Guns legal in Washington D.C. (and elsewhere)

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

You are correct. Constitutional rights are subject to subordination to various legitimate government interests. In each instance, there's a balancing test that goes on between our constitutional right and the government's interest. In the scenario you've described, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting drunk assholes from shooting other drunk assholes at a bar, and that interest supersedes our rights under the 2nd.

And, of course, that sort of balancing test applies to all of our Constitutional rights, not just the right to bear arms. The right to free speech aside, you can't yell "I have a bomb" at the airport, because the government has an interest in prohibiting that sort of conduct.

Correct and pointed out above where I mentioned Dodge City and the confication of revolvers at the door of saloons...

But, the "balancing test" cannot be construed to completely remove the right to own and bear arms such as what was in place for over 30 years in Washington DC.

We will still have "balancing tests" and regulations. But, we will not have bans anymore...

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Correct and pointed out above where I mentioned Dodge City and the confication of revolvers at the door of saloons...

But, the "balancing test" cannot be construed to completely remove the right to own and bear arms such as what was in place for over 30 years in Washington DC.

We will still have "balancing tests" and regulations. But, we will not have bans anymore...

I wasn't even commenting on the SCOTUS opinion specifically. I was just confirming chum's remark and clarifying it for him or anyone else who wanted to know.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You will forgive me, I hope, but I don't think the "only reason" folks don't carry rifles around anymore in their pickup truck windows is that they fear said rifles will be stolen. Rather, I think it's that they don't want to be seen as rednecked dumbasses who are living in the last generation. Or, they don't rest their rifles there when they aren't on their way to a hunting trip. Or, they simply don't feel the need for their rifles when they aren't out on a hunting trip.

After all, you can carry that rifle behind the seat and not invite theft, right?

Look...it's not about what law-abiding citizens can do with their weapons. It's about keeping the weapons out of the hands of people who would be inclined to do something non-law-abiding with them. It's about being able to imprison a man who wields a weapon for something other than self-defense.

Basically, it's about keeping guns out of the bad guys' hands.

The people who are all about the free handling of firearms are, by the same token, endorsing the use of handguns by the bad guys. Have a records check on someone who wants to get one? Hell, no! The government shouldn't care who I am! I'm me, and I can buy this gun. I'm an American! Read the Constitution!

It's like you guys really wish you could go to war or something. Make all the arms legal, and let the best guy win.

We would still keep a rifle/shotgun mounted in our truck if it wouldn't result in theft and vandalism.

We cannot put the rifle/shotgun behind the seat because then it is a concealed weapon. Concealed weapons have very specific and restrictive rules/laws regarding them. Most concealed weapon licenses/laws specifically appy to handguns. I am not aware of a concealed rifle permit.

It you conceal the rifle behind the truck seat and the law enforcement officer finds it, you are in serious trouble...

Ah, now we get to the meat of your concerns. You want to keep arms out of bad men's hands...

That is impossible. Bad men by definition have no regard for law. If you pass a law that says bad men cannot have a gun, the bad men are still going to get the gun because they are bad men, right?

If a man has decided to commit a crime and use a gun in that crime, then having a law that says he can't have a gun is not going to prevent him from having that gun.

The correct approach is to actually enforce the laws regarding the commission of a crime with a gun. No parole. No get out of jail free. Execution if a death occurs with that weapon. Etc. Execute the laws that already exist. That is all you can do.

Will you argue that we should be like Britain and outlaw nearly all weapons? Three things have happened there:
1)crime rate continues to soar not regress
2)crimes are commited with other weapons such as knives or clubs
3)crimes are committed with guns because men inclined to break the law are going to break the law and get the guns...
4)the law abiding folks have no gun to defend themselves....

And, finally, the NRA is not opposed to background checks and is not opposed to denying the mentally ill from having a gun. The NRA is not opposed to the current background check and the current blocks in place to prevent people from getting a gun who clearly should not have a gun.

It is certainly necessary to have some regulations.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Is it not true that a dozen years ago or so, a law was passed in Texas saying that you could shoot a threatening person from your home, car, or place of business if the person posed a true threat?

I have a perhaps interesting story about that. About ten years ago I worked at a place very near a major retail center. Around Christmastime the traffic got unbearable. There was a particular intersection inside a shopping center (which also housed most of the places in the area where you would go to get lunch, which I was doing) that caused a lot of problems. The incoming traffic had the right of way at the four-way stop. But at Christmastime there were so many cars at every leg of the intersection that it was just chaos. In other words, people cut off the incoming traffic all the time.

