Supreme Court Almost Certain to Extend Second Amendment Rights to the States
The transcript is here.
It didn’t take a genius to see this coming. Justice Scalia has accepted the basic doctrine of substantive due process (with which he disagrees) for some time, because of a respect for precedent.
I knew that from law school. Which was a long, long time ago. Longer than I care to acknowledge.
If you didn’t already know that, it should nevertheless be pretty damn obvious from the transcript of the oral argument. Your only necessary background: the Slaughterhouse Cases essentially wrote the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of the 14th Amendment. You and I need not agree with that to recognize that it happened.
OK. Now for the relevant passage:
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Gura, do you think it is at all easier to bring the Second Amendment under the Privileges and Immunities Clause than it is to bring it under our established law of substantive due —
MR. GURA: It’s —
JUSTICE SCALIA: Is it easier to do it under privileges and immunities than it is under substantive due process?
MR. GURA: It is easier in terms, perhaps, of — of the text and history of the original public understanding of —
JUSTICE SCALIA: No, no. I’m not talking about whether — whether the Slaughter-House Cases were right or wrong. I’m saying, assuming we give, you know, the Privileges and Immunities Clause your definition, does that make it any easier to get the Second Amendment adopted with respect to the States?
MR. GURA: Justice Scalia, I suppose the answer to that would be no, because —
JUSTICE SCALIA: Then if the answer is no, why are you asking us to overrule 150, 140 years of prior law, when — when you can reach your result under substantive due — I mean, you know, unless you are bucking for a — a place on some law school faculty.
(Laughter.)
MR. GURA: No. No. I have left law school some time ago and this is not an attempt to — to return.
JUSTICE SCALIA: What you argue is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it’s also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. Why do you want to undertake that burden instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as I think it’s wrong, I have — even I have acquiesced in it?
Translation: “Moron. Argue substantive due process.”
That’s how the case will be decided. Heller will apply to the states. It’s a lock.
UPDATE: I originally used the phrase “Privileges and Immunities Clause” above (as did the Justices in the argument) but commenter “Benson” notes that the phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment is actually the “Privileges or Immunities Clause.” I have corrected my usage above.
not as good a lock as might be, but a lock none the less…. any tea leaves on what that might do to idiocies such as the “assault weapon” laws here in CA, or do we need to wait and see what the robed ones actually put forth?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/3/2010 @ 12:51 amSorry, but I’m confused. I thought P. “and” I. was in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, while P. “or” I. was in the fourteenth amendment (Section 1, Clause 2).
Benson (e20f02) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:02 amWhat would the ruling mean for California? Would that lift the current (and numerous) restrictions in regard to firearms? And what does that mean for cities? It’d be nice to be able to get a CCW in the city of LA without being a member of the privileged class or a Hollywood celebrity.
wherestherum (d413fd) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:16 amget on back to AoSHQ!…. you can hog up the bandwidth there…. %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:26 amBenson,
You’re right.
Patterico (c218bd) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:46 amBenson,
How is Governor Gatling anyway?
What’s that? Dead, you say?
Patterico (c218bd) — 3/3/2010 @ 1:50 ammust be an inside joke……
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/3/2010 @ 2:25 amDon’t conservatives also argue that the 10th amendment gives states the right to enact laws on their own? How does that reconcile with the 2nd?
I’m asking, not trying to be a smart ass. I’ve read several things on this case and still don’t really have a good understanding of it.
JEA (9f9fc9) — 3/3/2010 @ 4:06 amIANAL, but a state in its power under the 10th can’t enact a law that violates a right whether enumerated or unenumerated.
steve miller (83f2e0) — 3/3/2010 @ 4:26 amThat was the argument decided in Heller, whether RKBA is an individual or collective right. In Heller it was decided that it is an individual right that may not be infringed by the federal government. This case will decide whether it is also protected against the plenary police power of the states like, for example, First Amendment, the right to counsel, cruel and unusual punishment ….
nk (db4a41) — 3/3/2010 @ 4:52 amAs for its practical impact, it will make a difference in the City of Chicago which has made it almost impossible for a person who did not own a firearm in 1979 to lawfully possess one, but it will have little impact statewide in Illinois and I doubt in California, New York, Maryland, Massachussettes, etc.. Heller did not grant a right to carry in public and recognized that weapons of great destructive capacity could be restricted. Heller also did not abolish registration — only that it could not be so difficult that it amounted to a prohibition.
nk (db4a41) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:02 amI certainly don’t think that my second grader would have a constitutional right to bring her sword to school for show and tell. 😉
nk (db4a41) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:06 amWhat do you think will be the effect on existing gun laws, some of which are quite onerous.
You know, when I was a wee teen, I used to pack a breakdown 12 coach gun in my gym bag to go hunting on the way home. No one ever said boo about it.
bill-tb (541ea9) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:20 amI remember taking a ww2 battle-rifle to school for show&tell in second or third grade. Only question by the PTB was whether I knew how to clear it. I did, principle admired it, went to class. Big yawn for the adults, otherwise.
So how do I become a citizen of the state of Minnesota? Does it come automagicly with a driver’s license?
htom (412a17) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:50 amCity laws, like the one in Chicago, won’t survive. “Common Sense regulations” of the right would still exist, much like the government can regulate speech slightly. So, your kids still won’t be able to bring rifles to school and one won’t be able to go out and buy a SAM missile battery.
PS Gonna be a fun summer in Chicago. All the nice, worried people will go and buy guns and then go to work and all the gang members will break in their homes and steal them and Chicago will have more guns in the hands of people willing to use them than Baghdad…
timb (449046) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:30 amtimb, it won’t happen, although if you get shot by either side, I won’t be shedding any tears.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:33 amI think I see it this way, anyone correct me if im wrong, but if it comes down the way its expected, it would be the equivalent of them saying cities and states do not have the right to completely and onerously ban free speach within thier borders.
same with guns, a complete ban is unconstitutional.
rumcrook¾ (4a9bee) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:09 amI agree with TimB’s first paragraph, while Heller established that the RKBA was an individual right, they didn’t say that government couldn’t establish reasonable restrictions. In fact, there’s another round of litigation in DC over allegedly still-too-restrictive rules.
As for his second paragraph, I’m not sure Chicago gangs are lacking for weapons. And breaking into a house in search of what is likely to be a single firearm doesn’t have enough reward to be worth the risk. If I’m casing homes in Chicago to break into while the owners at work, I’m going after electronics, cash and jewelry that I can sell for more than the hundred or so dollars that a handgun would get me.
