Gun News

[Zeno Swijtink]

Court Rules in Favor of Second Amendment Gun Right
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 26, 2008; 10:45 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

***

3rd victim of S.F. road-rage shooting dies
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

(06-24) 20:12 PDT San Francisco -- The third victim of a road-rage shooting in San Francisco died Tuesday night, and police released a composite sketch of the gunman and pleaded for the public's help in solving the triple slaying.
Investigators say Anthony Bologna, 48, and his son Michael, 20, were shot and killed following a minor traffic hassle in the Excelsior district, even though the elder Bologna pulled back to allow the gunman's gray Chrysler 300M room to finish a turn onto a narrow street.

After completing the turn, the driver of the car opened fire, killing the elder Bologna and his oldest son at the scene.

Bologna's youngest son, Matthew, 16, was taken off life support at San Francisco General Hospital late Tuesday and was pronounced dead at 6:24 p.m. Police said they have an image of the suspect's car that was taken from a nearby surveillance camera.

They did not release the image. Instead, they released a photo of a car like the one in the image.San Francisco police Lt. Mike Stasko said that while detectives are moving forward on several fronts, they need the public's help in the case.
"We are just asking anybody and everybody who has information to come forward," Stasko said. "If they saw anything, anything out there, contact us."

Ninozka Baughman, the victim's sister in law, said she hopes someone comes forward to allow police to make an arrest.

"They need to put this guy behind bars - he's a danger to the community. Anybody with any information, please, please contact the Police Department."

E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at [email protected].
This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San*Francisco*Chronicle
***
Handgun Self-Defense
America’s Biggest Secret?

Home invasions. Rapes. Carjackings. Murders. Everyday our local and national news reports that these heinous crimes are being committed all around us. What is rarely reported is the number of crimes which are prevented when people use guns in self-defense. According to research by Florida State University and other universities, an estimated 2.5 million ordinary Americans use a gun to protect themselves from criminals each year. In the majority of cases, no shots are ever fired; the mere act of wielding a weapon is enough to deter the criminal and stop the intended offense.

Even more interesting is to find out who these gun-carrying citizens are. They’re average everyday people; level-headed, responsible citizens that you would sit beside in church on Sunday or play golf with on weekends. So why are most of us stunned when we see the results of these studies?

“At first glance the statistics might seem high,” says Chris Bird, a gun-rights activist and author of the new book, “Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense (Privateer Publications, 2007). “But you must understand the dynamics involved. For example, most people who defend themselves with a gun don’t report the incident to law enforcement officials. And unless a criminal is actually shot, you probably won’t hear about it in the news.”

A former investigative reporter, Bird believes there are additional reasons these incidents go under-reported. “Fear deters many people from reporting a self-defense confrontation,” says Bird. “Can you imagine being arrested for protecting yourself? ‘He-said, she-said’ type cases are typically left to a prosecutor’s discretion. That means the person defending himself could wind up on the wrong side of the law.”

Another factor is the location of the attempted crime. People are much more hesitant to involve the police when the incident occurs outside of their home or off their property. Laws vary from state to state, but most people don’t want to be subjected to interpretations of gun use laws that could find them at fault, even though they were protecting themselves.

Researchers at Saint Louis University have taken defensive gun use studies even further. They’ve tried to determine the impact of armed self-defense on the crime rate. According to the study, civilians kill an average of 299 felons per year (88% with guns) in cases of justifiable homicide. Based on the shooting deaths of those felons, researchers estimate that there are approximately 400,000 fewer violent crimes each year.

“One of the best-kept secrets in America is how often and effectively ordinary citizens defend themselves with firearms against a criminal attack or threat,” says Bird. “For decades, Americans have been brainwashed into taking a passive role in their own survival. "Fortunately, some citizens have ignored that advice and are taking responsibility for their own safety and survival."

[Lenny]

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found." Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Two things.
What does Justice Steven mean? Sorry, I just don't get it. Or if I do, then he is wrong.
Justice Breyer is right. Gun rights were not kept to keep criminals in line.
The Constitution was born in a country were guns were used to overthrow a government, which means it was used to shoot government employees. The amendment was NOT made to deal with criminals, as they knew how to do that back then. The amendment was made to shoot government people if the time came to do so. Just as they did back then, we've kept that right to do so again. Anybody NOT clear on that?
We have elections to get rid of the critters that ruin, if not compromise our freedoms, but that IS the basic issue for the people having guns. Why the media frames it in other ways is......well, it is what it is....you tell me why......

[theindependenteye]

>>The amendment was made to shoot government people if the time came to do so. Just as they did back then, we've kept that right to do so again. Anybody NOT clear on that?

Dear Lenny--

I really do find common ground with you in the angularity & quirkiness of your posts, humor and bullheadedness combined. I think we have similar eyes but very different processing units, and so it's really refreshing to enter these slippery debates, knowing that neither one of us will have the remotest effect on the outcome of the universe.

