The Gun-Rights Crowd Can't Win for Losin'

[mikeb302000]

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/williams-v-maryland/">The Scotus Blog

Issue: Whether the right to carry or transport a registered handgun outside the home without a carry permit is protected by the Second Amendment.

http://thedailyrecord.com/2011/10/03/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-maryland-gun-case/">Supreme Court refuses to hear Maryland Gun case.

No wonder they keep stockpiling guns and ammo. The future of gun-rights looks bleak.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

1. Refusal to hear a case...

...is not a loss. MD does have CCW permits and does not permit open carry. In short, the plaintiff doesn't want to go through the permitting process.

Really mike - if that's all you have, I would hardly say the future of gun rights looks bleak...

[DonP]

4. Gun control has been pretty much reduced to celebrating keeping the status quo

That's why they had to have 7 threads, all about Brown signing the CA Open Carry ban, so it looked like a major issue. The subsequent move to change concealed carry to shall issue will be generally ignored.

It's also why every step pro 2nd amendment people post is derided as, "no big deal"" and "please stop posting every little step as if it's significant". The gun control meme now seems to be, "Hooray, we didn't get our asses kicked as badly as we usually do ... yet!"

So we get to watch them celebrate things like one county in Wisconsin banning CCW in one courthouse, ignoring the fact that the Wisconsin legislature voted bipartisan, for CCW. Or fifteen "good" reasons why the drop in violent crime has nothing to do with CCW, even though no one ever said it does.

Here in Illinois, the last bastion of stupidity, there's another Town Hall tonight in Oak Park by one of the legislators that's openly discussing changing his vote for CCW for Illinois. We only need 6 total to get shall issue CCW, a veto override ... and pre-emption of local laws and we have two votes already changed. The real surprise is the changed votes are coming from the hear of Cook County and Chicago.

[Glassunion]

2. You seem to be talking out of both sides of your face....

On one side you claim that you don't want to ban or infringe on the the rights of personal ownership of firearms, nor confiscate firearms.

Then on the other side, you applaud the idea that those same rights are in jeopardy.


My question... What exactly is it that you want?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

3. You don't actually expect an answer, do you? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

15. Nope. These posts are for blog advertising, not debate. n/t

[mikeb302000]

24. I think I've answered that.

Are you just trying to be tedious in making me answer over and over again when you know goddam well what I want?

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-official-goal.html">My goal

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/solution.html">My solution

[pneutin]

26. Yes, he wants more revenue when you click on his blogspam links n/t

[Glassunion]

27. Your goal and solution are vague and leave a lot of questions.

My biggest problems with gun control legislation is that it not only infringes on the 2nd Amendment, but 9 out of 10 times(IMO) it specifically infringes on other civil rights based solely on the fact that one wishes to be a gun owner. This IMO is not how a progressive democracy should work. One who wishes to exercise one civil right, should not be left with a decision to sacrifice their other rights to meet that end.

GOAL:

Extremely strict gun control laws enforced nationally which would disqualify about half the present gun owners. Since that half, although legal under today's rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including gun flow into the criminal world, the results would be tremendous.

Let's break this down...
"Extremely strict gun control laws enforced nationally which would disqualify about half the present gun owners." Kinda vague there for one thing. For another thing, you have absolutely ZERO research or facts to back up your claim that 1/2 of the 80 million gun owners in this country would be disqualified. You are basically making a statement that 1/4 of all adult(18+) Americans are criminals, who should be denied a civil right. This statement alone begs the question: "How do you feel about the 4th Amendment?"

Since that half, although legal under today's rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including gun flow into the criminal world, the results would be tremendous. You CANNOT back up this claim whatsoever with any real research or facts. It does not exist outside of your own opinion. Please do explain, in detail; your claim on how 40 million Americans are personally responsible for gun flow into the hands of criminals. I would love to hear it.

The problem with your goal is that it is vague, and not based in fact and flies in the face of civil rights.

SOLUTION:

1. licensing of gun owners, requiring criminal and mental health background checks.
2. registration of all guns bought.
3. no transfers without the recipient being a licensed gun owner and submitting to another background check - every time.

Safe storage laws, magazine capacity limitations and waiting periods may be eventually added, but the big three above will solve most of our problems.

1. When you buy a gun in today's day and age from an FFL, you have a background check run. Your mental history is also checked. I have no issue with this. However, licensing a gun owner will have no effect on crime rates. This has been shown true time and again in states that require it.

