Is banning handguns a "reasonable regulation"?
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
ctdonath
Member
Should DC prevail in banning handguns, they will have to accept the legality of toting long guns around. The argument for keeping long guns loaded & functional at home equally applies to bearing them in public.
Does Mayor Fenty really want people carrying AR15s around in public?
Handguns are discreet.
Rifles & shotguns aren't.
Does Mayor Fenty really want people carrying AR15s around in public?
Handguns are discreet.
Rifles & shotguns aren't.
woodybrighton
member
well in the UK it works pretty well.
but its not really comparing the same thing less than 1% of the population owned handguns before the ban and there was no right to self defence with said handguns anyway.
also we have a feck off big sea round us makes it quite tricky to bring
in handguns
. for all the talk of an epidemic of gun crime in the uk its mostly the urban areas of London Liverpool and manchester where theres a problem.
Criminals have access to guns probably always will but its not most criminals and not most areas.
My local police force organized a buy back of airsoft bb pistols on one estate
because kids were being a pain with them calling out armed police was a waste and there really really annoying swap your bb gun for a water pistol and local car boot sales were discouraged from selling them.
I don't belive dc has a viable border so what stops bad people bring guns in?
but its not really comparing the same thing less than 1% of the population owned handguns before the ban and there was no right to self defence with said handguns anyway.
also we have a feck off big sea round us makes it quite tricky to bring
in handguns
. for all the talk of an epidemic of gun crime in the uk its mostly the urban areas of London Liverpool and manchester where theres a problem.Criminals have access to guns probably always will but its not most criminals and not most areas.
My local police force organized a buy back of airsoft bb pistols on one estate
because kids were being a pain with them calling out armed police was a waste and there really really annoying
swap your bb gun for a water pistol and local car boot sales were discouraged from selling them.I don't belive dc has a viable border so what stops bad people bring guns in?
ctdonath
Member
Nothing.
That's the problem.
Bad guys can get guns, but good guys can't - and the local gov't blames the latter for the former (bad guys steal guns from good guys, you see...).
ConstitutionCowboy
member
ctdonath said:
No, it's that good guys WONT... They abide the law.
Woody
"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood
woodybrighton
member
Thats what gets me about US gun laws.
Bad guys have a limitless supply of arms and ammo (in the UK theres a serious shortage of ammo for crims at the moment)
so banning guns from areas that aren't actually secure is just making them target zones
even the dimmest poorest gang bangers could go a day trip out of dc to load up with as much firepower as they wanted not like theres a border checkpoint on the way back in.:banghead:
or don't politicians get this fact or am I missing some obvious fact
Bad guys have a limitless supply of arms and ammo (in the UK theres a serious shortage of ammo for crims at the moment
)so banning guns from areas that aren't actually secure is just making them target zones
even the dimmest poorest gang bangers could go a day trip out of dc to load up with as much firepower as they wanted not like theres a border checkpoint on the way back in.:banghead:
or don't politicians get this fact or am I missing some obvious fact
Reasonable regulation of the bill of rights tends to be a slippery slope.
Of course, this presumes people recognize the constitution and the bill of rights as the last word on the defense of individual rights against encroachment by the state and federal governments.
Politicians would rather have themselves as the last word, not a legal contract they have little desire to fulfill.
Another way of putting it: would banning islam be considered a reasonable restriction on the dangers of organized religion, or just plain bigotry?
Funny how changing the word handgun to islam makes a so-called "reasonable" idea very unreasonable.
Of course, this presumes people recognize the constitution and the bill of rights as the last word on the defense of individual rights against encroachment by the state and federal governments.
Politicians would rather have themselves as the last word, not a legal contract they have little desire to fulfill.
Another way of putting it: would banning islam be considered a reasonable restriction on the dangers of organized religion, or just plain bigotry?
Funny how changing the word handgun to islam makes a so-called "reasonable" idea very unreasonable.
