve in the Army and George Bush has been banished to Texas. I'm sure you have a problem with all three of those too.
Play time is over.
johnnywishbone
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 9,333
And1: 1,128
Joined: Sep 4, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...
Top

Post#152 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:17 pm by LoyalFan

i didnt stutter and i said everything in english, though if need be you could have used google translator

i could easily have spent a few minutes here and a few minutes there with google and went tit for tat on articles and statistics. i actually tried to use a common sense approach with you even though i knew better.

ill say it for you 1 more time. ill even put it in capital bold letters for you


6 months from now you people will not even remember this. it will be lost on you. stuck in a box somewhere sitting next to your trayvon martin hoodie.....................................
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#153 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:09 pm by LoyalFan

The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime
Article
Comments (1400)
MORE IN OPINION »
smaller
Larger
facebook
twitter
google plus
linked in
EmailPrint
Save
↓ More
By JOHN R. LOTT JR.

Warning about "weapons designed for the theater of war," President Obama on Wednesday called for immediate action on a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He said that "more of our fellow Americans might still be alive" if the original assault weapons ban, passed in 1994, had not expired in 2004. Last month, in the wake of the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) promised to introduce an updated version of the ban. She too warned of the threat posed by "military weapons."

After the nightmare of Newtown, their concern is understandable. Yet despite being at the center of the gun-control debate for decades, neither President Obama nor Ms. Feinstein (the author of the 1994 legislation) seems to understand the leading research on the effects of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In addition, they continue to mislabel the weapons they seek to ban.

Ms. Feinstein points to two studies by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth for the National Institute of Justice to back up her contention that the ban reduced crime. She claims that their first study in 1997 showed that the ban decreased "total gun murders." In fact, the authors wrote: "the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero)."

Messrs. Koper and Roth suggested that after the ban had been in effect for more years it might be possible to find a benefit. Seven years later, in 2004, they published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice with fellow criminologist Dan Woods that concluded, "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

Moreover, none of the weapons banned under the 1994 legislation or the updated version are "military" weapons. The killer in Newtown used a Bushmaster .223. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is "no reason" for such "military-style weapons" to be available to civilians.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images
Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Yes, the Bushmaster and the AK-47 are "military-style weapons." But the key word is "style"—they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns.

The civilian version of the Bushmaster uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet—.30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. No self-respecting military in the world would use the civilian version of these guns.

A common question is: "Why do people need a semiautomatic Bushmaster to go out and kill deer?" The answer is simple: It is a hunting rifle. It has just been made to look like a military weapon.

But the point isn't to help hunters. Semiautomatic weapons also protect people and save lives. Single-shot rifles that require you to physically reload the gun may not do people a lot of good when they are facing multiple criminals or when their first shot misses or fails to stop an attacker.

Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report. By 2011, the murder rate fell to 4.7 per 100,000 people. One should also bear in mind that just 2.6% of all murders are committed using any type of rifle.

The large-capacity ammunition magazines used by some of these killers are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates.

Ms. Feinstein's new proposal also calls for gun registration, and the reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but in reality it hardly ever works that way. Guns are very rarely left behind at a crime scene. When they are, they're usually stolen or unregistered. Criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind guns that are registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered guns are left at crime scenes, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Canada recently got rid of its costly "long-gun" registry for rifles in part because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police could not provide a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a gun murder.

If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it's time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. Had some citizens been armed, they might have been able to stop the killings before the police got to the scene. In the Newtown attack, it took police 20 minutes to arrive at the school after the first calls for help.

The Bushmaster, like any gun, is indeed very dangerous, but it is not a weapon "designed for the theater of war." Banning assault weapons will not make Americans safer.

Mr. Lott is a former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, third edition, 2010).
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#154 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:11 pm by LoyalFan

MILLER: Tax dollars for gun control
Sneaky executive order bankrolls anti-Second Amendment propaganda
COMMENTS (226)SIZE: + / -PRINT
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShare on redditShare on linkedinShare on stumbleuponShare on emailMore Sharing Services
By Emily Miller-The Washington Times Friday, January 18, 2013


Enlarge Photo

“This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe,” ... more >
Ads by Google
Top Ranked MBA From UNC
UNC's MBA Online Program For Working Executives. Learn More!
www.OnlineMBA.unc.edu
STORY TOPICS
Politics
Michael R. Bloomberg
White House
Congress
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School Of Public Health

FOLLOW US ONFACEBOOKQUESTION OF THE DAY
Do you think Sen. John F. Kerry should be confirmed as the next secretary of state?