One day I was sitting at the intersection, waiting my turn to go, when an incoming red Chevy pickup truck was cut off at the pass as it tried to enter the shopping center. What did the driver do? He exited his red Chevy pickup truck and wielded a pistol at the car who cut him off.

Was that guy a licensed concealed weapon carrier? I don't know and I don't care. A traffic misunderstanding is no reason to wield a pistol. But that situation could have gone bad, and I'm not too enthused about giving idiots like that the right to carry their handgun with them all the time...

I understand that this is just one anecdote, but the point remains that not everyone will use their firearm in the way that you imagine.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I have a perhaps interesting story about that. About ten years ago I worked at a place very near a major retail center. Around Christmastime the traffic got unbearable. There was a particular intersection inside a shopping center (which also housed most of the places in the area where you would go to get lunch, which I was doing) that caused a lot of problems. The incoming traffic had the right of way at the four-way stop. But at Christmastime there were so many cars at every leg of the intersection that it was just chaos. In other words, people cut off the incoming traffic all the time.

One day I was sitting at the intersection, waiting my turn to go, when an incoming red Chevy pickup truck was cut off at the pass as it tried to enter the shopping center. What did the driver do? He exited his red Chevy pickup truck and wielded a pistol at the car who cut him off.

Was that guy a licensed concealed weapon carrier? I don't know and I don't care. A traffic misunderstanding is no reason to wield a pistol. But that situation could have gone bad, and I'm not too enthused about giving idiots like that the right to carry their handgun with them all the time...

I understand that this is just one anecdote, but the point remains that not everyone will use their firearm in the way that you imagine.

Good example of a time and place when the man with the revolver is committing a crime. That man wielding that pistol/revolver in that setting can be shot himself by another person and the second shooter would be found innocent of a crime.

I agree that idiots will do dumb things. All that can be done is to punish them to the extent of the law (or shoot them in your own self defense).

The law in Texas has the phrase that says that a serious threat must be in place. The story you portrayed does not cross that threshold.

I'll tell you another story, also true.

My wife and I were driving a Mercury Grand Marquis in Arkansas. Traffic was heavy on an interstate. An idiot Redneck in a Bubba pickup truck was dodging in and out of traffic when there was no where to go ahead. It was a parking lot. I was driving the Mercury. The idiot pulled up next to us and tried to cut me off and pull in front of me. I pushed forward and he had to either 1)stop or 2)strike me.
He chose to stop. He then pulled a revolver out and pointed it at my wife.
I swerved that Mercury into him and gave him two more choices: 1)I hit him and drive him into the ditch or 2)He goes into the ditch of his own accord.
He went into the ditch of his own accord and rolled his truck.

I have no patience for idiots.

Had I been present at the scene of your story, I would have likely shot the idiot myself because he was posing a serious risk/threat to innocents with the gun in his hand.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

That is impossible. Bad men by definition have no regard for law. If you pass a law that says bad men cannot have a gun, the bad men are still going to get the gun because they are bad men, right?

Of course they are still going to get the gun. There's no law that can be passed which will stop that.

So, that's a given. Your argument, as I understand it, is that the good guys should be able to be legally equipped to engage them in a firefight.

The rub is that if they can carry it illegally, so can you. You want the government to help you with this, by endorsing your right to carry it "legally." However, free and ready gun "bearing," the kind that you seem to think is endorsed by the Second Amendment, applies to everyone and not just you. If you can carry it, so can that thug who wants to shoot you with his. If it comes down to you and him, do you want both of you to be carrying or for neither of you to be?

If you want the both of you to "bear arms," you relish the firefight. If you wish for the firefight not to happen, you don't want arms in either person's hands.

There's no reason to endorse it being legal to carry a firearm around town unless you relish the firefight.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Good example of a time and place when the man with the revolver is committing a crime. That man wielding that pistol/revolver in that setting can be shot himself by another person and the second shooter would be found innocent of a crime.

I agree that idiots will do dumb things. All that can be done is to punish them to the extent of the law (or shoot them in your own self defense).

The law in Texas has the phrase that says that a serious threat must be in place. The story you portrayed does not cross that threshold.