And further, TimB isn’t very good at math. Worried homeowners who buy guns are by definition willing to use them, so having someone steal that gun merely substitutes one willing user for another and doesn’t increase the number of people willing to use guns.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:11 amTo understand how bad Chicago’s scheme is:
You cannot have a handgun or most semi-automatic rifles unless you are in law enforcement or a City alderman. (Honest.)
If you want to buy a shotgun or permitted rifle, you have to go and find it. There are two very good gun shops, one in Lincolnwood for the North Siders and one in Lyons for the South sider. But whatever you do, don’t complete the FFL transfer. Because you will never, ever, ever, be able to bring that gun into Chicago. Get the serial number and apply for registration with the City of Chicago. In about three months, it may get approved. At that point, you can go back to the gun shop, pay your money, complete the FFL transfer and bring the gun home.
nk (db4a41) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:26 amPS Gonna be a fun summer in Chicago. All the nice, worried people will go and buy guns and then go to work and all the gang members will break in their homes and steal them and Chicago will have more guns in the hands of people willing to use them than Baghdad…
Then by all means run your ass down to the streets of Englewood and tell all of the good citizens why they shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves against random acts of murder, since the police obviously cannot protect them anymore. Then you can tell them that when any of them witness a gang banger killing of another innocent bystander in broad daylight on the streets, they should immediately go to the police and offer their testimony for the prosecution, secure in the knowledge that nothing of harm will come to them or their families.
You jackass.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:31 amIf you moved to Chicago from Mississippi, and wanted to bring the permitted rifles and shotguns you already owned, forget it. You may not own them in Chicago if you have ever owned them without Chicago’s permission no matter where you lived. That, I believe, was the gist of Gura’s P & I argument.
BTW, there is an almost perfect correlation between the number of black people in a jurisdiction and the restrictiveness of its gun laws. The whiter, the freer.
nk (db4a41) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:32 amMake that “perfect correlation”. In statistics, 81% correlation is considered perfect and when it comes to guns and black people, it’s higher than 81%.
nk (db4a41) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:34 amSteve, actually since any their who is seeking guns is already willing to use it (and probably has several including the one he is carrying), the theft actually DECREASES the number of people who have guns and are willing to use them.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:34 amI’ve heard that if the Supreme Court throws out the City of Chicago law, that Daley is ready to propose another law–I assume this time restrictions on gun ownership and use rather than a ban. Should be an interesting couple of years here in Illinois on the gun issue. I haven’t noticed a substantial decrease in crime in Chicago since the gun ban went into effect.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:35 amWhatever would the Supreme Court do if the PoI clause was passed again? Ignore it again? They just might.
Perhaps it would be a good thing if the law professoriate would come to some conclusion about what the PoI clause really meant and how it would apply today should it ever come back.
Such as “what are these here Privileges and/or Immunities?”; “How do they differ from those mentioned in Article IV?”; “Can new ones emerge, and how?”; “Can states regulate them? Differently?” and things like that.
Obviously these are all questions that a Court would have to answer (Scalia’s “can of worms”) if they were resurrect PoI. Matter of fact, not being able to answer those questions 140 years ago is one of the reasons they killed it. That and the Court’s hostility to Reconstruction, that is (see the execrable and contemporary Cruikshank decision).
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:44 amBTW, there is an almost perfect correlation between the number of black people in a jurisdiction and the restrictiveness of its gun laws. The whiter, the freer.
Bingo – thus my comment about Englewood. Funny how much of the MSM media fail to note that the plaintiff here happens to be a black homeowner who wishes to keep from getting his head blown off. But what does he know about real violence, compared to the doyennes of Lincoln Park (including timmah) and those awful muggers that were on the loose last month? Eeeek!
Now we’ll sit back and wait for Da Mayor’s inevitable assplode about this ruling at another press conference. He seriously beclowned himself last time, this time he may actually suffer a massive coronary on camera.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:44 amDog Trainer headline:
Didn’t the Second Amendment already do that?
John Hitchcock (43b45b) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:45 amChicago is entirely out of touch with the state. Statewide, you can own any firearm other than machine guns and sawed off shotguns. You can carry them, any way you want, in your home, own land, or fixed place of business. You can carry them openly, for a lawful purpose, in any unincorporated area. If you own a gun illegally, under local ordinances, in your home, your own land, or your fixed place of business, you are immune from prosecution under the more restrictive local laws if you use it for self-defense or defense of another person.
nk (db4a41) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:47 am#23 “theiF” not “their”.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:48 amI think people living around timb ought to put signs on their lawns saying timb doesn’t believe in guns and doesn’t own them. We will respect that and we won’t defend timb or his family with our guns.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:13 amWhy the hell can’t we agree on reasonable laws to regulate guns without going to the extremes of the left and right?
I understand laws regarding the storage of guns could be overturned. Where the hell’s the sense in that?
I agree a ban is too severe, but I’d really like someone to tell me what the hell is wrong with common sense regulations so people can protect themselves but we don’t have a freakin’ Dodge City on our hands.
JEA (b29a48) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:28 amWhat reasonable regulations do you suggest?
JD (0f9c01) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:32 amwherestherum, interestingly the Ninth Circuit already incorporated the Second Amendment against the states in a recent ruling.
JEA, laws on storage of guns are designed to weaken the argument for self-defense purpose of firearms. They have no actual benefit with respect to accidents involving firearms. The claim that there are somehow “common sense” regulations is just utter nonsense. None of the many onerous gun restrictions have ever had any positive benefit. And all the claims of “Dodge City” are not merely BS, but in fact lies. We heard that from the gun control advocates about “shall issue” concealed weapon permit laws and look where they are now. The best that the opponents of “shall issue” can do is put out manipulated studies that show crime rates don’t change upon adoption.
“Common sense” my ass.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:38 amI agree a ban is too severe, but I’d really like someone to tell me what the hell is wrong with common sense regulations so people can protect themselves but we don’t have a freakin’ Dodge City on our hands.
This is the common leftist canard trotted out by our very own idiot mayor, who incessantly paints a picture of gun – crazy citizens blowing away each other over whether someone looked at them the wrong way…or something, you can’t tell what he really means because someone asks him to clarify and instead he continues onward, bloviating at anyone expressing an opposing opinion. You just stated that why does everything have to be an extreme, then immediately painted your own preferences using grade – school logic.