Yes

No

Undecided

Other


View results

The directives on gun violence President Obama signed Wednesday were meant to seem harmless. A closer look at the president’s first memorandum reveals it to be a sneaky assault on congressional authority in order to fund gun-control propaganda.

Getting this done has been on the White House “to do” list for some time. In his 2013 budget submission, Mr. Obama deleted the prohibition that has been in effect since 1995 on the use of federal funds to advocate or promote gun control.

Mr. Obama is trying to steamroll the Democratic and Republican majorities that kept the ban intact by labeling the advocacy as research. “While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” said Mr. Obama.

Under the terms of the memo, CDC may “sponsor” another entity to conduct the research, which is a handy way of funneling taxpayer cash to sympathetic gun-control groups.

Earlier this week, anti-gun activists, including New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, spent a lot of time at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore discussing how the government-spending prohibition was hampering their plans.

Daniel Webster, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the school, backed the president’s plan. “I agree that the CDC should be free to fund high-quality research into the causes and solutions to gun violence, one of the leading causes of premature mortality in the U.S. that affects not only deaths and injuries, but mental health as well,” he told The Washington Times.

Congress clamped down on the spending after President Clinton used the CDC and National Institutes of Health to create material advancing his theme of treating gun ownership as a public health issue, rather than a constitutional right. Millions in taxpayer funds were blown on junk science, such as $2.6 million used to determine if teenagers who are shot are more likely to have been drinking and carrying a gun. An additional $2 million went to figure out whether moving bars and liquor stores would prevent gun violence in communities.

By calling gun violence a “public health crisis” on Wednesday, Mr. Obama echoed Mr. Clinton’s model. It’s a move that could cost lives, as shifting funding away from fighting disease creates severely misplaced priorities. In 2010, 780,213 Americans died from cardiovascular disease and 574,743 from cancer, compared with 11,078 firearm homicides.

Under the Bush administration, the CDC already conducted a two-year independent study of the laws, including bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The scientists concluded in 2003 that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

Congress must reassert itself and override this executive action so that more tax dollars aren’t wasted. If Mr. Bloomberg wants more propaganda, he can pay for it out of his own deep pockets.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2IOJy8yWL
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#155 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:13 pm by LoyalFan

LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#156 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:16 pm by LoyalFan

LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#157 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:18 pm by LoyalFan

this is my favorite. because some of you guys say australia got it right and we need to be doing what they do right.


LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#158 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:20 pm by LoyalFan

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ECxDvwObwZk[/youtube]
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#159 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:21 pm by LoyalFan

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6swSM_nqCnk[/youtube]
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#160 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:26 pm by LoyalFan

14,000 knife victims a year
BY JONATHAN OWEN SUNDAY 06 JULY 2008

inShare
PRINT A A A EMAIL

Related articles

Guilty, the men who killed teenager for 'respect'
Knife crime rises fast as muggers target gadgets
Boy gets life for murder of teenager
Student killed 'over conkers argument'
Care home criticised as resident is sentenced for murdering schoolboy
Ads by Google

Prostate Cancer Treatment
Groundbreaking Protocol in Atlanta Survival Data on Over 14,000 Men
ProstRcision.com/prostate-cancerFusion vs. Civic Hybrid
Compare the Civic Hybrid to a Fusion. View Prices & Photos Today!
www.honda.com/ford_fusionNeed a Good Lawyer?
The Johnson Firm P.C. Criminal - Family - DUI
www.francysjohnson.com
Suggested Topics
Jacqui Smith
Healthcare
Freedom Of Information Act
Andrew Johnson
Knife violence in Britain is far worse than official statistics suggest, with almost 14,000 people taken to hospital for injuries caused by knives and other sharp weapons last year.

According to the latest Department of Health statistics, an average of 38 victims of knife wounds are admitted to accident and emergency departments across the country every day.