I'll tell you another story, also true.

My wife and I were driving a Mercury Grand Marquis in Arkansas. Traffic was heavy on an interstate. An idiot Redneck in a Bubba pickup truck was dodging in and out of traffic when there was no where to go ahead. It was a parking lot. I was driving the Mercury. The idiot pulled up next to us and tried to cut me off and pull in front of me. I pushed forward and he had to either 1)stop or 2)strike me.
He chose to stop. He then pulled a revolver out and pointed it at my wife.
I swerved that Mercury into him and gave him two more choices: 1)I hit him and drive him into the ditch or 2)He goes into the ditch of his own accord.
He went into the ditch of his own accord and rolled his truck.

I have no patience for idiots.

Had I been present at the scene of your story, I would have likely shot the idiot myself because he was posing a serious risk/threat to innocents with the gun in his hand.

See, this is kind of shit that happens when everyone goes around with guns at their disposal. The guy who pointed it at you ends up rolling his truck, and if you'd been in my driver's seat someone would have got shot (and maybe you, too, if he turned that pistol back at you).

Sometimes it seems that it's a bad idea to let regular folks go waving their guns around.

[jefelump]

For what it's worth, here is the Texas Concealed Handgun Law.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...chlaws0102.pdf

PC §42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public
place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate
breach of the peace;
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and
the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the
peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable
odor in a public place;
(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously
offensive manner;
(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport
shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government
Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;
(6) fights with another in a public place;
(7) enters on the property of another and for a lewd or unlawful
purpose looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or
other opening in the dwelling;
(8) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment,
for a lewd or unlawful purpose looks into a guest room not his own
through a window or other opening in the room;
(9) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road
or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local
Government Code;
(10) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in
a manner calculated to alarm;
(11) discharges a firearm on or across a public road; or
(12) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless
about whether another may be present who will be offended or
alarmed by his act.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the
actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening
conduct.
(c) For purposes of this section:
(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private
residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in
the public place or near a private residence; and
(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a
decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice
from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless
committed under Subsection (a)(9) or (a)(10), in which event it is a
Class B misdemeanor.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection
(a)(9) or (11) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable
fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous
wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

As shown in the sections bolded, those who possess a license to carry a concealed handgun are bound by law to behave. They can't fight in public, they can't even SHOW their gun, much less wave it menacingly as described in the stories above. In short, the only legal use of said handgun is if it's a last resort. In a concealed handgun course, you're taught to retreat if possible and avoid the fight. So I would disagree that someone who has a concealed handgun, or someone who supports the 2nd amendment "relishes the firefight."

[jefelump]

And one more thing I would add.... the TX Concealed Handgun Law is a prime example of how the state is legally/constitutionally allowed to regulate an individual's right to keep and bear arms, as Alito described in the opinion of the court. Clearly, the 2nd amendment is not an open/unregulated/blanket approval of anyone and everyone to have whatever gun he wants. Convicted felons, mentally ill people, etc can not own a firearm.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course they are still going to get the gun. There's no law that can be passed which will stop that.

So, that's a given. Your argument, as I understand it, is that the good guys should be able to be legally equipped to engage them in a firefight.

The rub is that if they can carry it illegally, so can you. You want the government to help you with this, by endorsing your right to carry it "legally." However, free and ready gun "bearing," the kind that you seem to think is endorsed by the Second Amendment, applies to everyone and not just you. If you can carry it, so can that thug who wants to shoot you with his. If it comes down to you and him, do you want both of you to be carrying or for neither of you to be?

If you want the both of you to "bear arms," you relish the firefight. If you wish for the firefight not to happen, you don't want arms in either person's hands.

There's no reason to endorse it being legal to carry a firearm around town unless you relish the firefight.

I already said earlier that I hoped to never point a gun at a person. I do not wish for a gunfight. But, since bad people are going to get guns and use guns for bad purposes, then I want to have a gun to defend myself.

You might be happy to know that I have a Taser gun. I also have a flare gun. The flare gun is 12 gauge. It is absolutely illegal to shoot 12 gauge shells from a 12 gauge flare gun. And, the flare gun is not strong enough to shoot a regular 12 gauge shell. Doing so will result in at least losing the hand holding the flare gun. But, what you can do with a 12 gauge flare gun is: 1)shoot flares and 2)shoot weakly loaded 12 gauge shells loaded with cayenne pepper.

