bbauska wrote:I understand that Heller only applies to Federal enclaves. Is there law countermanding the 2nd Amendment that I am unaware of? Barring that, I guess the 2nd is still in effect.

No, but the other thing about Heller and McDonald is that they still don't anull other earlier SC decisions that uphold restrictions on gun ownership. All they really do is incorporate the 2nd Amendment into the States.

restrictions on gun ownership is not a ban on ownership, Sates do not have any right to ban gun ownership.

Tom, I am curious--is your statement that States cannot ban gun ownership your opinion or simply your restating the decisions in mcDonald and Heller? If it was your opinion, then what are your bases for your opinion if not based on Supreme Court precedent?McDonald was not decided until 2010 and until then it was not clear that the 2nd Amendment applied to the states. Taken together what Heller and McDonald say is that government (whether Federal, State, or Local) cannot totally ban possession of handguns. So when Brad makes an expansive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is his opinion and we'll have to see whether the Supreme Court agrees with him and prohibits gun restrictions or bans that go less far than in Heller. But it is a bit unclear what you mean when you just state that states cannot ban gun ownership without further explanation.

It's neither,
The US Constitution trumps any and all State and Local laws, the second amendment states we have the right to bear arms, done! The State can not ban gun ownership, but I do know it is not that simple. They have rights to restrict this and that, there lies the issue, states can ban and impose some limitations just short of banning all guns. So we have the door open to possible banning of say hand guns but shot guns are allowable. I simply said States could not ban gun ownership (as some here would like to see ...a total ban on all guns). As far as hand guns in particular, I think the courts will not allow banning of hand guns, but anything is possible!?

a side note on the same topic, New York State has a proposed gun law in the works that (in my opinion) would be immediately rejected by any and all courts.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-stat ... -ownership
They want to require all gun owners to hold special liability insurance of 1 million dollars, the expected cost of such insurance would be upwards of $2000 per year, every year. We have the right to bear arms and while we would still have a right to own one, the cost makes it too expensive for the masses to own one, making it unconstitutional (in my opinion) ...leave it to New York to go so far to the extreme without thinking about constitutional rights or even simple hunting issues, who could afford to hunt? how would we deal with our deer population in Upstate? Proposed by an assemblyman from Brooklyn who has no care in the world for hunters or how many hundreds (thousands?) of deaths could occur due to deer/auto accidents. (already at 65,000 accidents per year in new york state alone)

With McDonald reversing the 7th District Court of Appeals decision to not allow registration of handguns (not assault weapons, bazookas or anti-aircraft systems mind you), it was determined to be a de facto ban on handguns. This was overturned saying that the states cannot ban handguns (citing RickyP's favorite Amendmend; the 14th).

Cruickshank = "The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another."

Presser = You can have weapons, but you do not have the right to assemble with them.

Miller v Texas = 2nd Amendment does not give the right to overturn a murder charge (Miller shot a policeman and wanted the conviction turned over because he had a unlicensed weapon. Supreme Court ruled that licensed or not, he is subject to the State of Texas on the murder charge

These three cases have a bearing on the 2nd Amendment. NONE of them give permission to a state to prohibit ownership of a firearm. You may not be able drill in the town square, use weapons to take away the rights of a group, or commit crimes with a weapon. I agree with the Supreme Court in all of these decisions, even if they are 5-4!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

GMTom wrote:restrictions on gun ownership is not a ban on ownership, Sates do not have any right to ban gun ownership.

Who is talking about a ban on gun ownership?

At the most, we are talking about a restrictions on the types of weapons that can be owned. But that is not the same as a total ban. I have before on this thread (not that I expect you to have read/understood/internalised it) that I do not support a total gun on ban ownership. We do not have a ban on gun ownership. I know people in the UK who legally own guns, and some keep them in the home.

bbauska, you can indeed cite cases. But you haven't cited all cases that are relevant:

US v Miller = The Federal government can restrict the kinds of weapon that can be legally held, in particular if they are not part of the ordinary military equipment

Lewis v US = felons can be prohibited from firearm ownership (ie: felons do not have 2nd Amendment rights?)