Let’s make this as simple as possible – tell me one city or locale that’s become a haven of law – abiding citizens shooting each other at random when right to carry laws were in place. Just one.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:39 amJEA, reasonable laws got us to where we are. You pass one, then another, add an addendum, adjust a clause, cover a situation, and we have TOTAL BANNING OF GUN OWNERSHIP IN A CITY.
The Constitution says what it says. Am I in favor of everyone, no matter what, being able to own a .50 caliber machine gun? No, probably not. But, reasonable got us to where we are now, and so we have to eliminate everything so we can have a discussion.
Liberal, elite representatives to local governments have simply shown that they can write laws to stop the law-abiding from doing something.
If they would sit and discuss how to stop the unlawful, and not the law-abiding, they might get some of what they actually want here…
But, they won’t….
reff (b996d9) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:40 ambetter yet, JEA, please demonstrate where, after shall issue CCP have been put into place, the “Dodge City” scenario you’re so “concerned” about has actually taken place?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:46 amIn other words, an armed society is an extremely polite society. BTW, Dodge City wasn’t some shoot – up – up mayhem locale, that was only documented in Deadwood. The great majority of frontier towns rarely needed a local constabulary, because the settlers and townsfolk had guns and knew how to use them. The Hollywood schtick of local rowdies riding through peaceful towns and shooting everything to bits is pure myth.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:54 amInterestingly enough the former LA County Deputy Sheriff, who replaced Mike Corona as Orange County’s Sheriff a year ago, decided immediately upon taking office that too many [white] people in OC had concealed carry permits. She has cut the number by 22% to where there are now only 832 permits in a county of 3.1 million people.
She has undertaken a personal jihad to significantly reduce the number issued, and to restrict the right to specific hours of the day when she deems you to be at risk. Her upcoming election will become a referendum in OC on concealed carry permits. The thuggery she demonstrated in threatening existing permit holders and the members of the OC Board of Supervisors was reported by the Register in detail.
Years ago John Lott’s research supported the commonsense finding that more guns in the hands of citizens resulted in fewer crimes. He showed that “shall issue” jurisdictions had lower crime rates than “may issue” ones when adjusted for demographics; also he showed crime rates fell when jurisdictions went to “shall issue” permitting.
in_awe (44fed5) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:55 ami won’t say his argument was automatically stupid.
If he just wants to win over the heller majority, he would seem to be going astray, but let me add something else.
First, maybe he is hunting even bigger game than just this victory. i mean when thurgood marshall was arguing Brown, he stipulated that the schools these african american children were going to were materially equal. if his goal was to win a victory for those particular clients, that is dumb. but his goal was actually to take down separate but equal in its entirety and for that purpose it was smart.
The same can be said here. he might have a simpler way to win this case, but maybe he is not just trying to win this case.
Also, i think he stands a decent chance of obtaining a concurrance from one or two liberals on the court. Ginsberg seemed really interested in this for unenumerated rights, probably because it gives her a licence for massive activism.
Which means maybe it was a good strategy. i mean, what if Kennedy does the substantive due process test and decide it comes out against incorporation? then he might have 4 conservatives voting to do it via due process, and come up short. but if ginsberg concurred on privilieges or immunities, then he wins.
Obviously it made things rough for the lawyer. no one wants to be on the wrong side of Scalia’s withering sarcasm. but in the final analysis, he might be wise to do it this way.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:56 amowning a 50 caliber machine gun is self regulating:
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/3/2010 @ 8:58 am1. there aren’t very many of them available, and you can only buy one in certain states.
2. they are expensive.
3. so is the ammo.
4. they are heavy as hell and difficult to operate without proper training and practice.
5. all that being said, they are fun to shoot, but i’d rather have a Barrett 82A1, but California, once again confusing form with substance, has decreed i can’t have anything in .50 caliber, so i’ll have to get it in .416 Barrett, which actually has better ballistic performance. ya gotta love American ingenuity!
Don’t conservatives also argue that the 10th amendment gives states the right to enact laws on their own? How does that reconcile with the 2nd?
I’m asking, not trying to be a smart ass. I’ve read several things on this case and still don’t really have a good understanding of it.
Comment by JEA — 3/3/2010 @ 4:06 am”
JEA: In addition to being a US citizen you are also a citizen of the state you reside in. The point being a state a can grant more enumerated rights to its citizens than the federal constitution provides but it cannot take away rights provided by the federal constitution. That is why freedom of religion and freedom of speech cannot be abridged by the states and as the court will apparently rule neither can states abridge gun ownership.
If the US Supreme Court can find an unenumerated right to an abortion in the federal constitution (which is why state constitutions cannot forbid it) logically it will be very difficult for the US Supreme Court to side with Chicago.
Privileges or Immunities Clause: as I understand it simply means that if a citizen of California travels to the State of New York, New York has to afford the California citizen the same it grants to a New York citizen and no less. The interesting P & I thought which perhaps Patterico can explain to us is can the state of Illinois allow all of its citizens except those of Chicago the right to own guns? Is that a P & I question or an equal protection right?
cubanbob (409ac2) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:08 amSPQR: the unanswered question, though, remains: granted that the second amendment is incorporated, what regulations are nevertheless justified?
It will take some years for this to work out.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:13 amcubanbob, you are confusing the Article IV priviledges and immunities clause with the 14th Amendment priviledges or immunities clause.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:14 amaphrael, yep.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:14 amThis is the only common sense result.
Maybe the cities will be mandated to give CCW’s to anyone who asks for it.
So how would you explain gang shootings in Chicago for the past twenty-eight years?
Were those reports hoaxes?
Which is why people who claim that the United States Constitution protects the right to an abortion, or sodomy, but not to keep and bear arms, are dishonest.
Michael Ejercito (526413) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:26 amGura’ s argument was definitely not autonatically stupid. See my Comment #21. Chicago is not America.
nk (db4a41) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:50 amnk, as to your argument about racism and gun control laws, its been well shown that the origin of gun control laws was the Southern states desire to disarm freed blacks. And its been well documented that among the original purposes of the 14th Amendment was to overturn laws that prohibited freed blacks from owning firearms.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/3/2010 @ 9:58 ammichael e.
did you ever read kosinski of the 9th circuit dissent in their gun rights case? this was pre-heller, and it is a real classic. it touches on that very point–the ability to discover endless constitutional rights when they want to, and the inability to when they don’t.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:02 am“cubanbob, you are confusing the Article IV priviledges and immunities clause with the 14th Amendment priviledges or immunities clause.