The BATF has ruled:
1)the flare gun is not a weapon and therefore concealing it is not a crime (concealed weapon). The flare gun is a signalling device
2)a flare gun converted or used to fire pepper spray (in its various forms) is also not a weapon and therefore can be concealed without it being a crime. A flare gun used as a pepper spray device is no different than a pepper spray device used by women everywhere and concealed in their purses.
3)if you have a flare gun in 12 guage (or converted to 12 guage) and possess regular 12 guage shells in the same vicinity as the flare gun, then you have a Destructive Device under the BATF determinations which requires a level 3 NFA application and license. In other words, if you have the flare gun with regular 12 guage shells with you, you are going to jail.

The Taser unit and the pepper spray loaded flare gun will incapacitate an idiot without killing said idiot (unless the taser unit is used on an idiot with a pacemaker or underlying cardiac arrhythmia).

So, there is further evidence that I have no desire to kill a man but do have a desire to be armed to defend myself.

And, I know myself well enough to know I will defend myself.

A desire to be able to defend oneself cannot be construed as implying I wish to kill.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

See, this is kind of shit that happens when everyone goes around with guns at their disposal. The guy who pointed it at you ends up rolling his truck, and if you'd been in my driver's seat someone would have got shot (and maybe you, too, if he turned that pistol back at you).

Sometimes it seems that it's a bad idea to let regular folks go waving their guns around.

There is no reason to argue from the realm of theory here. Go back to the United Kingdom example. Nearly every firearm is illegal is Britain. The crime rate continues to climb. The crimes are committed often with knives and clubs or other weapons. Those committing crimes do still frequently find a way to have a gun to use in the act of their planned crime. The law abiding innocents have no way to defend themselves from an armed criminal.

Removing all guns is impossible and won't solve any problems anyway. People killed with swords and arrows before guns were invented. Guns are just another tool. People are the problem. The only effective law is to make committing crime illegal and prosecuting the criminal to the fullest extent of the law.

In this nation, the Supreme Court has determined that having a firearm is not a crime in and of itself and is a protected right but allows that the right can be regulated but not regulated out of existence...

[wmbwinn]

True gun control consists in hitting what you are aiming at...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

There is an arguement that the second amendment only applies to militias. This arguement states that the second amendment only provides for weapons for military purposes.

Alito is pointing out that that arguement is silly. The dissent opinion and the petitioner's opinion both point to maintaining a right to own a gun to go hunting. Alito is saying that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that it is ok to own guns to hunt and then say that the second amendment only applies to military weapon needs.

why can't you have it both ways?

The <other> reading of the 2nd A. unequivocally upholds the right to bear arms in a militia, but that interpretation would in no way RESTRICT it usage for other purposes. Under that interprestation the decision of non-milita uses from firearms would have to be regualted from other context.

Btw... I haven't read the decision ... how does it specifically apply to handguns or howitzers or nukes or any other form of "arms"? THe constitution CLEARLY does NOT say ALL arms, whether or not it is for militias, right? It also clearly does NOT preclude any specific arms.. it leave the determination of any such lines for elsewhere. So does this decision attempt to clarify that line (what constitutes acceptable "arms") ?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I already said earlier that I hoped to never point a gun at a person. I do not wish for a gunfight. But, since bad people are going to get guns and use guns for bad purposes, then I want to have a gun to defend myself.

You might be happy to know that I have a Taser gun. I also have a flare gun. The flare gun is 12 gauge. It is absolutely illegal to shoot 12 gauge shells from a 12 gauge flare gun. And, the flare gun is not strong enough to shoot a regular 12 gauge shell. Doing so will result in at least losing the hand holding the flare gun. But, what you can do with a 12 gauge flare gun is: 1)shoot flares and 2)shoot weakly loaded 12 gauge shells loaded with cayenne pepper.

The BATF has ruled:
1)the flare gun is not a weapon and therefore concealing it is not a crime (concealed weapon). The flare gun is a signalling device
2)a flare gun converted or used to fire pepper spray (in its various forms) is also not a weapon and therefore can be concealed without it being a crime. A flare gun used as a pepper spray device is no different than a pepper spray device used by women everywhere and concealed in their purses.
3)if you have a flare gun in 12 guage (or converted to 12 guage) and possess regular 12 guage shells in the same vicinity as the flare gun, then you have a Destructive Device under the BATF determinations which requires a level 3 NFA application and license. In other words, if you have the flare gun with regular 12 guage shells with you, you are going to jail.