An analysis of hospital admissions data for England and Wales by the IoS revealed that assaults and injuries from knives and sharp implements, together with sword and dagger injuries, resulted in 12,340 people being admitted last year – 446 of whom were no older than 14. This is an increase of 19 per cent on the 10,372 admissions five years ago. The latest figures from Northern Ireland and Scotland bring the total number of victims in Britain to 13,795 each year.

Dr Tunji Lasoye, A&E consultant at King's College Hospital, London said: "In a nutshell the numbers of stab victims coming into A&E have gone up. It used to be that we would see isolated cases at weekends, but now it is nearly every day of the week. And the age of the victims has gone down. We used to see people in their early 20s; now they are in their mid-teens. And 10 per cent of the victims we see now are girls, which wasn't the case four or five years ago."

The latest statistics from hospitals in England alone highlight an 88 per cent jump in the number of children suffering stab wounds – from 95 in 2002-03 to 179 in 2006-07. And among 16- to 18-year-olds, there has been a 75 per cent rise from 429 to 752.

New figures provided to the IoS under the Freedom of Information Act highlight how the number of people being prosecuted by magistrates for possessing knives has rocketed up from the 4,489 in 1997, the year Labour came to power. By 2006, that figure had jumped to 7,699.

Most were not jailed, with just 14 per cent ending up in prison for little more than three months on average. Suspended sentences leapt from nine in 1997 to 552 in 2006.

The revelations undermine claims by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, last week that knife crime "is not more serious than it has been previously".

Government assurances are based on results from the British Crime Survey, which has recorded "knife-enabled crime" as remaining stable at between 5-8 per cent of all violent crimes in the past decade.

But a report by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College appears to confirm the IoS findings, noting that knife crime "suffers from a lack of research on the nature, extent, cause, motivation, frequency and possible growth of knife carrying".

London remains the centre of what is increasingly viewed as a nationwide epidemic. Fatal stabbings of teenagers in London total 14 since the start of the year. In total, 18 have been murdered, compared with 27 for the whole of last year.

The capital accounted for more than a third of all under-16s taken to hospital with stab wounds last year, and has seen numbers of teenagers needing treatment rise from 139 in 2002-03 to 324 in 2006-07.

Hundreds of people were due to attend a rally held early this morning in Islington, north London, where one of the most recent victims, 16-year-old Ben Kinsella, was stabbed to death last Sunday. Yesterday it emerged that the youngster had written a letter to Gordon Brown as part of his schoolwork, warning that knife violence was becoming "part of our culture".

Detectives continue their investigation into the knife murder of 16-year-old Shakilus Townsend in south London last Thursday.

In response to growing public concern about knife crime, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) will issue new guidance tomorrow, calling on all forces and crown prosecutors to charge anyone over 16 caught in illegal possession of a knife. This will extend to under-16s already "known" to the police.

Acpo wants hospitals to notify police of all patients with stab wounds, in the same way that they do with gunshot victims. The police now want to use hospital records to identify knife-crime hotspots.

Campaigners calling for tough action were not impressed by the Met's announcement on Friday that just 75 officers – a fraction of its 30,000 strength – will run a new taskforce against knife crime across London's 32 boroughs.

Lynn Costello, co-founder of Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, said: "We have to get tough. We've let our kids get away with murder for years and now they are literally getting away with murder – or think they can."

Additional reporting by Brian Brady and Andrew Johnson
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#161 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:32 pm by LoyalFan

i had some free time tonight and since some of you guys like to post random articles and facts to try and pat yourselves on the back i figured i would show you that it can go both ways.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#162 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:41 pm by LoyalFan

i am not a huge fan of wikipedia but it is good for a bit of general information on a subject.

this is a link on the dc vs heller case. there are a handful of you on here who need to familiarize yourselves with this ruling. it will help you to get the clue that you are lacking. and please believe a good number of you on here are seriously lacing a clue


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#163 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:50 pm by LoyalFan

then they did the same thing in chicago they did for dc


Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Second Amendment, which forbids Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, applies to state and local governments as well.
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: June 28, 2010
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
LINKEDIN
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.
Multimedia


Document
Supreme Court Decision: McDonald v. Chicago

Graphic
Monday’s Rulings
Related

Justices Will Weigh Challenges to Gun Laws (October 1, 2009)
Tailgating Outside the Supreme Court, Without the Cars (March 3, 2010)
Supreme Court Still Divided on Guns (March 3, 2010)

What Bolstering Gun Rights Will Mean
How should cities and states alter their gun control policies in light of the Supreme Court decision?
Post a Comment
Enlarge This Image

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images
The ruling on the Second Amendment pleased Wayne LaPierre, left, a top official of the National Rifle Association, who spoke about it Monday outside the Supreme Court.
Enlarge This Image

Kamil Krzaczynski/European Pressphoto Agency
At issue was whether the amendment applied to states and municipalities, like Lockport, Ill., where handguns were for sale Monday.
The ruling came almost exactly two years after the court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller, another 5-to-4 decision.