Comment by SPQR — 3/3/2010 @ 9:14 am”
From Wiki (for whatever its worth) article 4 of the US Constitution:
“Section 2: Obligations of states
Clause 1: Privileges and Immunities
Main article: Privileges and Immunities Clause
“ The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ”
Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of “privileges and immunities”. The ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations. Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally. Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states while traveling in other states.
Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which has held that the clause means that a state may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823), the federal circuit court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include
protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty … the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State.
Most other benefits were held not to be protected privileges and immunities. In Corfield the circuit court sustained a New Jersey law giving state residents the exclusive right to gather clams and oysters.”
!4th amendment to the US Constitution P or I clause:
“Incorporation
Main articles: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights and Privileges or Immunities Clause
In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. According to some commentators, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions; all of these rights were likely understood to fall within the “privileges or immunities” safeguarded by the amendment.[33] However, in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause was limited to “privileges or immunities” granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that the amendment was limited to “state action” and thus did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and in fact have been specifically reaffirmed several times.[34]”
A cursory reading of both appear to buttress my point: states cannot limit rights that are granted to US citizens. If the US Supreme Court rules that the 2 amendment applies to individuals then state and local gun bans and overtly restrictive laws, ordinances and regulations will have to be repealed.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:02 amAs for my layman argument about equal protection is can alderman and other elected officials be afforded more rights than the citizens of that state?
michael
you can read it here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0115098oP.pdf
my favorite line: “It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us.” Harsh, funny, and true.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:10 amSPQR — that’s “modern” gun control. Older laws targeted other groups (“the savages” perhaps being the first on the North American continent.)
htom (412a17) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:11 amProtest sign … If guns kill people, do pens misspell words ?
Neo (7830e6) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:54 amCCW in CA…
Gura has five or six cases pending in the CA system challenging, among others, “may-issue” CCW, and the “Not Un-Safe” guns list (which should be a slam-dunk challenge under the Interstate Commerce Clause).
Would not a challenge to the “one handgun per month” law (which may, or may not, be another Gura case) be fitting under “Equal Protection”, once the 2nd is incorporated against the States?
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:57 amAn overly developed respect for precedent…
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091) — 3/3/2010 @ 11:01 amIf Warren had not overturned Plessy, would we still have “Seperate but Equal” today?
And, since when did it become so important to defend bad law?
I thought one of the reasons for the Constitution was “to form a more perfect union”?
If so, shouldn’t it be important to ferret out bad legal decisions and set them right?
Why the hell can’t we agree on reasonable laws to regulate guns without going to the extremes of the left and right?
Because the left has successfully scrapped federalism and required that the exact same laws apply to everybody in the damn country. Having made this bed, they can now lie in it along with the rest of us.
Subotai (e7189d) — 3/3/2010 @ 11:23 ami always find it amazing that liberals doubt that the framers would have thought that self-defense and the right to bear arms were fundamental. The liberals think that the only valid force is government force. if a guy is breaking into your home, don’t shoot him (indeed you shouldn’t have a gun), but instead call the cops.
But that wasn’t exactly a viable option in 1868, or 1789. if your life was in danger, there was usually no help to call on, except either yourself or a well-armed neighbor who happened to be in earshot. police work in that day could almost never hope to stop a crime in progress. they could at most maintain a presence, and investigate crimes after they occurred. in that context, the right to self-defense is vital. that is the context in which the founders wrote the bill of rights and the second amendment.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 3/3/2010 @ 2:31 pmAW – I can’t speak for “liberals” in general, but I think you misstate the presumptions.
It’s not that the liberals I know think that if a guy is breaking into your home, you should just call the cops; it’s that they don’t believe that there is a substantial risk of a guy breaking into their house, and so correspondingly don’t believe that people have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from that threat.
The anti-gun liberals I know pretty much all believe that the chances are greater that someone would be accidentally killed by a gun than that that same gun would be used to protect someone from a home invasion robbery.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/3/2010 @ 4:28 pmIt must be wonderful to live in such a pristine environment where all threats to safety and property have been eliminated.
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091) — 3/3/2010 @ 4:39 pmUnfortunately, the great majority do not enjoy such a luxury, and there are barbarians at the gate.
The anti-gun liberals I know pretty much all believe that the chances are greater that someone would be accidentally killed by a gun than that that same gun would be used to protect someone from a home invasion robbery.
I don’t get the impression that anti-gun liberals are very worried about crime. I get the impression that they are worried about “militias” and the possibility of a popular rebellion against the feds.
Subotai (e7189d) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:10 pmaphrael ,
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:16 pmThe last numbers I saw, and this was some years ago, was that there were four to six home invasions a day in LA county alone.
The anti-gun liberals I know pretty much all believe that the chances are greater that someone would be accidentally killed by a gun than that that same gun would be used to protect someone from a home invasion robbery.
As I mentioned previously, I have a few hoods around here where the chances are actually in reverse to your statement of odds.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/3/2010 @ 5:51 pmJEA wrote:
Maybe it’s the words of the Second Amenment, which say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
I’ve suggested, on some liberal sites, that if people feel that the right to keep and bear arms ought to be restricted, then they should propose a constitutional amendment to nullify the Second. Oddly enough, I never see any takers on that, because they know that such would never muster the super-majority required to amend the Constitution.
What part of “shall not be infringed” is so fornicating difficult to understand?
The absolutist Dana (474dfc) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:09 pmAphrael:
Which is, for want of a better word, retarded. Truly accidental gun deaths (as opposed to Amy Bishop “accidentally” murdering her brother) number in the hundreds, a statistical zero for a nation of our size. The usual sleight of hand is to substitute the irrelevant question of how likely a gun is to kill the intruder (small, since brandishing is usually enough) rather than successfully stop his crime (huge). And of course none of this takes into account the fact that “hot” burglaries (those occurring while the occupant is at home) are exceedingly rare in the U.S., but extremely common in countries like Canada, England, etc. Care to hazard a guess as to why?