The Taser unit and the pepper spray loaded flare gun will incapacitate an idiot without killing said idiot (unless the taser unit is used on an idiot with a pacemaker or underlying cardiac arrhythmia).

So, there is further evidence that I have no desire to kill a man but do have a desire to be armed to defend myself.

And, I know myself well enough to know I will defend myself.

A desire to be able to defend oneself cannot be construed as implying I wish to kill.

I , for one, would be MUCH happier with peole carrying around cayenne flare guns, than saturday night specials to defend themselves.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

There is no reason to argue from the realm of theory here. Go back to the United Kingdom example. Nearly every firearm is illegal is Britain. The crime rate continues to climb. The crimes are committed often with knives and clubs or other weapons. Those committing crimes do still frequently find a way to have a gun to use in the act of their planned crime. The law abiding innocents have no way to defend themselves from an armed criminal.

Removing all guns is impossible and won't solve any problems anyway. People killed with swords and arrows before guns were invented. Guns are just another tool. People are the problem. The only effective law is to make committing crime illegal and prosecuting the criminal to the fullest extent of the law.

In this nation, the Supreme Court has determined that having a firearm is not a crime in and of itself and is a protected right but allows that the right can be regulated but not regulated out of existence...

the crime rate is climbing, but is still significantly lower than here, right? CERTAINLY the crime rate using guns is. and the murder rate.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

why can't you have it both ways?

The <other> reading of the 2nd A. unequivocally upholds the right to bear arms in a militia, but that interpretation would in no way RESTRICT it usage for other purposes. Under that interprestation the decision of non-milita uses from firearms would have to be regualted from other context.

Btw... I haven't read the decision ... how does it specifically apply to handguns or howitzers or nukes or any other form of "arms"? THe constitution CLEARLY does NOT say ALL arms, whether or not it is for militias, right? It also clearly does NOT preclude any specific arms.. it leave the determination of any such lines for elsewhere. So does this decision attempt to clarify that line (what constitutes acceptable "arms") ?

To answer your question on specific types of arms.... from page 2 of the decision:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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 and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56

I have bolded the relevant portions to your question. I would certainly consider a nuke to fall under the category of "dangerous and unusual weapons", and therefore not protected by the 2nd amendment according to the Miller decision. However, a common handgun is not the least bit "unusual".

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course they are still going to get the gun. There's no law that can be passed which will stop that.

So, that's a given. Your argument, as I understand it, is that the good guys should be able to be legally equipped to engage them in a firefight.

The rub is that if they can carry it illegally, so can you. You want the government to help you with this, by endorsing your right to carry it "legally." However, free and ready gun "bearing," the kind that you seem to think is endorsed by the Second Amendment, applies to everyone and not just you. If you can carry it, so can that thug who wants to shoot you with his. If it comes down to you and him, do you want both of you to be carrying or for neither of you to be?

If you want the both of you to "bear arms," you relish the firefight. If you wish for the firefight not to happen, you don't want arms in either person's hands.

There's no reason to endorse it being legal to carry a firearm around town unless you relish the firefight.

I love this way of thinking, because I had it once upon a time. It is a little misguided, but comes from the desire for no one to get hurt.

Problem is, I would still rather both of us have a gun, but I don't relish a firefight. I've been in a firefight in the military, Panama in '89, and I don't wish to ever see one again. That doesn't mean I want the "bad guys" to know that I don't have a gun, so they can come into my house/vehicle/business anytime they want to and "overpower" me.

I would very near guess that basically any 4 guys can overpower all but maybe 1/100th of 1 percent of the men in the world today, and all the women/children/elderly. 1 Gun makes 4 men a mute point, if they are not armed with a gun. If all are armed, they still might not survive. If they know you don't have a gun though, and they are armed (ie you are a legal bound good citizen not carrying, and they are an unlawful gun carrying bad guy) then they will win every time except on in a million.

I don't need to see 999,999 "good" people lose to 1 "bad" guy for me to understand that a gun is an equalizer. It makes up for size and speed, and attitude.

So if one idiot gets killed brandishing a gun when he shouldn't have -- I am OK with that since 999,999 "good" people might be saved by them having the ability to have one.