Your point is clear, but I'd question that the framers, as propertied aristocrats, held such a sweeping anti-government view. They were very concerned with states' rights vs. federal rights, but the prospect of mob democracy was at least as frightening to them as anything else. Of course at that point the idea of limiting individual gun ownership would have been untenable, and the citizen-soldier was still within memory. They could hardly have come up with a more confusing phrasing for the 2nd Amendment, and small wonder it's taken so long for the courts to try to unravel it.

But what I'm indeed NOT clear on is your sense of its relevance to the present. I've heard this stated many times: an armed citizenry will curtail ambitious tyrants. How would that work, exactly? Could Sebastopol -- well, no, Liberals are too gun-shy. Could Odessa, Texas, assemble enough weaponry, even on the black market, to withstand even a single Marine platoon? That sorta went out the window with Shays' Rebellion, before they'd even written the Constitution, but it dies hard. Scalia argued from "the historical narrative," but it's hard to believe that the Framers, meeting shortly on the heels of the Massachusetts rebellion (which I've read scared the shit out of Washington & others), would have intended to guarantee the gun rights of Daniel Shays.

So that justification -- i.e. protecting our freedom -- seems to be more an argument for guns as tools for political assassination, terrorism, or paramilitary groups, unless we can someday look forward to a nuclear-armed Sebastopol. Though it may happen in other quarters. If we're now privatizing our wars with Blackwater et. al., we may be on the verge of the armed multinational. Which I'm not entirely sure will carry our freedom in its heart.

Peace, joy, and more bang for your bucks--
Conrad

[handy]

>>The amendment was made to shoot government people if the time came to do so. Just as they did back then, we've kept that right to do so again. Anybody NOT clear on that?

Dear Lenny--

I really do find common ground with you in the angularity & quirkiness of your posts, humor and bullheadedness combined. I think we have similar eyes but very different processing units, and so it's really refreshing to enter these slippery debates, knowing that neither one of us will have the remotest effect on the outcome of the universe.

Your point is clear, but I'd question that the framers, as propertied aristocrats, held such a sweeping anti-government view. They were very concerned with states' rights vs. federal rights, but the prospect of mob democracy was at least as frightening to them as anything else. Of course at that point the idea of limiting individual gun ownership would have been untenable, and the citizen-soldier was still within memory. They could hardly have come up with a more confusing phrasing for the 2nd Amendment, and small wonder it's taken so long for the courts to try to unravel it.>>>

I don't see any confusion in the phrasing. It seems clear to me that they were saying, "Look, sooner or later, you may have to self-organize into a militia. You can't form a militia if you're not armed. Therefore, 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'."

The fact that they recognized the need for "well regulated" should call into question the constitutionality of most "conspiracy" laws, as well, since regulation of self organizing systems requires complex communication, which the conspiracy laws are designed to prevent or punish.

<<>>

Well, just for one local instance, do you think the deputy would have shot Jeremiah Chass (eight times?) if his Dad was standing by armed? After all, they did call for help, not lethal force. I'm guessing the father might claim to have a say in that decision.

<<<>>>

This seems overly paranoid...or just straw man argument. Political assassination is even rarer than acts of terrorism (and arguably justifiable in some cases), and local paramilitary may very well serve as rapid training core for local formation of a "well regulated militia". Don't understand why you'd lump them together. And nuclear armed Sebastopol?!? C'mo-o-on...
We are (I thought) discussing the rights of individuals...

<<<
Peace, joy, and more bang for your bucks--
Conrad

What happens when it is Blackwater ordering you out of your house at FEMA's behest, say after a quake? Suppose you don't want to leave?

We live in interesting times
and remember,
When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

[theindependenteye]

>>Well, just for one local instance, do you think the deputy would have shot Jeremiah Chass (eight times?) if his Dad was standing by armed?

No, no question: they'd have shot the dad first.

>What happens when it is Blackwater ordering you out of your house at FEMA's behest, say after a quake? Suppose you don't want to leave?

I'll go, fast. Though if I'm in a neighborhood where people are armed, they'll certainly come in armed, and then I'll just hide in the closet, if I still have a closet. You're going to shoot it out with those guys? Good luck.

[handy]

>>Well, just for one local instance, do you think the deputy would have shot Jeremiah Chass (eight times?) if his Dad was standing by armed?

No, no question: they'd have shot the dad first.

Hah! True dat, probably! Sad, but true.

[Lenny]

>>The amendment was made to shoot government people if the time came to do so. Just as they did back then, we've kept that right to do so again. Anybody NOT clear on that?

