Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Jul 2, 2008.
The other thread degenerated into the usual anti-gun maunderings having little to do with the SCOTUS decision...
The sad part of the minority view was, "The four dissenters -- Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter -- said the majority had unwisely opened the door to legal attacks on popular and effective gun-control measures."
There are NO effective gun-control measures which would be affected by this ruling. In actual fact, there are few effective gun-control measures at all. Not if crime is the focus--which it rarely is.
Probably, the only really effective and widespread measure to keep crooks from buying guns is the FBI's NICS effort. Effective but much more limited are the zero-tolerance laws about felons and firearms. The NRA has supported both NICS and the zero tolerance.
The next legal issue is the body of lawsuits against Chicago and other purely anti-gun jurisdictions, where the gun-control laws do not at all relate to crime.
Hopefully, ours in Chicago is struck down as well. This is horrible of me, but I really wanna see Dick Daley throw a tantrum. He could use a good dose of humility. That, and the ban is simply wrong.
Aren't these the same crazed bunch of activist judges the right was up in arms about with the Boumediene decision?
It's amazing that a group of people so drunk on their own judicial activist powers could make such a decision...
Friends of Daley's don't have to worry about the ban, I've noticed.
California's problem is a bit different. They have a "may issue" setup, rather than a "shall issue". The local police chief or the country sheriff is not required to approve an applicant; he MAY do so if he so desires. That has resulted in licenses for the rich and famous, and for campaign contributors--but not ordinary folks. Efforts have been underway to publicize and correct this pattern of behavior, but the state records-keeping offices have been struggling to evade FOIA efforts. This SCOTUS decision opens the way for lawsuit in federal court, and all the rights of discovery that are entailed.
There are few topics where the majority opinion looks at the minority with such disdain as this.
I applaud the SCOTUS for upholding the constitution.
I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I know plenty of people here with legally owned guns who aren't rich and famous, so a link would be nice.
If this is happening, and it very well could be because a lot of our bureaucrats and cops can be jerks, it deserves to be disputed in court.
'Rat isn't talking about owning a gun, he's talking about getting a license to carry a gun.
Oh, you mean like carrying in public, concealed?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what 'Rat was talkin' 'bout.
That's why links are helpful, and why I asked for one. Not to be a jerk, but because I wasn't familiar with what he was talking about. Kinda torn about conceal and carry, but that's a whole other issue I ain't touching.
I had a CCW before my wallet was stolen a few months back. I never bothered to get it renewed. The only time I ever used it was when I would go to band practice in philaldephia and have to walk several blocks from where my car was parked to the rehearsel space. Having a CCW is a very big responsibility, and I am glad I never had to use it.
As to the SCOTUS decision, this is a good thing.
solvs, there is a guy named Jim March who has been all over the issue of favoritism in issuing concealed carry licenses. He's also been a co-winner in a lawsuit against Diebold's lying/cheating about their voting machine software. Public figure, IOW. He's a frequenter of http://www.thehighroad.org which is a strongly-moderated firearms website. Anyway, he can give you chapter and verse with names, dates and place of all the players at city, county and state levels in California.
California lawmakers and council-people are weird. The Lege passed a law requiring ID marking of handguns and ammunition. Okay, although basically not feasible, it's physically possible. Then, San Francisco outlaws semi-auto pistols.
Semi-autos eject the fired cases in a here/there/yonder fashion. Regularly found in the aftermath of a shooting.
That sez to me that the "weapon of choice" for crooks will be a revolver. But an honest San Francisco homeowner who prefers a semi-auto can't have one.
Gross and misleading generalization.
Besides, I wouldn't get too high up on that horse, considering your state has produced the likes of Tom Delay.