Dana: the real problem I have with “reasonable” gun control is that its proponents seem to think that all gun control is intrinsically reasonable. Modest gun controls that truly are reasonable, i.e., those that impose only minor burdens on the lawful exercise of the RKBA while cutting crime significantly, arguably burden the RKBA slightly but do not rise to the level of infringement. Bear in mind that the original meaning of the word “infringe” meant “destroy,” not “inconvenience.” Outright bans like Chicago’s are obvious infringements, as are, IMNSHO, any laws that forbid both open and concealed carry. But allowing one form of carry while forbidding the other strikes me as a mere annoyance, not an infringement.
Xrlq (1cd5bb) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:10 pmbecause the only hazard is to the resident, who will be arrested and prosecuted if he tries to defend himself or his property.
even here in the PRC, as i was informed by a judge teaching a class i was in, there is no duty to retreat.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:16 pmAphrael wrote:
Sorry, but that’s just rationalization. Our friends on the left support gun control because it makes them think they are doing something about crime, even though they know they aren’t. The way to deal with crime is to punish criminals, but, Heaven forfend! we can’t do that, because we might offend people.
We have gun control because nobody is willing to tell parents that if their kids break the law, it’s because they were crappy parents; we have gun control because, if a neighborhood or a district has a lot of shootings, it is because the people in that neighborhood tolerate the gang-bangers, and buy drugs from them, and are generally crappy people themselves.
The Dana who tells it like it is (474dfc) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:17 pmXrlq wrote:
I’m sorry, but could you tell me just what “truly reasonable” gun control laws “cut crime significantly?” Even if I accepted the notion that “shall not be infringed” really means “may be only modestly infringed” — kind of like “Congress shall make no law” somehow means “Congress shall not make too many laws” — I think you’d have to prove that these modest restrictions actually do cut crime.
The argumentative Dana (474dfc) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:22 pmMethinks you’re fixated on a phony definition of “infringe.” A law that only modestly burdens the RKBA does not “modestly infringe” it; it’s no infringement at all. As to proving that certain controls do cut crime, that’s easy. Try allowing inmates to carry loaded weapons in one prison somewhere in Pennsylvania and see what happens.
Xrlq (1cd5bb) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:32 pmAnyone wish to hazard a guess as to how many “infringements” there are codefied into law against the Freedom of Speech?
I’ll grant you the same number of “infringements” against the RKBA, instead of the 20,000+ laws that are on the books nationwide.
As an example, the BATFE each year publishes a compendium of State Laws and Ordinances regarding firearms (ATF Pub 5300.5). The 2006 – 27th Edition – that I am currently looking at runs a total of 468 pages – the regulations for the State of California comprises 68 pages, leaving the other 49 States (plus the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico [English & Spanish] & the Virgin Islands) to be covered in 400 pages.
CA=68 pages;
The remaining jurisdictions average 7-1/4 pages each.
Now, tell me about “reasonable gun control”.
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:47 pmCarrying a loaded firearm in your vehicle anywhere in the state of Illinois is a felony. As a CCW permit holder, I can legally carry my loaded firearm on my person while driving my vehicle from Florida, through Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky. However, upon approaching the Illinois border, I must store the firearm, unloaded, in the trunk of my vehicle, separate from the ammunition. Illinois does not recognize another state’s firearms permit under any circumstances.
How does this reconcile with the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution?
navyvet (e4db05) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:47 pmnavyvet…as per a decision by the IL SC this past year, you do not have to store your handgun (unloaded) in the trunk any longer, but may put it into the lockable compartment of the console (if your vehicle is so equipped – but still unloaded, though the ammo can also be in that same space IIRC).
As to your last question, this is one of those areas that the states seem to have agreed to not observe the FFCC unless they have negotiated reciprocal agreements between themselves (an outgrowth of the “Must Issue” movement).
As a holder of a non-resident CCW from both FL and UT, it is very frustrating to be in CA, which recognizes no other State’s CCW, and in return, no other state recognizes the miniscule number of CA CCW’s.
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091) — 3/3/2010 @ 6:55 pmA weapon in a vehicle is considered concealed in Illinois.
The transportation statutes, there are more than one, could have been better written, but unloaded, cased and inaccessible will do the trick, and disassembled will not hurt either for those guns that can be disassembled.
(I do not recommend, however, that anybody who sees Clint Eastwood disassembling, reloading and reassembling his Remington cartridge conversion in the last act of Pale Rider become the test case for an Illinois carry gun.)
nk (db4a41) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:28 pmnk…The case I was referring to is IL v Diggins, Docket # 106367, 8 Oct 09.
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091) — 3/3/2010 @ 7:58 pmCheck it out.
Since Thomas wants the Slaughter-House Cases overruled, maybe he’ll file a separate opinion…
Alan (07ccb5) — 3/3/2010 @ 10:58 pmgood since the DC crime rate dropped 27% since Heller maybe the crime rates in other cities will drop also once the SCOTUS tells americans yes it does have a right to arms
unseen (f8f32d) — 3/4/2010 @ 12:11 amfrom what i’ve seen in the news about Congress and the White House, the crime wave seems unabated….
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/4/2010 @ 12:16 amNavy Vet, I think Illinois’s ban on open and concealed carry is vulnerable to a Second Amendment challenge, as is California’s may-issue scheme, but I don’t think either policy violates (or in any way implicates) the Full Faith and Credit Clause. To the extent a Florida CHP is a public act subject to FF&C, all it means is that every other state must give full faith and credit to Florida’s determination that you have a right to carry in Florida. Illinois isn’t questioning your right to carry in Florida.
Xrlq (1cd5bb) — 3/4/2010 @ 4:07 amI thought everybody, including the Justices, did a very poor job discussing whether there is a right of self-defense, considering that it is the explicit justification for third trimester abortions in every abortion decision.
nk (db4a41) — 3/4/2010 @ 4:43 amMachinist: using your numbers, in a county of 10 million people, there are 4-6 home invasions a day, which is to say at most 2190 home invasions (6*395) a year.
If there are 4 people per household – a number which seems high to me – then the odds of suffering a home invasion are .08%. (2190/2500000).
Those are pretty small odds.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:27 amAcceptable losses, aphrael? Would you apply the same statistical analysis to same-sex marriage? When are there enough people hurt that we should start caring about them?
nk (db4a41) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:36 amDana: I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s rationalization at all.
In my experience, liberals discount the argument that guns are needed to protect themselves from home invasions because they think that the risk of home invasions is so small that no protection is needed.