2. Registration will have zero effect on crime as well. This also has shown to be true time and again in states that require it. I have put the call out there many times on this very board for any person to give me one example of where registration of firearms in states that require it has in fact reduced crime. So far I have yet to receive even one response. I have also asked for an example for where the registration of a firearm in states that require it, was the primary evidence leading to the capture and prosecution of an individual who committed a crime. I have yet to receive an answer.

3. Personally I think that ALL transfers should be performed along with a background check. Licensing would have no bearing on the legality, nor the safety of the public in the transfer.

You say that these 3 things will "solve most of our problems", however you failed to give any evidence to back up the statement.

Personally, we could save more lives and/or improve more lives by ending certain strict gun control programs. I'll use NY state as an example.
- Particular gun control measure(Ballistic Fingerprinting) in NY state has saved 0 lives and has solved 0 crimes in 10 years.
- They could have taken the same money and fed 2,469 people 3 wholesome, balanced and healthy meals a day, every single day for 10 years. That works out to over 27 million meals served.

My questions are simple...
How many people have been saved by gun registration in NY state? How many people could have been housed and/or fed instead?
How many people have been saved by owner licensing in NY state? How many people could have been housed and/or fed instead?

[ObamaFTW2012]

29. It appears to me

that Mike wants to reduce the number of lawful gun owners overall, and has not yet figured out how to disqualify them. He also seems to fail to understand the difference between a right and a privilege. A century ago, Mike would have been the guy in closed door meetings suggesting new ways to keep those pesky black folks from voting.

[spin]

5. Yup, the future of gun-rights looks bleak, especially for those who want to legally carry ...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[DanTex]

7. While I agree with you that the right-wing has been winning on guns (and other issues) recently...

...I will point out that the map is a bit misleading, because many of the states without shall-issue are densely populated.

In terms of population, it looks like around 30% of US citizens live in either a non-issue or a may-issue state. And, not coincidentally, progressive states like CA, NY, MA, etc. tend to have the strictest gun laws.

So, while there's no denying that the violence-loving teabagger yahoos have had the upper hand politically for some time, most progressive regions of the country have managed to maintain a certain level of sanity when it comes to gun control.

[SteveM]

9. When the Far Right looks for prejudice against whole regions, they'll come here...

and see posts like your's.

"So, while there's no denying that the violence-loving teabagger yahoos have had the upper hand politically for some time, most progressive regions of the country have managed to maintain a certain level of sanity when it comes to gun control."

BTW, using your own "progressive" terms, you seem to have left off Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan, among others. Even those states listed that have fallen under GOP control are unlikely to reverse the gun laws should progressives regain power. BTW, Florida went for Obama, and probably for Gore as well, though I must admit that the president doesn't seem so progressive.

[DanTex]

16. Pointing out that some regions of the country are more progressive than others...

...doesn't amount to prejudice.

And I think you know that, and you are intentionally misreading my post to get in your cheap shot.


edit: typo

[SteveM]

18. Not at all. I read your text, at least some of which was wrong on your own terms.nt

[gejohnston]

17. I don't know how you define progressive

but you might want to take a closer look at the map.


Yes, these two states are very sane on gun control.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2011/09/first-it-was-vermont-%E2%80%93-now-it%E2%80%99s-montanasingle-payer-healthcare

[spin]

19. There might be a lot more progressive areas of the nation ...

if the Democratic Party would drop its love of draconian gun control. The problem is that many liberals live in big cities and have little knowledge of firearms and those who own and handle them in a responsible manner. They do, however, have plenty of experience with those who criminally misuse firearms and often feel that all gun owners must be, as you suggest, "violence-loving teabagger yahoos". They find it hard to visualize why someone ever would want to own a lethal weapon and carry it in public unless they were inherently dangerous.

I have noticed that most gun owners do not appreciate being called yahoos by people who feel they are far superior because they live in a large city such as Chicago or New York City. Since there 80 million gun owners in our nation, that comment means that you have instantly alienated 26% of the population and when you consider that gun owners are often married to people who have absolutely no problem with gun ownership, the percentage climbs to possibly 50%.

When I talk to gun owners, I find that they have a very low opinion of big city liberals possibly caused by those who like you have an elitist attitude. The strange fact is they often agree with many positions that the Democratic Party supports but a high percentage will absolutely refuse to consider voting for a Democrat unless he has a high rating from the NRA. And they vote!

When you consider that many gun owners have a considerable amount of money tied up in their hobby and they enjoy shooting, it is not at all surprising that they will vote for people who support their hobby and will show up at the polls far more frequently than many big city Democrats.

[gejohnston]

21. if I may,

I find that they have a very low opinion of big city liberals possibly caused by those who like you have an elitist attitude.

