3 ms·

Well, the Supremes don't actually support "bearing" arms, just "keeping" them, so there's room there, the plain language of the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.

by hga 11y ago

Well, the Supremes don't actually support "bearing" arms, just "keeping" them, so there's room there, the plain language of the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding. Plus the law at all levels, as well as pretty much everyone but I suppose the criminal class, supports making it illegal for a "violent, law-breaking gang member" to possess a firearm if he's been convicted of a violent felony (well, any felony, but we all agree about the violent ones).

gknoy 11y ago
You didn't address the question. Of course it's illegal -- how would you stop them from __getting__ them, though? We've seen that making it illegal won't be enough, as drugs and prohibition have shown: there would be a black market, just as there almost certainly already is.
- jeremysmyth 11y ago
  At the moment I can buy a beer in a corner store. During prohibition, it was much harder (and more expensive) to get beer (or liquor), and more liquor than beer was consumed at a considerably higher price. One outcome was significantly lower alcohol consumption and all that that means (lower deaths by cirrhosis, lower city drunkenness arrests). If we take prohibition as an analogy, then sure, a dedicated criminal will still be able to get guns. However, a casual street-level criminal is going to have to work harder to get them because they're no longer available in the mall or from the pawn shop, and he's going to have to pay ten times as much to get one from Benny in the pool hall. That'll significantly reduce the number of guns out there, and that is what creates the environment and the expectation that results in cops shooting civilians.
15155 11y ago
> Well, the Supremes don't actually support "bearing" arms Almost every appellate court below does in some capacity. As does the original text of the Second Amendment (as you said.) But again, how are you going to stop violent gang members from getting firearms without infringing on the law abiding? Why not focus on the problem: rehabilitating the violent individuals + improving mental health, instead of hoplophobic, knee-jerk legislation.
- hga 11y ago
  When it's come to the Federal appellate courts and concealed carry, only the 7th (Illinois) has (ordering shall issue, which Illinois acquiesced to without drama (!)), with the 9th looking to reverse the positive Peruta v. San Diego County district court decision (which would also hit Hawaii). It's still in progress for D.C., and the 1st-4th did not, and the Supremes denied cert. Hasn't and won't in the foreseeable future come up for 5-6th, 8th, and 10-11th circuits. So with the score currently 1-4 at the appellate level and 0-4 with the Supremes, I don't find the Federal legal situation at all encouraging, since there's no state that forbids all unloaded movements of guns, I don't see much wiggle room for your "in some capacity".

by hga 11y ago

gknoy 11y ago

You didn't address the question. Of course it's illegal -- how would you stop them from __getting__ them, though? We've seen that making it illegal won't be enough, as drugs and prohibition have shown: there would be a black market, just as there almost certainly already is.

jeremysmyth 11y ago
At the moment I can buy a beer in a corner store. During prohibition, it was much harder (and more expensive) to get beer (or liquor), and more liquor than beer was consumed at a considerably higher price. One outcome was significantly lower alcohol consumption and all that that means (lower deaths by cirrhosis, lower city drunkenness arrests). If we take prohibition as an analogy, then sure, a dedicated criminal will still be able to get guns. However, a casual street-level criminal is going to have to work harder to get them because they're no longer available in the mall or from the pawn shop, and he's going to have to pay ten times as much to get one from Benny in the pool hall. That'll significantly reduce the number of guns out there, and that is what creates the environment and the expectation that results in cops shooting civilians.

15155 11y ago

> Well, the Supremes don't actually support "bearing" arms Almost every appellate court below does in some capacity. As does the original text of the Second Amendment (as you said.) But again, how are you going to stop violent gang members from getting firearms without infringing on the law abiding? Why not focus on the problem: rehabilitating the violent individuals + improving mental health, instead of hoplophobic, knee-jerk legislation.

hga 11y ago
When it's come to the Federal appellate courts and concealed carry, only the 7th (Illinois) has (ordering shall issue, which Illinois acquiesced to without drama (!)), with the 9th looking to reverse the positive Peruta v. San Diego County district court decision (which would also hit Hawaii). It's still in progress for D.C., and the 1st-4th did not, and the Supremes denied cert. Hasn't and won't in the foreseeable future come up for 5-6th, 8th, and 10-11th circuits. So with the score currently 1-4 at the appellate level and 0-4 with the Supremes, I don't find the Federal legal situation at all encouraging, since there's no state that forbids all unloaded movements of guns, I don't see much wiggle room for your "in some capacity".