[mcsluggo]

i see your point... but your statistical reasoning could certainly use some massaging

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

i see your point... but your statistical reasoning could certainly use some massaging

touche

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by jefelump

To answer your question on specific types of arms.... from page 2 of the decision:



I have bolded the relevant portions to your question. I would certainly consider a nuke to fall under the category of "dangerous and unusual weapons", and therefore not protected by the 2nd amendment according to the Miller decision. However, a common handgun is not the least bit "unusual".

a handgun is certainly not unusual these days (here in the US). But it is not a stretch to argue that they are excessively dangerous, sice their entire purpose is to be more compact, and as a result of this they are more concealable.

I can see the arguements FOR handgun legality... and hell, since Texas has an allowable concealed gun law, a hand gun is almost NECESSARY under those circumstance. But if you are in a state where concealed guns are illegal, is it so much of a stretch to also make hand guns illegal?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

a handgun is certainly not unusual these days (here in the US). But it is not a stretch to argue that they are excessively dangerous, sice their entire purpose is to be more compact, and as a result of this they are more concealable.

I can see the arguements FOR handgun legality... and hell, since Texas has an allowable concealed gun law, a hand gun is almost NECESSARY under those circumstance. But if you are in a state where concealed guns are illegal, is it so much of a stretch to also make hand guns illegal?

I would say it IS a stretch to make hand guns illegal in those states, as it was (according to the court decision) in D.C. I'm about to move to Illinois, to the Chicago area for a work transfer. In Illinois concealed handguns are illegal. However, it is still my right to have a hand gun in my home. The opinion of the court states it would not be illogical for someone to hold a handgun on an intruder, while using the other hand to call the police. That is one example where the compactness of a handgun is desired, even though concealment is not the objective.

And any loaded firearm is (or can be) excessively dangerous, in the hands of an untrained shooter. The Miller decision stated "dangerous AND unusual", meaning both conditions have to apply to not be protected by the 2nd amendment.

There are only 2 states in the Union that don't have conceal carry laws...

from Wikepedia:

The states of Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia do not have any form of concealed-carry licensing; Wisconsin allows for open carry in most situations, while Illinois only allows it in rural areas subject to county restriction, and the District of Columbia has had a blanket ban on ownership, possession and carry of handguns in its jurisdiction since 1976, which was struck down June 26, 2008 by the US Supreme Court

[mcsluggo]

i am not arguing about the bulit in danger from guns (that is obviously there) but about the additional danger from hand guns (concealable).

is the ablility to hold a gun while calling the police really justification for a hangun? (if you believe it is more dangerous) perhaps... but it seems to be stretching things a little for me. I think you can defend your house pretty well with a shotgun (or a cayenne flare gun!) as well.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

i am not arguing about the bulit in danger from guns (that is obviously there) but about the additional danger from hand guns (concealable).

is the ablility to hold a gun while calling the police really justification for a hangun? (if you believe it is more dangerous) perhaps... but it seems to be stretching things a little for me. I think you can defend your house pretty well with a shotgun (or a cayenne flare gun!) as well.

most people will readily agree that the greatest and most effective short range weapon readily available to the masses is the 12 guage shotgun....

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

most people will readily agree that the greatest and most effective short range weapon readily available to the masses is the 12 guage shotgun....

Agree, and I have a couple of those too. They are more effective, and cheaper too.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Agree, and I have a couple of those too. They are more effective, and cheaper too.

It will cost you at least a good $400 to buy a used Model 1911A1 .45 caliber handgun at a gun shop or show (if you are talking home-defense, I would think that you would want to be able to knock a fella down, so at least for me, an affordable larger caliber weapon like the 1911 is ideal for the purpose, as opposed to using things like cheaper .22 target pistols, .32 revolvers, 9 mm types, or whatever), whereas you can buy an inexpensive 12 gauge shotgun on sale at your local Academy or Oshman's for about $120, so there is definitely an economic angle to the whole shotgun v. handgun for home-defense purposes debate.

For any local government to attempt to restrict the ownership and usage of shotguns for home defense purposes would seem to me to be an act that would weigh down most heavily and most unfairly upon the necks of those unfortunate citizens who are the least financially secure...