IA_farmboy
Member
What I find amazing is that there is even a legal definition of a handgun. As far as I'm concerned if it goes "bang" with the actuation of a trigger or switch then it is a firearm, beyond that the definitions get fuzzy and fluid.
One example is a smooth bore pump action firearm with a 20" barrel and a .22 long rifle chamber. One may call that a "shotgun" since it has no rifling and would make a reasonable pattern with a cartridge loaded with shot. Another might call it a pistol since it is light enough to be fired with one hand. Some one else might call it a rifle, even though it doesn't even have rifling, because it looks a lot like a rifle and can fire a single projectile.
Then there are other terms used in law and common speech. Words and phrases like destructive device, carbine, any other weapon, machine gun, and many many others that are difficult to define even by those that are in the business of dealing with such things, including everyone's favorite term "assault weapon".
Then there is the issue that in many places in the USA a person of 18 years of age can buy a Marlin Cowboy Carbine but cannot legally buy ammunition for it. :banghead:
I can just imagine what would happen if a handgun ban was deemed "reasonable" while the ability to carry a rifle was upheld. I imagine a market would spring up where people would look for and buy a number of "holsters" for their diminutive "rifles" as manufacturers find every loophole possible to create a lightweight and small firearm that fit the legal definition of a "rifle" while still being convenient to carry regularly.
I'd also wonder how the definition of "rifle" and "handgun" would change over time as the anti-self-defense crowd butts heads with the pro-bill-of-rights crowd. What is a "pistol grip" any way? How short is too short for a "rifle"? Does that length include the "thing that goes up"? Is it still a "rifle" if the barrel is not actually rifled?
Well, I'm ranting so I should wrap this up. I just find it quite silly that this weapon over here chambered in .357 magnum would be legal to carry but that one over there, also chambered in .357 magnum, would not be legal to carry. It's all so arbitrary that it is just maddening to think about it.
One example is a smooth bore pump action firearm with a 20" barrel and a .22 long rifle chamber. One may call that a "shotgun" since it has no rifling and would make a reasonable pattern with a cartridge loaded with shot. Another might call it a pistol since it is light enough to be fired with one hand. Some one else might call it a rifle, even though it doesn't even have rifling, because it looks a lot like a rifle and can fire a single projectile.
Then there are other terms used in law and common speech. Words and phrases like destructive device, carbine, any other weapon, machine gun, and many many others that are difficult to define even by those that are in the business of dealing with such things, including everyone's favorite term "assault weapon".
Then there is the issue that in many places in the USA a person of 18 years of age can buy a Marlin Cowboy Carbine but cannot legally buy ammunition for it. :banghead:
I can just imagine what would happen if a handgun ban was deemed "reasonable" while the ability to carry a rifle was upheld. I imagine a market would spring up where people would look for and buy a number of "holsters" for their diminutive "rifles" as manufacturers find every loophole possible to create a lightweight and small firearm that fit the legal definition of a "rifle" while still being convenient to carry regularly.
I'd also wonder how the definition of "rifle" and "handgun" would change over time as the anti-self-defense crowd butts heads with the pro-bill-of-rights crowd. What is a "pistol grip" any way? How short is too short for a "rifle"? Does that length include the "thing that goes up"? Is it still a "rifle" if the barrel is not actually rifled?
Well, I'm ranting so I should wrap this up. I just find it quite silly that this weapon over here chambered in .357 magnum would be legal to carry but that one over there, also chambered in .357 magnum, would not be legal to carry. It's all so arbitrary that it is just maddening to think about it.
IA Farmboy
David Kopel in his book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy notes this point. Every jurisdiction he looked at had regulations that got progressively tougher as the size of the firearm decreased.
The purpose of the regulations supposedly being to thwart access by individuals to concealable arms. However, if more powerful long arms (eg a Mossberg 500) are plentiful by virtue of being less restricted and easier to acquire. Then - assuming that individuals are willing to ignore the law - the said Mossberg is going to have its stock removed to make it more concealable.
