MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
THE BRONX, USAContains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  WELCOME  
  Code of Conduct  
  Bronx Talk  
  General  
  Good Old Bx Days  
  chat  
  Bronx Trivia  
  MUSIC OLDIES  
  LOOKING FOR...  
  Reunions &Events  
  In Memory Of....  
  The Sports Page  
  My New Hometown  
  Pictures  
  Hot Spots  
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : a hollow victory...
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 9 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameCrotonaPark40s-50s  (Original Message)Sent: 1/2/2009 6:30 PM

Professor at UCLA School of Law

Posted January 2, 2009 | 11:19 AM (EST)

The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right

In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns for personal self-defense.

So far, the victory hasn't turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.

As many legal scholars predicted, the Supreme Court's decision led to a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges to gun control. Every person charged with a gun crime saw the Supreme Court's decision as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.

To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.

Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.

Before the Supreme Court's decision, none of the numerous challenges to gun control laws raised in recent months would have had any hope of winning. Now, with a revolutionary ruling recognizing a renewed individual right to keep and bear arms, they still have no hope of winning.

About the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out they lose.

The basis for most of these lower court rulings upholding gun control is a paragraph near the end of the Supreme Court's decision that, at the time, seemed like a throwaway. The Supreme Court wrote that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories.

"I would have preferred that that not have been there," says Robert Levy about this laundry list of Second Amendment exceptions. Levy, executive director of the CATO Institute, which funded the Heller litigation, believes that paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."

But to a die-hard gun rights advocate, the problem is exactly the opposite: the paragraph shed too much light. It revealed that the Supreme Court believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly lawful -- a message that hasn't been lost on the lower courts.

Hardliners in the gun rights community cannot help but be disappointed with their long-awaited triumph



First  Previous  2-9 of 9  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 9 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHerbM0Sent: 1/2/2009 6:45 PM
I think we need to prohibit people from ownong rapid fire handguns and rifles. Too many random killing and killing of family members are happening.  Limit handguns to the 6 shooter revolver.

Reply
 Message 3 of 9 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname-JXSent: 1/2/2009 7:01 PM
While we are at it, make the max age for being allowed to drive 59 years old to protect people from being hurt in accidents caused by elderly drivers.

Reply
 Message 4 of 9 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameedhajSent: 1/2/2009 7:05 PM
I happen to own firearms, possess a Federal Firearms License to purchase Curio&Relic firearms, and have concealed carry permits in two states. What you sheep STILL CANNOT UNDERSTAND is that there are already laws on the books to prohibit felons, druggies, the mentally ill and others from buying firearms! It is so sad to see that you still cannot separate legal firearms owners from criminals. Where are the stats showing where most of the crime is? Is most of the crime in NH which the brady bunch considers a "lax" State? Or is it in d.c where the laws are strict? Why did Columbine and VT happen? Duh, they are no firearms zones. Where would YOU go if you wanted to commit this sort of crime? I truly hope that none of you face the prospect of being mugged. Oh yeah, you'll just hand over your wallet and plead for mercy. Piss ants.

Reply
 Message 5 of 9 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameSinned4337Sent: 1/2/2009 8:04 PM
Maybe we should also make the maximun age for being a politician  59 years old to protect people from being hurt by legislation by elderly politicians

Reply
 Message 6 of 9 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameedhajSent: 1/2/2009 11:09 PM
And the maximum weight 350 lbs to keep out further teddies and hillarys!

Reply
 Message 7 of 9 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameedhajSent: 1/3/2009 12:50 AM
Found some interesting facts:

From this list of New Hampshire's 20 homicides of 2008, here are the "weapons of choice" used.
1. Guitar, boot
2. Firearm
3. Sword
4. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
5. Motor vehicle
6. Weapon not specified (blunt object)
7. Firearm
8. Weapon not specified (still under investigation)
9. Firearm (justifiable homicide, self-defense)
10. Pool table
11. Weapon not specified (information not released)
12. Weapon not specified (traumatic injury)
13. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
14. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
15. Weapon not specified (blunt object)
16. Baseball bat
17. Baseball bat
18. Knife (or other stabbing weapon)
19. Axe
20. Weapon not specified (multiple left rib fractures)

Compare and Contrast:

Two non-justifiable homicides (10% of all homicides) committed with a gun in the entire state of New Hampshire (population 1.32 million).

In the City of Boston (population approx. 600,000), there were 60 homicides recorded in 2008, 46 of which (77%) were committed with a firearm.

Quote:
Gun Homicide Rates per 100,000 residents:

New Hampshire = 0.15
Boston = 7.7

What is the matter with you liberals?????

Reply
 Message 8 of 9 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameRagnar10462Sent: 1/3/2009 3:40 PM
I personally favor hand grenades. Pull the pin and you have the choice of letting it go off or putting the pin back in. If you are going to be mugged, just pull the pin and the mugger makes the choice. When he runs away, you can either throw it at him or out the pin back in. Sounds great to me.

Reply
 Message 9 of 9 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameCrotonaPark40s-50sSent: 1/3/2009 7:15 PM
Finally, some good sense.

First  Previous  2-9 of 9  Next  Last 
Return to General