It’s not that they think that gun control does something about crime. It’s pretty much self-evident that it doesn’t.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:39 amaphrael, unfortunately in my experience, liberals do indeed insist that gun control reduces crime rates – and ignore evidence to the contrary. I suspect that you fail to notice this belief structure because you yourself recognize that evidence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:45 amaphrael, to expand. If in fact liberals do not think that gun control does something about crime, then that increases my belief that their investment in gun control law is in fact based on all those oppressive motivations we ascribe to them ie., to keep the sheep in their place.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:46 am#78 aphrael:
I am unsure of the provenance of the statistic that Machinist referred to, but the latest release of 2007 statistics by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that attempted or completed crimes of violence (of the type that are typically considered home invasion) numbered about 922,000 in 2007.
That may seem like a low risk (since it averages to about 304 crimes of violence per county occurring in the home) over the year, but it is roughly the equivalent of a city the size of Chicago having every single home invaded by criminals during the year.
That doesn’t even include other crimes of violence the might also involve home invasions~like rapes and murder…that’s just petty stuff like robberies and such.
That’s a lot of criminal activity, and not once were there police on hand to prevent it.
Liberals may discount the chance of that kind of crime happening to them…but I would rather mitigate even that risk by being capable of preventing it entirely or responding appropriately as needed, thank you very much.
Source: cv0761.csv from Bureau of Justice Statistics “Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2007 – Statistical Tables”.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/4/2010 @ 8:47 amAphrael, that’s missing the point. The point is: do individuals have the right to defend themselves? It doesn’t matter how likely they are to need to defend themselves, it’s whether they have the right to when it is needed.
Some chump (050674) — 3/4/2010 @ 8:59 amaphrael,
That would be the odds for any given year. What are the odds of one in a persons lifetime?
Given the violent and brutal nature of home invasions, what are odds that justify doing nothing to protect your family? We are not talking financial loss as with insurance but the rape, murder, or assault of a spouse or child. Are you aware of why home invasions increase in proportion to burglaries when criminals think the government has disarmed homeowners?
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:02 amEW1(SG),
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:17 amI defer to your numbers. I referred to a statement by someone in law enforcement from the 80s or 90s that only talked about home invasions where two or more armed men broke into a home they believed was occupied. It did not include other crimes.
#86 Machinist: My point was only to show there are lies, damn lies … and liberals.
“Playing the odds” isn’t an effective defense against violence, at home or anywhere else.
In real life, crime affects the poor and the young much more so than the rich and the adult. Another case of liberals attempting to legislate a compassionate result for others, by inhibiting others ability to defend themselves from a risk that the liberals usually don’t share.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:34 amEW1(SG),
I agree with you there. Someone coming through my door at any hour will be met with violence.
I don’t think aphrael is dishonest but the numbers are misleading and the risks too great for me to dismiss the threat. I don’t live in fear, but it is because I don’t count on odds or police to protect my loved ones. Life has taught me I can’t.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:47 am#31 JEA:
JEA, the simple answer is that people unfamiliar with the use of firearms are the ones that attempt to impose “common sense” regulation of firearms.
Its somewhat akin to the state legislature attempting to define standards for the safe use of circular saws by homeowners. Homeowners vary wildly in their ability to safely use the tool, to store it safely and so on. There are likely a few that shouldn’t own one. But defining a separate class of people subject to restrictions that another class people is not (professional carpenters, say) in the use of an ordinary, everyday object seems to me to violate all kinds of principles that we value in this country.
And experience has shown, with a majority of states now being “shall issue” states, where the state has to show reason for not issuing a concealed weapon permit/license, that not only have “Dodge City” scenarios not become the norm, but there has been a reduction in violent crime in those states that can be directly correlated with the issue of weapons permits/licenses.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/4/2010 @ 9:49 am#88 Machinist:
Agreed. A proper use of the “precautionary principle” is to mitigate risks that can be avoided in a cost effective fashion.
Since the injury or loss of my loved ones is a risk I am unwilling to bear at any cost that I can afford, having the ability to protect them at a reasonable initial outlay (a firearm is not a great expenditure in relation to homeowners insurance) and maintenance cost (the time and expense of maintaining proficiency in its use and remaining current with what the law prescribes in its use) is a burden that I am willing to undertake. It also has the benefit that I have learned that I enjoy the training and practice, and can look on it as a recreational activity, mitigating the actual cost even further.
And, as our various experiences have taught, relying on the odds or someone else is not an effective option.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:01 amUnfortunately the “reasonable” laws always try to target the very weapons the founders wanted to protect. The 2nd is not about hunting and self defense. These were so taken for granted then that they no more felt the need to protect it than they thought the right to breath needed stating. The founders recognized that the people must be armed to keep overreaching government in check. This meant military type arms. The founders did not take up arms because of quartering of troops, taxation, or the other grievances they had. The British were not going door to door and seizing hunting guns. The people took up arms when the British went for the stores of military weapons and supplies as they knew that once disarmed they would be enslaved.
You need only look at the contempt in which the political class holds the people today to see the wisdom of the founders. The fear all goes the wrong way.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:02 am#88 Machinist:
The imputation that gun owners “live in fear” always cracks me up.
After all, I’m the one with the gun, and the training to use it.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:04 am#90,
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:05 amCompletely with you there, Sir. (Plus it gives me an excuse for more toys.)
Comment by Xrlq — 3/4/2010 @ 4:07 am
If a Driver’s License is recognized as valid in all 50 States + various Federal Territories under the FF&C clause, why aren’t CCW’s?
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:28 amOne point is by nationalizing the statistics, things don’t look so bad that Liberals will say you don’t need protection. What are stats for the “Bad Neighborhoods” like Compton or Watts?
I lived in a neighborhood in Anaheim where we did keep loaded shotguns at the ready because illegals did do home invasions or just busted down your door to get away from “Angel 1”.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/4/2010 @ 10:41 amIf a Driver’s License is recognized as valid in all 50 States + various Federal Territories under the FF&C clause, why aren’t CCW’s?
Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 3/4/2010 @ 10:28 am
They’re not. They’re recognized under an interstate compact aproved by the Congress. (As international drivers’ licenses are recognized by an international treaty.)
The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to States’ executive actions. It applies to the judgments of their respective courts.
nk (db4a41) — 3/4/2010 @ 2:32 pm88.EW1(SG),
I agree with you there. Someone coming through my door at any hour will be met with violence.
Comment by Machinist — 3/4/2010 @ 9:47 am
So far, everybody coming through my door has been met with hospitality, food and drink. I structured my life that way — where I live and how I live. Paranoia has no part in it.
nk (db4a41) — 3/4/2010 @ 2:37 pmArticle IV, 1:
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State…”
What part of a Driver’s License is not a “public act, or a record”?