The unintended consquence of such regulations being that cut down long arms are generally more powerful then many pocket pistols/etc.
Considering how poorly throughout "handgun" regulations are, I suspect the regulations, especially in many foreign jurisdictions, are written to reflect the view of individuals who carry handguns - not just as weapons - but as a badge of office.
In regards to "reasonable restrictions". With the 5th and 9th Courts openly disagreeing on the 2nd. I wonder if a SCOTUS decision would reflect the State Constitutions and current legislation of jurisdictions within one or the other Circuit Courts. Therefore using the precedent of state legislation to set out reasonable restrictions ? Is that plausible ?
David Kopel in his book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy notes this point. Every jurisdiction he looked at had regulations that got progressively tougher as the size of the firearm decreased.
The purpose of the regulations supposedly being to thwart access by individuals to concealable arms. However, if more powerful long arms (eg a Mossberg 500) are plentiful by virtue of being less restricted and easier to acquire. Then - assuming that individuals are willing to ignore the law - the said Mossberg is going to have its stock removed to make it more concealable.
The unintended consquence of such regulations being that cut down long arms are generally more powerful then many pocket pistols/etc.
Considering how poorly throughout "handgun" regulations are, I suspect the regulations, especially in many foreign jurisdictions, are written to reflect the view of individuals who carry handguns - not just as weapons - but as a badge of office.
In regards to "reasonable restrictions". With the 5th and 9th Courts openly disagreeing on the 2nd. I wonder if a SCOTUS decision would reflect the State Constitutions and current legislation of jurisdictions within one or the other Circuit Courts. Therefore using the precedent of state legislation to set out reasonable restrictions ? Is that plausible ?
cambeul41
Member
My college age nephew disapproves of his petite mother having a gun, but does approve of martial arts.
Deanimator
Member
Tell him, "Xena, Warrior Princess" was NOT a documentary.
Novus Collectus
Member
For those guys that say they don't need a gun for self defense because they can take care of themselves, I ask them what if they are in a car accident and are in a cast or two for months? Will they be able to take care of themselves with just one good arm or one good leg if attacked?
Carl N. Brown
Member
When Hans Toch was on the Eisenhower Commission back in the 1950s
he supported banning handguns as a reasonable regulation. As years
went by, he began to see handgun prohibition as not only unreasonable
but as counter-productive: he openly wondered why was it that crime
and murder were more common in handgun-prohibitive jurisdictions,
while areas with practrically no restrictions had less crime per 100,000
people per year. (Compare rates of crime per 100,000 per year in ID,
MT and ND to Chicago, New York City or Washington DC.)
Handgun prohibition is reasonable regulation as long as you ignore
the fact that it does not work and actually backfires.
he supported banning handguns as a reasonable regulation. As years
went by, he began to see handgun prohibition as not only unreasonable
but as counter-productive: he openly wondered why was it that crime
and murder were more common in handgun-prohibitive jurisdictions,
while areas with practrically no restrictions had less crime per 100,000
people per year. (Compare rates of crime per 100,000 per year in ID,
MT and ND to Chicago, New York City or Washington DC.)
Handgun prohibition is reasonable regulation as long as you ignore
the fact that it does not work and actually backfires.
Silver Bullet
Member
Good one !
I really hope the court takes this case up, because that arguement is pitiful. It doesn't even address the constitution which is kinda important when you talking about the constitutionality of a law. It's really just an oportunity for the SCOTUS to address(/affirm) the very well written DC opinion.
And while I havn't read the DC opinion in several months, as I recal it, it's a pretty good/fair/reasonable piece.
And while I havn't read the DC opinion in several months, as I recal it, it's a pretty good/fair/reasonable piece.
gotarheels03
Member
well if the SC looks at this as they should and considers "intent of the framers" then NO, banning handguns is not reasonable. Handguns have a military usage and were carried by militia members during the days of the founders, thus they are "arms" under the 2nd amendment.
ranger335v
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,797
"Reasonable" is not the driving force. Reason would consider the lack of positive results and recongnise such laws are always precursors to an increase in the very crimes they are supposed to reduce.