Not a big fan of big city conservatives with the same attitude either. The only difference is, they are smart enough to keep such attitudes to themselves.

[DanTex]

25. A few things here.

First, I did not suggest (as you suggested I did) that "all gun owners must be" violence-loving teabagger yahoos. The teabagger yahoos are the right-wing politicians and lobbyists that are responsible for lurch to the right in American politics, which encompasses guns but also many other issues. You know, people like Wayne LaPierre, or Curry Todd, the teabagger yahoo whose comments and actions exemplify the right-wing gun culture perfectly: compares immigrants to breeding rats, insists that guns should be allowed in bars, and then gets caught DUI with a loaded gun. Gotta love the irony.

You see, the gun lobby is just one of many right-wing special interest lobbies that hold excessive power and stifle the will of the people. It is a fact that things like the AWB, banning high-capacity magazines, handgun registration, are supported by comfortable majorities of the population. It is also a fact that the public option in HCR, union bargaining rights, higher taxes for the wealthy, etc. are also supported by majorities, but are also opposed by powerful special interest lobbies on the right. I understand that you would rather just make up numbers off the top of your head to suit your political agenda, but if you actually look at polls, you will see that I am right about all of these things. The idea that gun control alienates voters is just as false as the idea that "the people" rather than lobbyists are responsible for killing the public option. Gun control only alienates the extremists at the NRA.


Next, about that "big city liberals" bit of yours. I hope that when you hear people talking bad about "big-city liberals", you chide them for their anti-urban prejudice. If you can't think of the right words, a starting point is Colin Powell's smackdown of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election, when she was peddling the same kind of right-wing anti-urbanism:

Gov. Palin, to some extent, pushed the party more to the right, and I think she had something of a polarizing effect when she talked about how small town values are good. Well, most of us don’t live in small towns. And I was raised in the South Bronx, and there’s nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx.

And when they came to Virginia and said the southern part of Virginia is good and the northern part of Virginia is bad. The only problem with that is there are more votes in the northern part of Virginia than there are in the southern part of Virginia, so that doesn’t work.

You attack "big city liberals" for their elitism, but I bet you haven't thought much about how the loose gun laws the NRA pushes affects dense, lower-income areas with high minority populations like the South Bronx. After all, I'd hate to inconvenience people who have "a considerable amount of money" tied up in their gun hobby, just because of the small little matter of thousands of people being killed every year.

Along these lines, you'd probably appreciate the efforts of one particular right-wing yahoo who launched the guns for tots toy gun drive a few years ago. You see, there had been some shootings in Harlem due to cops mistaking toy guns for real ones. So, to make a point to the "elitist" "big-city liberals" struggling with gun violence, this yahoo decides to give away toy guns to kids in Harlem. Nice gesture.

[spin]

28. Do you believe that the entire country needs stronger gun laws ...

to protect the low income areas of large urban areas with a high minority population? If so what gun laws would you suggest?

Perhaps the entire nation should have the same draconian and racist gun laws such as New York City has. You can own firearms in New York City and guess who does.

Lifestyles of the rich and packin': High-profile celebrities seeking gun permits on the rise
BY Rocco Parascandola and Alison Gendar
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Monday, September 27th 2010, 4:00 AM



J.Lo and her 2-year-old twins can rest easy at night: Daddy is packing heat.

Singer Marc Anthony is one of dozens of celebs, millionaires and high-profile athletes authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the city, records show.

***snip***

Other big names licensed to carry a gun include actor Robert De Niro, shock jock Howard Stern and supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis. Billionaire Donald Trump and his son, Donald Jr.; celebrity lawyer David Breitbart, and artificial-heart inventor Robert Jarvik can also carry steel, police records reveal.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/27/2010-09-27_celebrities_seeking_pistol_permits_on_the_rise_in_the_city_lifestyles_of

The Faces of Gun Ownership In The City




The NYTimes reports today that there are more than 37,000 people licensed to have a handgun in the city. It's a small but substantial group which includes many prominent businessmen, city council members, celebrities, journalists, judges and lawyers. Among the most prominent names: Queens DA Richard Brown, actor Robert De Niro, radio host Don Imus, Donald Trump, actor Harvey Keitel, radio host Howard Stern, city council members Inez Dickens and Peter Koo, and Federal Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. As Johnson Jr noted soberly, "I was a special prosecutor. Sixteen years in narcotics. I didn't make a lot of people happy."

