Supreme Court hears DC gun ban case.

As we speak the Supreme court is hearing arguments that may well shape the second amendment in this country. Links are scarce at best but here is the best heads up at present.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

As stated in the article.

This is a case without much clear precedent to shape it, this is in fact a historic argument being made to define for the first time what the amendment ACTUALLY means for the American people.

I know at least one person will bring up the Miller case, but remember that was remanded back down to the lower court and dismissed. That was the closest thing to what we have here and it was over 70 years ago.

I am one of those who is really on the fence about this. On the one hand, I am a gun owner, hunter, and fully understand the role firearms have played in forming this country and in history. On the other hand, I think there needs to be a severe change in the process for purchasing and owning guns. Gun shows need to be closely regulated, instead of the free-for-all system that now exists. Waiting periods are fine if someone is pissed and wants to go buy a gun to go shoot someone immediatly, but more states have found ways around that. In my own case, the waiting period is not on the individual purchase, but on a permit needed to buy a pistol. There is no wait for a long gun.

Training and licencing needs to be addressed. There are too many people out there who have purchased a gun for home protection, but who haven't been properly trained on the maintainance and safe storage, let alone proper handling and shooting. They'll buy a pistol, put it in the nightstand, and wait for their kid to find it. They don't take the range-time to know how to hit what they are aiming at, or to know just what a bullet can do. I was taught by my father who had me shoot a .22 (very small caliber for those who don't know) into a closed soda can. It exploded and I understood what even a small bullet does.

Illegal guns need to be addressed. Criminals are able to get "clean" guns (no serial number, stolen, unreggulated) at will, which is one of the main arguments used for keeping gun ownership legal for non-criminals. I don't know what to do about this one.

But it does need to be addressed, and not by the NRA. I don't trust a group that thinks a .50 caliber sniper rifle is needed for home defense.

I think thats where most gun owners are.

Tho those .50 cal rifles are a bit expensive, most people especially no a day sdon't have between 2-10,000 to spend on them.

Gun owners are there. Gun lobbyists still think an AK-47 is a hunting rifle and that a handgun needs a 20 round capacity. Guess they don't have much faith in anybody's aim.

SHHHHHHHHH!

you'll scare away the cow.

*bazooka on cow action*

I agree with what coyotemike has said. There have to be sensible restrictions and requirements attached to gun ownership, or you're just setting disaster in motion (which unfortunately seems to be all too common in America today).

Having said that, though, I do hope that the court comes down in favor of gun ownership being an individual right rather than one tied to membership in some kind of officially sanctioned militia. If not, then I'm not sure I even see any point to the second amendment, quite frankly.

UPDATE!!!!!

Supreme court rules that Americans do have an individual right to bear arms but that government can regulate said weapons.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AtzeF9hMbLfz3S2xoL2lt1.s0NUE

That was quick. I'll have to read that when I have more time.

EDIT: Not so fast. That was just part of the debate.

Which puts everything right back to where they started. They didn't rule what the level of regulation is, which level of government has ultimate say, or if the D.C. ban is constitutional or not. They've basically said that you don't need to belong to a militia in order to own a gun.

Welcome to the non-result result.

Shhhh don't ruin this for me by talking.

"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits bad people from having a firearm ... to kill good people is not reasonable and unconstitutional." - FTR

It's way too early, folks. Unless someone heard five justices saying essentially the same thing, this is a long way from over.

Alright, I have a very broad but shallow understanding of all of the Gun Ownership/Lobbying/etc that occurs around firearm laws in the U.S.. In light of this, I was wondering, on a more personal level, why people feel the need to have personal firearms for protection/daily use in some areas? Is it merely based on the wording of the Second Amendment, and if so, isn't that kind of...archaic?

I mean, I am a member of the Canadian Forces Militia. I used to hunt, and have come from a military family wherein which we have all been taught the use of firearms from a fairly young age. Despite this, I can't for the life of me understand why someone would want the right to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Nor do I understand the often-fanatical defense of firearms as a "home-protection" device.

I'm just trying to understand a bit more of the perspective on both sides, I guess. Outside of reading blogs/judgements/wikipedia articles.

In case you haven't heard, we have a lot of crime in this country. The police can only be expected to come by later to take a statement.

The home-protection is easy to explain. Criminals break into our houses and steal things. Sometimes they commit personal crimes upon the people who live there. With a firearm, you can protect yourself and your property even if you aren't physically imposing.

On your person is only slightly different. Unless you're a hermit, you have to go out in public now and then. We have muggings, rapes, and car-jackings. Some people have to go into high-crime areas, and others sometimes carry money or valuables as part of their jobs.

That isn't to say that there are no disadvantages. A weapon in your home is far more likely to injur you or a member of your family than an intruder. But the psychology is the perceived need to be able to protect yourself.

I usually have some pretty mature conversations with you, so i will actually dabble in this thread to give you my perspective.

I have a lot of firearms. A mixture of long guns and hand guns. I don't hunt at all. I used to shoot competitively.

Out of all my firearms. 2 are home defense, and one is my carry weapon. The others are just a hobby. I shoot them because i enjoy shooting them, long distance rifle shooting is a very hard skill to acquire, which i am sure you are aware of.

I took all the proper steps to get my conceal permit. Why do i want to carry a pistol? More than anything i carry it to protect my daughter more than me. I rarely even carry it when i am by myself, it usually sits in a lock box in the truck.

If i ever were presented with a situation where my daughter's life was put into danger, i would want the same advantage, or an upper hand to ensure her safety.

90% of the time when i am by myself, i don't carry. Mostly cause the damn thing is uncomfortable as hell, and usually crushes into my lower back when i sit down. When i take my daughter somewhere, and there is a higher potential of a situation, that is when i carry. Our city isn't so unsafe that i need to carry it everywhere, but it's definitely not headed in the right direction.

I wouldn't actually pull the pistol to be used, unless i had every intention of using it. Anyone that denies the fact that a firearm increases the intensity of a situation is lying. I don't carry to show off, i am happy with the size of my penis. I just want to keep the odds even, or like i said earlier, get the upper hand if a situation were to arise.

Home defense is a whole nother ball of wax. My guns are all stored and locked. I only have quick access to two guns, even if the situation arose where someone did break into my house, my life or my family's life would still have to be in immediate life threatening danger in order for me to confront them.

I wouldn't pull the trigger and kill someone over a stupid DVD player, they can have it, that's what insurance is for. Killing someone can't be easy on your psyche, and i don't want to have to deal with that unless it's an absolute necessity. Whether they are a good person or not, i still don't want to have to deal with the trauma of shooting someone.

To sum it up. My hobby is shooting. I shoot targets. I quit hunting because i didn't find it enjoyable, and really just didn't like it. I have big guns, i have small guns, i enjoy shooting them all. They're a tool of the hobby. Can't play sports without equipment, this specific equipment just needs special precautions.