Emotion drives the urge to disarm the law-abiding public and render us defenseless and emotion is, by definition, unreasonable.
Emotion drives the urge to disarm the law-abiding public and render us defenseless and emotion is, by definition, unreasonable.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Very well said, ranger335v.
Woody
"Reasonable" is not the driving force. Reason would consider the lack of positive results and recognize such laws are always precursors to an increase in the very crimes they are supposed to reduce.
Emotion drives the urge to disarm the law-abiding public and render us defenseless; and emotion is, by definition, unreasonable. ranger335v, September 22, 2007
Woody
"Reasonable" is not the driving force. Reason would consider the lack of positive results and recognize such laws are always precursors to an increase in the very crimes they are supposed to reduce.
Emotion drives the urge to disarm the law-abiding public and render us defenseless; and emotion is, by definition, unreasonable. ranger335v, September 22, 2007
6_gunner
Member
Good point!!!
I've always been a little confused over the "military weapons" argument. They (antis) say that short-barreled shotguns can be restricted because they have no military use. They're trying to say that handguns can be restricted because their use as military weapons is questionable. However, full-auto weapons clearly have a military use and yet are restricted anyway. I don't follow this reasoning. Is this just grasping at straws, or is there some logic that I missed?
On top of all that, why are handguns so vilified, when they are DEFENSIVE weapons by definition and never intended to be OFFENSIVE weapons?
To answer the original question: NO, I don't think banning handguns is reasonable regulation.
ServiceSoon
Member
You will find most logic regarding gun regulation isn't logical at all.
ctdonath
Member
You're trying to be rational and consistent.
They're not.
They'll flip off any old argument against any category they want banned, you'll tie yourself in knots trying to understand, and they'll just move on to the next target.
Fortunately, there are a limited number of targets, and all the arguments have been made. Heller is doing a fine job of triangulating a key set, and shredding them accordingly. DC is starting to argue against itself before SCOTUS.
At some point, the anti's will be backed into a legal corner from which there is no escape: either handguns can be ubiquitous, or we all get new M4s at normal market price. Their arguments will self-destruct; ours can't.
They're not.
They'll flip off any old argument against any category they want banned, you'll tie yourself in knots trying to understand, and they'll just move on to the next target.
Fortunately, there are a limited number of targets, and all the arguments have been made. Heller is doing a fine job of triangulating a key set, and shredding them accordingly. DC is starting to argue against itself before SCOTUS.
At some point, the anti's will be backed into a legal corner from which there is no escape: either handguns can be ubiquitous, or we all get new M4s at normal market price. Their arguments will self-destruct; ours can't.
Okay, this one bugs me. It's not right. It's been overturned for more than thirty years. The current test requires that speech be "directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action," created in a case that explicitly overturned Schenck's 'clear and present danger' standard.
It's quite legal to shout fire in a crowded theater. It may, in fact, be legally required if there is a fire. Even if there is not, however, unless the act is directed to incite imminent lawless action, it can not be banned. While the shouter will likely deal with civil suits and potentially criminal charges if their actions result in injury, the speech itself is not punished.
jerkyman45
Member
Our nation's capitol is supposed to be a little more in line with our nation's supreme law, the constitution, right? Or am I way off base?
I don't know, if it was legal, I wouldn't think twice about carrying an AR15 with me everywhere I went in DC.
I was a bit nervous crossing a desolate bridge and seeing 4 urban youths of African descent walking the other way. Nothing happened of course, but if they had wanted to rob me, I don't think a pistol would have done a good enough job.
I was a bit nervous crossing a desolate bridge and seeing 4 urban youths of African descent walking the other way. Nothing happened of course, but if they had wanted to rob me, I don't think a pistol would have done a good enough job.
- Status