US v Warner = the Federal government can prohibit ownership of machine guns, and even if a State (in this case Utah) allows it, the Federal law can supercede it

US v Stewart = the Commerce clause can in some circumstances be invoked to allow restrictions on, in this case, homemade machine guns.

danivon wrote:

GMTom wrote:restrictions on gun ownership is not a ban on ownership, Sates do not have any right to ban gun ownership.

Who is talking about a ban on gun ownership?

At the most, we are talking about a restrictions on the types of weapons that can be owned. But that is not the same as a total ban. I have before on this thread (not that I expect you to have read/understood/internalised it) that I do not support a total gun on ban ownership. We do not have a ban on gun ownership. I know people in the UK who legally own guns, and some keep them in the home.

You are. [from page 52]

danivon wrote: I would agree with Sass on handguns too, but that's probably down to us living in a country where guns are more severely restricted and we don't see a problem with it.

RE Lewis:
I have stated earlier about felons re:judicial review to lose rights. No one can answer why someone would lose rights without judicial review and a causal factor for rights being restricted.

RE Miller/Warner: We are not talking machine guns. (Just another expanding of the restrictions)

RE Stewart: I will stipulate that homemade weapons should not be sold to the general public due to safety reasons. If the Commerce Clause is going to be invoked, then the ruling should be regarding sales.

bbauska. I am not calling for a ban on 'gun' ownership. Not all guns are handguns. I have no problem at all with hunting rifles as legal weapons (with restrictions on how they are stored etc).

Just like GMTom, you are taking my words and extrapolating beyond them, so you can then argue against the caricature.

Quite why I should bother repeatedly explaining my position only to have someone yet again twist it (and then get all shocked and offended when I call them on it), I don't know.

freeman2 wrote:But mcDonald does apply the 2nd Amendment to the states (Which without Heller's holding that a citizen had an individual right to have a gun for self -defense would not have been possible) But 5-4 decisions do not settle issues--both of those decisions could be overturned with a swing of one vote. And that may occur during Obama's term

The big thing about Heller and McDonald is that they both address only the right to bear arms for self defense of the house. Specifically, the Court in Heller, when accepting cert, framed the the question as

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

McDonald decided Heller applied to the states as well. They do not deal with the right outside of the home. This is how New York can have the laws that Geo likes so much.

However, Moore v. Madigan was decided the seventh circuit back in December. It regards an Illinois gun law that makes it illegal to carry a loaded gun in public. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it unconsitutional. In the written opinion, Judge Posner says the right to bear arms for self-defense implies the right to carry a loaded gun outside the home. Interesting quote from the opinion

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress.

. If this decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, then I think New York's gun laws will probably be quick to go as well.

Good, informative post Archduke

Someone here mentioned they would "like" all guns banned, they did realize this would never happen and they were happy to take these baby steps. This is now 54 pages long, I am not going to try and find that quote, but he was honest about what he would LIKE and he was honest about reality as well. I never stated it was danivon who said that, I never implied it, yet he states I am taking his words and bending them ...simply not true!

As far as banning handguns I also stated "good luck with that" if you allow people to arm themselves and if you allow it for self defense reasons, then hand guns are absolutely not going to be banned. Court decisions are consistent with that opinion, once again, this is the reason for the suggested ban on assault weapons, it's simply that first step towards a ban on hand guns that so many want to see!

And one crucial distinction between having a gun for self-defense in your home versus self-defense in public is that having a gun in the home does not threaten the general public. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court says we have a right to carry guns around like it was the wild west...

the judges opinion did have some common sense reasoning behind it and seriously, some areas ARE the wild west. (thankfully not many) But how do you ignore those who have valid reason to carry a loaded gun? the abused wife, someone living in the projects, someone who has been threatened, etc We are allowed the right to bear arms, we are allowed to do so for protection purposes, these are undeniable rights, does it not follow that an unloaded gun is not being armed and not protective? I don't much like the thought either but I do see the reasoning and then if you follow that reasoning then how can you allow a gun-free zone on say a college campus? It gets fuzzier and fuzzier.