But the Heller case addressed only federal laws; it left open the question of whether Second Amendment rights protect gun owners from overreaching by state and local governments.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment was fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights setting out such fundamental protections, he said, it must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments.

The ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical effect is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection. The majority said little more than that there is a right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

Indeed, over the course of 200 pages of opinions, the court did not even decide the constitutionality of the two gun control laws at issue in the case, from Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The justices returned the case to the lower courts to decide whether those exceptionally strict laws, which effectively banned the possession of handguns, can be reconciled with the Second Amendment.

In Chicago, Mayor Richard M. Daley said he was disappointed by the ruling because it made the city’s handgun ban “unenforceable.”

“Across the country, cities are struggling with how to address this issue,” Mr. Daley said. “Common sense tells you we need fewer guns on the street, not more guns.”

Justice Alito, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and, in large part, Clarence Thomas, acknowledged that the decision might “lead to extensive and costly litigation,” but said that was the price of protecting constitutional freedoms.

The majority offered the lower courts little guidance about how much protection the Second Amendment affords. In a part of his opinion that Justice Thomas declined to join, Justice Alito reiterated the caveats in the Heller decision, saying the court did not mean to cast doubt on laws prohibiting possession of guns by felons and people who suffer from mental illness, laws forbidding carrying guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the commercial sale of firearms.

The important point was a broad one, Justice Alito wrote: that the Second Amendment, like other provisions of the Bill of Rights, must be applied to the states under the 14th Amendment.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. They said the Heller decision remained incorrect and added that they would not have extended its protections to state and local laws even had it been correctly decided.

“Although the court’s decision in this case might be seen as a mere adjunct to Heller,” Justice Stevens wrote, “the consequences could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”

Though the majority agreed on the outcome, its members differed about how to get there.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted the power of only the federal government. The Supreme Court later ruled that most of the protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.

Many constitutional scholars had hoped that the court would use Monday’s decision, McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, to revise its approach to how constitutional protections are applied to, or “incorporated against,” the states.

They argued that the court should rely not on the due process clause but on the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is evidence that the authors of the clause specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.

But only Justice Thomas signed on for that project. Justice Scalia, in a concurrence, acknowledged misgivings about using the due process clause to apply Bill of Rights protections to the states but said he would go along with the method here “since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.”

Five justices wrote opinions in the case, with many pages examining the history of the Second and 14th Amendments. The justices in the majority said that history supported both finding a fundamental individual right and applying it to state and local laws.

The dissenters drew different conclusions from the historical evidence.

“The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available for military use when our nation was in its infancy, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today,” Justice Stevens wrote in his final dissent before retiring.

He said the court should have proceeded more cautiously in light of “the malleability and elusiveness of history” and because “firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty.”

In a dissent joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, Justice Breyer said that history did not provide clear answers and that the empirical evidence about the consequences of gun control laws are mixed. But there was evidence, he said, that firearms caused 60,000 deaths and injuries in the United States each year and that Chicago’s handgun ban had saved many hundreds of lives since it was enacted in 1982.

All of that, Justice Breyer wrote, counseled in favor of deference to local elected officials in deciding how to regulate guns.

Justice Alito responded that many constitutional rights entail public safety costs, including ones limiting the use of reliable evidence obtained through police misconduct.

He also acknowledged that the majority decision limited the ability of states to address local issues with tailored gun regulations. “But this is always true,” he said, “when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated.”