There are eight kinds of handgun licenses in New York, and the most common restricts owners from taking their guns out of their homes—but others allow license holders, including security guards, gun custodians and people who demonstrate a need for protection, to carry weapons with them. There are 41,164 handguns registered with the Police Department as of Jan. 14, which includes those owned by more than 2,400 people who live outside the city but have permission to bring their weapons into the city. Nearly 4,000 license holders, including those who have a “carry business,” “limited carry” or “special carry” license, can legally conceal their weapons. Among that group are Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Stern, Imus, and Trump.
http://gothamist.com/2011/02/20/the_faces_of_gun_ownership_in_the_c.php

Now I have absolutely no problem with the rich, the famous or the well connected owning firearms. I just want the poor, the average and the unknown to have the right to own a firearm for self defense.

For 37 years I lived in the Tampa Bay area of Florida which is the second largest metropolitan area in Florida and ranks as the 19th largest in the nation. It is definitely not a rural area. Firearm ownership was very common, the majority of the people I worked with owned firearms as did my next door neighbors. Most of the gun owners that I knew owned handguns and several had carry licenses.



Florida gun law allows a citizen to own a firearm without registering it and there is no permit required to buy a firearm. A person in Florida can carry a loaded handgun in his car as long as it is "securely encased" (in a closed glove box or closed console of the vehicle). In order to legally carry a weapon in public it must be concealed and you have to have a concealed weapons permit. The cost of this permit and the associated expenses required to get the carry permit is very reasonable and the permit is good for seven years.

Florida is definitely a state that encourages gun ownership and yet it is ranked number 4 in population just behind New York. New York State has 19,378,102 residents and Florida has 18,801,310.

Somehow I believe that the Second Amendment should apply equally to all citizens in our nation. While I don't have any problems with some very reasonable restrictions such as Florida has, I feel that a citizen who lives in New York City should have the same rights to own a firearm for self defense that I have. Why should I have more rights than some honest citizen who is unfortunate enough to live in a city that feels that only some citizens should be allowed to own a firearm and those citizens should basically be rich, famous or well connected?

I will agree that firearms in the wrong hands often cause tragedy. However firearms in the hands of responsible, honest and sane people often avert tragedy.

[jmg257]

6. Yep - all gun-related rights could be gone by the end of the year!

So get 'em while you can! Why wait - can't you read the writing on the wall!?

Buy more guns, more ammo NOW while prices are lower...who cares about a recession - allocate more of your money for the gun manufacturers, more money for the NRA/ILA, & more money for the gun lobby so they can buy more political power.

What's the loss of a few rights, as long as the Machine gets fueled, right mike?

"Get off my bridge!"..."or I will taunt you a second time!"

[Common Sense Party]

8. What makes you think "the future of gun-rights looks bleak"???

Regardless of YOUR desires, do you actually think I'm going to lose my rights to own and carry my legal firearm?

[SteveM]

11. Irishman to Noah: "'Tis only a shower." nt

[SteveM]

10. Why are you still slinging deck chairs around? They don't float. nt

[ileus]

12. you of course meant to say civil rights....guns don't have rights.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. +1

[rl6214]

13. You're slipping mikey, no blind links in this one.

Don't you have enough time to blog from your cushy UN office on business time? You know those kids can't feed themselves.

As stated elsewhere, refusing to hear a case is not a loss, if that were the case there would be an aweful lot of losses in the US. You do know that only a very few cases compared to the actual number petitioned to the SC are actually heard. Don't they have google in italy mikey? You should know that.

Now time to run off and tend to your monarchy and your illegal guns.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. The man is right.

"The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Charles F. Williams Jr., who was arrested in 2007 for having his legally-purchased handgun outside his home without a state permit."

The man is right. You shouldn't need a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

About the only good thing I like about CCW permits is that by having such intense government scrutiny as a class they provide fantastic data that shows how law-abiding CCW permit holders really are.

My prediction is we are going to see all 50 states become shall-issue states. We may even see a national concealed carry permit.

And then after a couple of decades of tracking such people we are going to find out that they are involved in so little crime that it is a waste of money to bother issuing permits. The people who get the permits are hyper-law-abiding, and the people who don't aren't affected by the permit requirement anyway.

[DissedByBush]

20. He didn't even apply for a permit

Duh. If he'd applied for a permit and been arbitrarily turned down, or forced to meet practically impossible conditions, then he'd have a case.

But as it is he didn't even give the system a chance to work before suing over its constitutionality.

As always, don't follow the link, no need to give the blog pimp more ad revenue.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. He lacked standing because he didn't bother to apply for the permit.

If he had no option for a permit, this would have ended very differently. He had a legal option, he chose to break the law. Done and done.