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

It will cost you at least a good $400 at least to buy a used Model 1911A1 .45 caliber handgun at a gun shop or show (if you are talking home-defense, I would think that you would be able to knock a fella down, so at least for me, an affordable larger caliber weapon like the 1911 is ideal for the purpose, as opposed to using things like cheaper .22 target pistols, .32 revolvers, 9 mm types, or whatever), whereas you can buy an inexpensive 12 gauge shotgun on sale at your local Academy or Oshman's for about $120, so there is definitely an economic angle to the whole shotgun v. handgun for home-defense purposes debate.

For any local government to attempt to restrict the ownership and usage of shotguns for home defense purposes would seem to me to be an act that would weigh down most heavily and most unfairly upon the necks of those unfortunate citizens who are the least financially secure...

Yes, I have a 1911 45ACP, and the price you quoted is pretty close to what I paid. I also have a CZ52, which is a Czech military surplus pistol that shoots the 7.62x25 Tokarev ammo (30 caliber). I have others too, but those are the most powerful handguns I have, and both of those cost more than my Remington 870 12 gauge.

[wmbwinn]

Hornady makes a 12 gauge slug now that produces the ballistics of a 458 Magnum...
Federal/Barnes teamed up and also offer a slug in the same ballpark...
Many companies make Buck Shot
Some load their 12 guage with 2 shot for home defense (shot to the face, quite effective, no penetration of walls, safe).
The 12 gauge is quite versatile. I think I have 5 of them...

Pistols? I have no idea how many I have without doing an inventory...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

i am not arguing about the bulit in danger from guns (that is obviously there) but about the additional danger from hand guns (concealable).

is the ablility to hold a gun while calling the police really justification for a hangun? (if you believe it is more dangerous) perhaps... but it seems to be stretching things a little for me. I think you can defend your house pretty well with a shotgun (or a cayenne flare gun!) as well.

Do you recall seeing the Mafia 12 guage trick where the shotgun was sawed off and suspended inside a trench coat? They just lifted the gun and fired away... Concealed illegally, granted. Terribly devastating effects. Sawed off shotguns are illegal most of the time although there are ways to do it legally. Barrel has to be 18 inches long. Read the BATF rulings and alter a gun at your own legal risk... And sure as He__ don't conceal a 12 guage...

[wmbwinn]

Wilmette, Illinois Suspends Local Handgun Ban


Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.
In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park. NRA filed suits today in Evanston, Oak Park, Chicago and Morton Grove.

[wmbwinn]

NRA Files Second Amendment Cases in Illinois, California


Friday, June 27, 2008


Fairfax, Va., June 27-Following up on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects a private right to possess firearms that is not limited to militia service, the National Rifle Association of America today filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs.

“The Supreme Court held yesterday that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “These lawsuits will ensure that state and local governments hear those words.”

The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. NRA is joined in that suit by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment

[wmbwinn]

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video0...373122,00.html

Ted Nugent...

[jefelump]

He was hard for me to follow... It seems he is against the Supreme Court's ruling, yet he's against gun bans (he called it forcibly disarming innocent victims). So how can he think the SCOTUS was wrong, when he opposes the ban? The dude is weird...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

He was hard for me to follow... It seems he is against the Supreme Court's ruling, yet he's against gun bans (he called it forcibly disarming innocent victims). So how can he think the SCOTUS was wrong, when he opposes the ban? The dude is weird...

Are you talking about Obama or Ted Nugent???

Obama: Now the cities and states have a framework to establish regulations. I'm not opposed to the decision.

Ted Nugent: I'm pissed that four judges voted against this decision!!!

[dalmations202]

Where do you find a good 1911A1 for $400 ????


Usually they are $600 when I find them. I'll admit to not looking much lately, but I would like to find a good one.

[jefelump]

wmbwinn, I was talking about Ted Nugent. I must have missed that he was talking only about the 4 dissenting justices. I thought he was talking about the entire court.... was kinda noisy at home when I watched the video.

dalmations, look at the Rock Island Armory 1911. You can find it for around $400, and even cheaper at places like gunbroker.com

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Where do you find a good 1911A1 for $400 ????


Usually they are $600 when I find them. I'll admit to not looking much lately, but I would like to find a good one.