Emma Graves Fitzsimmons contributed reporting from Chicago.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 30, 2010


An article on June 29 about a decision by the Supreme Court on state and local gun control laws, using information from a dissenting opinion, misstated the year that Chicago enacted the ban on handguns that was challenged in the case. It was enacted in 1982, not in 1983.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#164 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:52 pm by LoyalFan

then days before the newtown shooting they decided that it is unconstitutional to ban people from carrying concealed to protect themselves



John RudolfBecome a fan
john.rudolf@huffingtonpost.com


Illinois Concealed Carry Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appellate Court
Posted: 12/11/2012 12:58 pm EST | Updated: 12/11/2012 6:57 pm EST



1,782
100

331
5139
GET CHICAGO ALERTS:
SIGN UP
REACT: Amazing
Inspiring
Funny
Scary
Hot
Crazy
Important
Weird
FOLLOW: Chicago Gun Laws, Illinois Concealed Carry, Illinois Concealed Weapons, Illinois Gun Laws, Chicago Concealed Carry, Conceal Carry, Concealed Carry Illinois Unconstitutional, Concealed Carry Unconstitutional, Gun Control Chicago, Gun Control Illinois, Chicago News
Gun-rights advocates claimed a major victory on Tuesday when a federal appeals court in Illinois struck down the state's ban on carrying concealed firearms, in a ruling that may have national repercussions if appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Before the 2-1 ruling, Illinois stood as the last state in the country maintaining an absolute prohibition on the carrying of concealed firearms by private citizens. The majority opinion, by Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, found the ban on concealed weapons was unconstitutional under a 2008 Supreme Court decision overturning a sweeping handgun ban by the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court's decision in 2008 firmly established a constitutional right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment, Posner wrote.

"A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home," he wrote.

The law banning concealed weapons was challenged in 2009 by gun rights groups suing on behalf of an Illinois woman violently attacked while volunteering at her church. The suit was funded by the National Rifle Association.

"Today's ruling is a victory for all law-abiding citizens in Illinois and gun owners throughout the country," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA executive vice president.

The ruling gives the state 180 days to craft a law regulating the carrying of weapons. Many states, like New York and California, severely restrict the issuance of concealed carry permits. Other states, particularly in the West, have virtually no restrictions on such permits.


Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who fought the NRA lawsuit, is reviewing the ruling and will decide soon whether to appeal to the Supreme Court, a spokeswoman told NBC Chicago.

Gun control proponents called the ruling unfortunate and said they hoped the ruling would be appealed.

"Courts make mistakes," said Lee Goodman, an organizer with the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition. "That's why we have a process for appeal."

Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, who supports stricter gun control measures, said she hoped the ruling would be stayed until the Supreme Court had a chance to rule on an appeal. But if the state is forced to implement a concealed carry law, it should be severely restrictive, she said.

"There's no question that there are all kinds of limits one could impose," Currie told HuffPost.

Gun rights activists said that a restrictive concealed carry bill would be fought bitterly.

"I think the majority leader wants to have a ban without calling it a ban, and they don't have the votes to do it," said Todd Vandermyde, an Illinois-based lobbyist for the NRA.

"After going to court, we're not in the mood to compromise," he said.

Some called Posner's ruling simply puzzling, pointing to a widely discussed essay by the judge that harshly criticized the Supreme Court's decision overturning the District of Columbia handgun ban.

The August 2008 essay, in The New Republic magazine, stipulates that a literal reading of the Second Amendment grants the "right to bear arms" only to state militias, not private citizens.

"The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property," Posner wrote.

"The Framers of the Bill of Rights could not have been thinking of the crime problem in the large crime-ridden metropolises of twenty-first-century America," he wrote. "And it is unlikely that they intended to freeze American government two centuries hence at their eighteenth-century level of understanding."

The essay clearly seemed to suggest that Posner was unlikely to rule broadly in favor of a constitutional right for armed self-defense, said Ladd Everett of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. The ruling may in fact be a gambit by Posner to force the Supreme Court to more clearly address the constitutionality of gun control, he said.

"This is really strange," Everett said. "I have to believe there is something else going on here."

In his 2008 essay, Posner noted that the majority opinion overturning the District of Columbia's handgun ban, by Justice Antonin Scalia, found that not all forms of gun control were unconstitutional.

"Justice Scalia was emphatic that the right to possess a gun is not absolute," Posner said. "All that is clear is that an absolute ban on possessing a pistol is unconstitutional. The other restrictions a government might want to impose are up for grabs."
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#165 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:55 pm by LoyalFan

johnnywishbone wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
times are not changing my friend. you live in a bubble,



Definition of Projection wrote:Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]


I live in a bubble?