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/4/2010 @ 3:08 pmAm adding a shotgun to my collection next week, as I am a bitter clinger. I like my Sig, Glock, and Taurus, love the M700 APR, but need to round it out. Any suggestions as to guage, brand, etc … I am just looking for inexpensive and reliable.
JD (684a20) — 3/4/2010 @ 3:19 pmComment by JD — 3/4/2010 @ 3:19 pm
Mossberg 500, pump action, 18.5″ barrel, in either 12g or 20g. If you want versatility, get the Combo: comes with both 18.5″ Home defense barrel, and 28″ vent-rib with interchangeable chokes for hunting (will also accept a rifled barrel for deer hunting).
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/4/2010 @ 3:42 pmContrary to NK I would argue that a driver license issued by any given state is indeed a public act and/or record of that state; however, the sole effect of such act and/or record is to authorize the holder to operate a motor vehicle within its own borders. If you hold an unrevoked license to operate a motor vehicle in New York, the other 49 states must give full faith and credit to the fact that you have the right to operate a motor vehicle in New York. Yes, your NY license will indeed be honored elsewhere, but only because the other states honor it voluntarily, not because any part of the Constitution requires it.
Xrlq (1cd5bb) — 3/4/2010 @ 4:49 pmnk #97 – at times, you are such a Jewish Mother …
(grin)
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 3/4/2010 @ 5:25 pmComment by Xrlq — 3/4/2010 @ 4:49 pm
Then why all of the ruckus over Same-Sex Marriage and DOMA?
If these “accomodations” are strictly voluntary, the various States could pick and choose which “…public acts, records, and judicial proceedings…” they wish to honor, could they not?
Either the Constitution means what is says, and is the Law of the Land, or it isn’t.
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/4/2010 @ 6:29 pmIt is well past time for the members of the Judicial community to make up their minds as to whether or not they truly support a Nation of Laws, and not one of men.
there is a difference between invited guests, friends in the neighborhood, and just plain hoods.
i too have only had the first two, but i’m ready for the third, and the next door neighbor had their front door kicked in a few weeks back in the middle of the day.
awareness and preparation are a sign of intelligence and maturity, not paranoia.
after all, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/4/2010 @ 6:45 pm# 99. “Any suggestions as to guage, brand, etc”
#100’s suggestions are “in tune”. My expansive details follow.
Mine is the Mossberg 500 20″ version. Which holds two more than the 18 1/2″ gun . Mine does 7 + 1 in the chamber = 8.
It was $250 plus tax in a local “big box store”. It’s all black including plastic stock and forearm. It’s well-made, reliable, and cheap. And 100% “USA”.
Don’t bother with the “tricked-out” ones with “guards” to protect you from a hot-barrel. And “ghost-ring” sights and other “tactical” foo-foo.
That just adds cost ($150 or so). You aren’t trying to impress friends or relatives or neighborhood gang-bangers. All you need is the “function”.
And, don’t bother with the Mossberg “590” model. It just adds an easy way to clean the magazine “tube”. And cost. You will not need to be cleaning your gun.
The 590 model is favored by our military. Because, keeping your weapon clean. lubed, and functional is VERY important in the “sandbox”.
Where you get the gun, buy a box (25) of hunting or target “birdshot” cheap stuff. And, two boxes (5 each) of “00” buckshot. Find a place to safely shoot it.
Take three cardbox boxes about 3′ by 3′. Place one on the ground, about the distance from your bed to “the bad guys entry point”. Make sure you have a “safe backstop”.
Load your gun fully with eight “birdshot” rounds. Destroy the first box while shooting all eight target loads to learn how to operate the gun, and how it “kicks”.
Set up the second box, about 20 yards away. Destroy it too, with 8 rounds and reloading another 8. Wow, this baby can really “reach out and touch someone” !
Keep the remaining round to place on your night-table for luck.
Set up the third box back at your “bedroom entry point”, and shoot it with two rounds of “00”s. Take the gun home. Load the remaining eight “00”s. Make sure the safety is on.
Place in a really handy place as close to your bed as possible, muzzle down. That is so you can “swing it into action”. Cover it with the box it came in, so “prying eyes” don’t notice it.
If you don’t have a dog, go get a “rescue” one. A really cheap home-invasion alarm.
Relax. You are as secure as any one can be. And, you are now a certifiable “right-wing paranoid gun nut”.
If you have children at home, that is a totally different deal. Ignore all of the above except the dog.
DanP_from_AZ (a4bddb) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:29 pmBecause ignorant people make ruckuses (rucki?) about all sorts of crap they know nothing about. Gay marriage is no exception.
Indeed they could, and do in the case of marriage as well as licensing. You didn’t really think that a gay couple who legally got married in Massachusetts is also legally married in Texas … did you?!
Indeed it does, and is, but that doesn’t mean it means what you think it means. No state has the power to license activities outside its own borders. A Florida license purporting to license you to drive in Alabama would be void on its face, and therefore not entitled to recognition even in Florida, let alone to FF&C anywhere else. Your marriage example is actually better than you think. For all the (frivolous IMO) arguments about FF&C supposedly requiring any state to recognize another’s gay marriages in contravention of its own policies, I have yet to hear anyone seriously argue that any state is obligated to recognize a marriage license issued by another. Do you really think you can grab a marriage license in Vegas and then get married in Florida? Really?
We’re a nation of laws, all right, but of laws as they exist in the real world, which is not to be confused with your imagination.
Xrlq (1cd5bb) — 3/4/2010 @ 7:59 pm#105: alternate suggestions…
1. if you have never used a shotgun, call a local range, and get a trained instructor to walk you through the whole process of handling, using, clearing, dis-assembly, cleaning and reassembly of the weapon. all weapons need to be cleaned and inspected on a regular basis to ensure they are ready to function when you need them. if you have used one before, take this one out and get used to it. better to learn when the adrenalin isn’t flowing. best of all, if you can find a range with a variety of guns, try before you buy, and see what w*rks best for you. there’s no sense owning something you’re not comfortable with.