Glad you asked. The real steal right now is the Rock Island Armory import from the Phillipines. This a solid, high quality Military Spec original 1911 or 1911A1. It comes standard with a chrome lined barrel, a trait usually reserved for "Match" weapons. All parts are "drop in" for replacement components if you feel so inclined to tinker with it. They function very well out of the box. Nothing but the highest reviews everywhere I look. I know many knowledgeable men with substantial backgrounds who absolutely love this import.

Rock Island Armory is no cheap manufacturer. They have been in business a long time and have produced top grade military weapons for many years.

Links? These links won't last forever because they are to live auctions. But, put gunsonthenet.com in your favorites

http://www.gunsonthenet.com/Auction/SearchResults.asp

http://www.gunsonthenet.com/Auction/...Item=102638102

http://www.gunsonthenet.com/Auction/...Item=102926546

http://www.gunsonthenet.com/Auction/...Item=103437289

that last link will ship it to your favorite FFL holder for free if you use the "buy now" option for 375 dollars.

Now, if you buy a gun on an auction or from any other source where it has to be shipped, then the gun has to go to someone holding a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Just go to a few gunshops and ask them if they will give you a few signed FFL's. You mail the signed FFL with payment to the person you buy the gun from. The gun ships to the FFL holder. You go there, pass a background check, and pay a transfer fee. My FFL charges me only 30 dollars in a transfer fee. This fee is variable based on what your FFL charges.

So, with that last link, I could have a nice 1911A1 for a total of 405 dollars after all expenses are paid.

compare to Kimbers and other "top end" 1911 producers at 800+ dollars...

[wmbwinn]

NRA Files Second Amendment Cases in Illinois, California


Friday, June 27, 2008


Fairfax, Va., June 27-Following up on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects a private right to possess firearms that is not limited to militia service, the National Rifle Association of America today filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs.

“The Supreme Court held yesterday that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “These lawsuits will ensure that state and local governments hear those words.”

The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. NRA is joined in that suit by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as “incorporation.” Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.

“In Washington, D.C. or in any state, whether you live in the housing projects or a high end suburb, you have the right to defend yourself and your family at home,” Cox concluded. “These laws all deny that right, and NRA will not rest until they are all struck down.”

-NRA-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Yes, I have a 1911 45ACP, and the price you quoted is pretty close to what I paid. I also have a CZ52, which is a Czech military surplus pistol that shoots the 7.62x25 Tokarev ammo (30 caliber). I have others too, but those are the most powerful handguns I have, and both of those cost more than my Remington 870 12 gauge.

The CZ52 is quite cheap. It can be had for around 170 dollars or less. Know several things about this gun before buying:
1)you need to replace the firing pin. they frequently are already broken anyway. the firing pin replacements are easy to find and cheap.
2)never use the safety device to drop the hammer on a live round. When these guns were new (40 years ago), this was safe and they were designed for this. Not safe now...
3)there are replacement parts available to allow you to drop the slide/close the slide on an empty magazine. This dramatically improves the functionality of the gun.
4)Wolf sells hollow point bullets (jacketed hollow points). Every other maker of bullets for this gun only sell Full Metal Jacket. Buy the Wolf JHP (jacketed hollow points) as most gun ranges disallow FMJ (full metal jacket) AND nothing pisses off an officer like a FMJ handgun.

The CZ52 was the earlier KGB side arm. Level 3 amored vests and helmets were very specifically produced in the first place to stop this very specific bullet. Anything less than level 3 armor is pierced by this hotly loaded, high velocity FMJ bullet.

The CZ52 loaded with FMJ bullets will penetrate most surfaces including the wall of your house and then the wall of the next house....

Not the safest home protection weapon. But, buy the Wolf JHP ammo and replace the firing pin and never drop the hammer with the safety device and buy the parts that allow you to drop the slide on an empty magazine and you have a very nice weapon at a GREAT budget price...

I have one and love it.

[wmbwinn]

Here's a fun poll I found:

How many rounds of ammo do you keep on hand?

0-500 rounds: 14.40% (36 votes)

501-2000: 31.20% (78 votes)

2001-5000:21.60% (54 votes)

5001-10,000: 18.40% (46 votes)

10,001-100,000:12.40% (31 votes)

100,000 plus: 2.00% (5 votes)

http://www.jgsales.com/

find the poll bottom left

How much ammo is in your house?

[jefelump]

I haven't taken an inventory in a while, but I'm sure I fall into the 0-500 category, possibly in the low end of the 501-2000 category.