LoyalFan wrote:
one in fact filled with ignorance. in the end all of this is empty talk of useless opinions. you will sooner see george bush elected president again before any congress or senate is able to pass any sort of assault weapons ban. this is a sad PR stunt by the president to save face and show he is doing something.


6 months from now people will not even remember this, just like their trayvon martin hoodies................


The times aren't changing? We have an African American President, Gay people can serve in the Army and George Bush has been banished to Texas. I'm sure you have a problem with all three of those too.




well bubble boy. i used my free friday night to give you some light reading and some good videos to watch. since you wanted to play ignorant with me and keep talking about australia and what some tailor made poll some biased news agency with an agenda had to say.

next time you want to play a round of "i am going to continue to talk and make myself look stupid" i will be happy to help you with the making you look stupid part.


on a more serious note though. you should try stepping outside of your bubble and see what people do and think in the rest of the country. you might learn something
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#166 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:25 am by HarthorneWingo

LoyalFan wrote:
johnnywishbone wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
times are not changing my friend. you live in a bubble,



Definition of Projection wrote:Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]


I live in a bubble?

LoyalFan wrote:
one in fact filled with ignorance. in the end all of this is empty talk of useless opinions. you will sooner see george bush elected president again before any congress or senate is able to pass any sort of assault weapons ban. this is a sad PR stunt by the president to save face and show he is doing something.


6 months from now people will not even remember this, just like their trayvon martin hoodies................


The times aren't changing? We have an African American President, Gay people can serve in the Army and George Bush has been banished to Texas. I'm sure you have a problem with all three of those too.




well bubble boy. i used my free friday night to give you some light reading and some good videos to watch. since you wanted to play ignorant with me and keep talking about australia and what some tailor made poll some biased news agency with an agenda had to say.

next time you want to play a round of "i am going to continue to talk and make myself look stupid" i will be happy to help you with the making you look stupid part.


on a more serious note though. you should try stepping outside of your bubble and see what people do and think in the rest of the country. you might learn something



No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.
PMFJB
-copywrite Capn'O (2014)
HarthorneWingo




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 22,358
And1: 2,832
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: Harlem, New York
Top

Post#167 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:54 am by LoyalFan

[/quote]


No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.[/quote]



full of **** much.........
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#168 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:02 am by alphad0gz

No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.


Translation 1: I have no real rebuttal for these so I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 2: I'm too lazy to read but since you're on the other side, I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 3: I'm too closed minded to believe I could be wrong, ergo, these are crap

Translation 4: This is completely against my party line, so it's crap

Translation 5: I can't think of any response to rationally defend my position but I cant just disappear from the debate or I'll look bad so.....this is crap


Great job Loyal Fan. Absolutely outstanding. However, nobody opposed to your view will read what you posted, or if they do, they will have no real idea of what it is saying. You watch, whoever posts against what you posted will post drivel, or completely irrelevant things. As I said before...no ability to critically think and solve problems.
alphad0gz
Veteran
Posts: 2,509
And1: 58
Joined: Oct 10, 2008
Top

Post#169 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:13 am by ORANGEandBLUE

LoyalFan wrote:[
mass shootings are a political tool. since columbine we have averaged 4 per year. in the big picture of overall crime, gun crime specifically, it is in the low single digit percentages at best

so the root question here is reducing gun crime, not just mass shootings.


Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.
ORANGEandBLUE
RealGM
Posts: 14,554
And1: 956
Joined: May 5, 2001
Top

Post#170 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:49 pm by alphad0gz

Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.


Seriously? That's what you got out of all his posting and links? His point is exactly the opposite of that. His point is that "assault type weapons" are at the bottom end of the statistical pool. Why are people so reluctant to question things that don't make any sense? When there are inconsistencies, people should ALWAYS ask questions...These laws are a perfect example. At face value they look OK, but they make no sense.
alphad0gz
Veteran
Posts: 2,509
And1: 58
Joined: Oct 10, 2008
Top

PreviousNext

Return to New York Knicks


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: And1+2, awe1028, Bunta, diet_coke, King of Canada, lilfishi22, NYKat, Priggy Smalls