2. for home defense, IMHO, use bird shot, not buck. at the likely engagement ranges in your home, <5 yards, the shot column will not have had enough time to spread out appreciably, and will have an effect closely approximating buck shot. furthermore, any pellets that miss will be much more likely to stop in the first object the strike, be that furniture, a wall, etc, rather than penetrate through and strike something in another room, such as family members, or penetrate an outside wall and hit neighbors, bystanders, etc. collateral damage is a bad thing. besides, much hay can be made by the fact that you were "using buckshot" if you wind up in court. its silly, but bird shot comes across as more innocuous.
3. do NOT fully load the magazine, nor keep a round in the chamber. not only is having a round in the chamber a hazard (granted, with trade off points) but it also prevents the free circulation of air in the barrel, which, depending on your climate, can cause rust, etc. loading the magazine to max capacity and leaving it that way can cause the spring to lose tension, which means that when you *really* need the weapon to feed properly, it won't. besides, there isn't a criminal still alive in the US that doesn't recognize the sound of a shotgun going into battery.
4. get a pump action shotgun that you can credibly shoot skeet or trap with, and do so, at least once in awhile. first off, it's fun. secondly, its good practice for aiming and for weapon handling skills: unlike the movies, even shotguns have to be aimed IRL in order to hit your target. lastly, from a liability POV, this makes the gun part of your life, and you're not some evil person laying in wait to murder some poor innocent. granted, that scenario is a load of crap when thuglife broke into your house and ignored your warnings, but its an important consideration to keep in mind.
Mossberg makes a fine gun, and so is the Remington 870, especially if you get an Express model, which aren't as fancy looking as the Wingmaster versions, but just as reliable. both come with dual bars, meaning that the fore grip that actuates the loading process is attached to the bolt on two sides, which makes it less likely to jam than a gun with only one bar, especially under stress. there are other manufacturers, such as Winchester, that also make fine shotguns. shop around.
what he said about the fancy sights, etc, and avoid pistol grips too. first off, you need a real stock in order to get a good sight picture so you can hit things, and they are just one more thing to hang up on things and get in the way under pressure. DO consider getting a tactical light on the weapon, so you can identify your target before shooting. if it is finger activated, you can be on target before lighting it, and that way you don't shoot someone you didn't want to. whoever catches the beam will be disoriented long enough for you to ID and shoot, should you need to.
Keep It Simple, and practice.
red,
resident 11B10
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/4/2010 @ 8:37 pmComment by Xrlq — 3/4/2010 @ 7:59 pm
FF&C…Driver’s Licenses are recognized in all States (if unexpired) when travelling. If you move to another state, and establish residency there (like, you got a job), you have to get a new one issued by the State you now reside in.
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/5/2010 @ 12:10 amWhy would that not apply to CCW’s?
Vehicle laws vary in all States, and the traveller is expected to observe the relevant laws of the State in which he currently finds himself. We should expect no less for holders of CCW’s. And, in fact, if you hold a CCW from a State that has reciprocal agreements, you are advised to check with the jurisdiction in which you will be travelling to verify where you may, and may not, carry your gun – if different from you State of Issue.
I would expect, at some point in the future, someone in the Federal Government, either Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, will direct the States to honor all other State’s CCW’s, just as they honor DL’s, following the incorporation of the 2nd against the States as an individual right.
For far too long, SCOTUS has avoided this issue, allowing the idiotic “collective right” theory to gain traction, and people have gotten hurt because of it.
AD, you will never see the Supreme Court rule that concealed carry is part of the Second Amendment.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/5/2010 @ 12:15 amI never understood the ‘militia only’ aspect. If a bunch of people get together and stockpile their militia’s armory, the BATF flips out.
That the 2nd amendment would only apply to the militia the feds are happy with would be like the 10th amendment only applying to powers the federal government doesn’t try to exercise. That’s the opposite of normal legal reading.
I don’t really want my state to have to recognize all other state CCW permits. Too many crooked state systems. Let the states choose which other states run their program well enough to be reciprocal.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/5/2010 @ 12:21 amReciprocity…
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/5/2010 @ 12:34 amYes, but that denies the privilege to residents of VT and AK, who don’t require a CCW for any law-abiding person who is eligible to purchase a firearm. In those states, if you wish to carry concealed, and you have no unlawful purpose, you may (though the State of Alaska will issue CCW’s to its’ residents who wish to travel with their pistol – but if you’re a resident of VT, you’re SOL when you leave the state).
And, some states get all hung up on technicalities; such as, NV will no longer recognize UT CCW’s because UT doesn’t require as much range time as NV (or is it the Sheriff in Clark Co, who wields a tremendous amount of weight in the State when it comes to firearms?) thinks is neccessary. Other states recognize a DD-214 as a certification of the training requirement, others won’t. It is much more technical than the issuance of DL’s.
Comment by SPQR — 3/5/2010 @ 12:15 am
You’re possibly right, but I sincerely believe that the sanctity of CCW licensure should be recognized as is the DL.
Hell, here in CA, if you’re stopped in San Francisco, and you have one of those rare CCW permits issued by another City/County within CA, there is a 99 & 44/100’s percent chance that you will have your pistol confiscated by the SFPD; which will only be returned after you go to court and sue to get it back – and that’s just one piss-ant city here in CA refusing to recognize the lawful issuance by another jurisdiction in CA.
AD - RtR/OS! (f85527) — 3/5/2010 @ 12:41 amThat’s the kind of thing that gets your knickers twisted.
SPQR, I’m not sure I agree that the SC won’t endorse concealed carry. It’s anybody’s guess how courts will interpret the “and bear” part of the Second Amendment in a post-McDonald world, but a decent argument can be made that it requires every state to allow either concealed or open carry, and given that choice, wouldn’t every state opt for concealed carry?
AD, you seem to be having reading comprehension problems. Yes, your driver license will be honored in all states while traveling. No, that has nothing to do with FF&C. States recognize each other’s DLs voluntarily, not because any court ordered them to. Congress could pass a law requiring all states to honor each other’s permits, but the most a court would ever do is require states to either recognize your out of state permit or allow you to become licensed there yourself.
Xrlq (1cd5bb) — 3/5/2010 @ 4:02 am102.nk #97 – at times, you are such a Jewish Mother …
(grin)
Comment by Alasdair — 3/4/2010 @ 5:25 pm
My daddy thought I would never be a good shot, so he taught me other ways to get by. Gave me money and property and sent me to law school, too.
What he actually said was, “Your hand is too heavy. You will never learn to squeeze off three-shot bursts, either”. Honest.
nk (db4a41) — 3/5/2010 @ 8:00 am