Dear Lenny--
Your point is clear, but I'd question that the framers, as propertied aristocrats, held such a sweeping anti-government view. They were very concerned with states' rights vs. federal rights, but the prospect of mob democracy was at least as frightening to them as anything else. Of course at that point the idea of limiting individual gun ownership would have been untenable, and the citizen-soldier was still within memory. They could hardly have come up with a more confusing phrasing for the 2nd Amendment, and small wonder it's taken so long for the courts to try to unravel it.

So true and fine points you make. As you recall Washington himself had been in the trenches during the Indian wars and in so doing brought with him the common experience universal to all classes of aristocrats: educated warriors. Their education taught them that mob rule democracy was the worst form of government, witnessing and knowing the beast that makes man an animal. However I find they had ways around that, while giving voice to folks during peaceful times. As I trust you have found, it was a moment of brilliance and construction unparalleled in history. And like this yin-yang symbol spinning here, it may contain seeds of it's own destruction, if not carefully guarded.

But what I'm indeed NOT clear on is your sense of its relevance to the present. I've heard this stated many times: an armed citizenry will curtail ambitious tyrants. How would that work, exactly? Could Sebastopol -- well, no, Liberals are too gun-shy. Could Odessa, Texas, assemble enough weaponry, even on the black market, to withstand even a single Marine platoon? That sorta went out the window with Shays' Rebellion, before they'd even written the Constitution, but it dies hard. Scalia argued from "the historical narrative," but it's hard to believe that the Framers, meeting shortly on the heels of the Massachusetts rebellion (which I've read scared the shit out of Washington & others), would have intended to guarantee the gun rights of Daniel Shays.

I too have trouble imagining reality, but that won't stop us, eh?
This is a synopsis of the below crud I wrote, as I am interrupted by the rudness of things undone around my house. Each man & woman will not shoot citizens nor harm them, while doing government work, due to oaths affirming their allegiance to the Constitution. That's it!

To wit: those "Mormons" that practice polygamy were (and continue) successful in their ways, partly because of guns. Now the "notion" of guns has such symbolic meaning that your example of Marine platoon (you WOULD pick the best, eh?) is problematic, however in an historical perspective, it could still stand The Test. And an element of The Test is the sworn oath every person takes to become a ........even a Marine! And in this nation-state, we don't shoot our citizens. Pure and simple.
That is why President Clinton/Janet Reno with Ruby Ridge and Wacco were tragic, and the nation went ballistic over it, especially "the right wing", for these very reasons: the feds don't show up for internal problems NOR shoot citizens! ("We're doing it for the children") Yes, I know that President Kennedy called out federal troops to escort little girls to school (first time since Civil War, no?).
I have to wonder as many political factions taunt soldiers to "think about it", and I imagine that it would be so true that soldiers, cops, and those forces would NOT fire upon citizens that were doing something allowable under the law, or at least use force proportionate to the issue at hand. One of the considerations of those in law enforcement is the armed citizenry, but it is usually held for criminality. Those that are in government position must consider armed citizenry and force in light of the actions not being criminal. And the citizenry, with guns, is there to have them consider another alternative. Now the long shot: a platoon of Marines would not engage folks going to a church that was, for example, like that one that hates gays, simply for voicing their odious opinion. The platoon will brake down if ordered to do so.
I hear it's not done in other places, especially utilizing "minorities" or those that have conflict with the principles. Imagine Hunters Point or Marin City cops coming over to West Sonoma to enforce the marijuana laws! That is how those horrific regimes keep citizenry in check. A couple of years ago in Eastern Europe an opera house was overtaken by extremists/terrorists. The Russians sent troops into that building that killed EVERYBODY. I recall several years ago, in Libya or Algeria, some terrorist captured a Russian consulate with demands. After communication was established, the Russians found out the main terrorist's village: killed the whole village without a problem. Hostages were immediately released.

So that justification -- i.e. protecting our freedom -- seems to be more an argument for guns as tools for political assassination, terrorism, or paramilitary groups, unless we can someday look forward to a nuclear-armed Sebastopol. Though it may happen in other quarters. If we're now privatizing our wars with Blackwater et. al., we may be on the verge of the armed multinational. Which I'm not entirely sure will carry our freedom in its heart.
Peace, joy, and more bang for your bucks-- Conrad

It is expected that the citizenry of Sebastopol utilize the most powerful weapon on earth to all that will listen to that blather. It is up to the "gun nuts" to ensure that they may do so, as troublesome as they seem to want to be.
It was a different time when that amendment was penned, with constructs unforeseen, however the notion of self protection from a government was part of it. Now, it may appear almost imperceptible as it was made for a group not as diverse as today's America, and in light of a "multinational" force, it will be even more important to allow it's citizenry to arm. That IS what is meant by that deal: force does come from a barrel of a gun, as Mao put it. But Washington said it before him: government IS force.
Oh, and the guy that wrote a bunch of them there words, also penned
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Always faithful, but tired today