Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?

[www.BrinkZone.com]

What else do u need to know....

Me, nothing, but as you can see, he's done a good job of convincing those on the fence that perhaps he's not so anti gun after all.

[Decker]

Like all politicians, he talks out of both sides of his mouth:

    *  Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
    * Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
    * 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
    * Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
    * Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
    * Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
    * Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
    * Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control

What exactly is a president supposed to do if municipalities want to ban handguns?  Sounds like a States' rights issue to me.

I don't see anything in your catalog that shows Obama wants to ban handguns.  Seems like he's been consistent on the issue--some regulation is his way of dealing with guns and gun problems.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

What exactly is a president supposed to do if municipalities want to ban handguns?  Sounds like a States' rights issue to me.

It's not, it's a US Const. Issue. State do have the right to have "reasonable" regulation, but that's where much of the fighting takes place and what is being looked at right now by SCOTUS. DC decided "reasonable" was to ban handguns, and that's what's at stake with the SCOTUS case which relates to the issues of individual vs. collective Right, etc.

I don't see anything in your catalog that shows Obama wants to ban handguns.

He is for a total ban on CCW for anyone but retired police. That is effectively banning handguns for self defense, as they are not much damn good if left at home when you may need one are they? Like saying cars are legal, but only if left in the drive way, which effectivly bans cars in any meaningful way. You have to actually look at the effects of a reg/law not just what comes out of their mouth.

Seems like he's been consistent on the issue

Yes, consistently worthless and clueless...

[Decker]

It's not, it's a US Const. Issue. State do have the right to have "reasonable" regulation, but that's where much of the fighting takes place and what is being looked at right now by SCOTUS. DC decided "reasonable" was to ban handguns, and that's what's at stake with the SCOTUS case which relates to the issues of individual vs. collective Right, etc.

Yeah I saw that.  In the tradition of past decisions, a handgun ban is not a ban on all guns.  However, the SCT is starting to view that differently.  Like you said, It's doing a 180 re the 2nd A as a personal right.  It's never held that way before.  So we could be seeing a change.

He is for a total ban on CCW for anyone but retired police. That is effectively banning handguns for self defense, as they are not much damn good if left at home when you may need one are they? Like saying cars are legal, but only if left in the drive way, which effectivly bans cars in any meaningful way. You have to actually look at the effects of a reg/law not just what comes out of their mouth.

Yes, consistently worthless and clueless...

Not having a Concealed carry law is not an effective ban on handguns for self defense.  Tell that to people that defend themselves or others at home.  Frankly, I could care less about gun rights.  It doesn't really matter to me personally.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

Yeah I saw that.  In the tradition of past decisions, a handgun ban is not a ban on all guns.

But it is a ban on handguns, which effectively prevents law abiding citizens from self defense when out of their homes, does not lower crime, etc, etc, and is not Const. in the view of many, and not in the view of SCOTUS if they conclude as most expect they will in June.

However, the SCT is starting to view that differently.  Like you said, It's doing a 180 re the 2nd A as a personal right.

SCOTUS is not dong 180 turn on that. They have never in their history actually directly decided on that.

It's never held that way before.

100% untrue. It has historically been viewed (because it is) as an individual right and the collective right BS is fairly recent.

So we could be seeing a change.
Not having a Concealed carry law is not an effective ban on handguns for self defense.  Tell that to people that defend themselves or others at home.  Frankly, I could care less about gun rights.  It doesn't really matter to me personally.

You could not be more incorrect about that if you tried, and the "If it does not affect me personally right this minute, so I don't care about it" approach to a Democracy is a sure fired way to lose it. When enough people take your approach, we are all fuc&^ed...

[Decker]

But it is a ban on handguns, which effectively prevents law abiding citizens from self defense when out of their homes, does not lower crime, etc, etc, and is not Const. in the view of many, and not in the view of SCOTUS if they conclude as most expect they will in June.

Judicial activism in action.

SCOTUS is not dong 180 turn on that. They have never in their history actually directly decided on that

So what if there hasn't been a case on point?  The court has used the following principle from the 1939 case US v. Miller:  "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.""

100% untrue. It has historically been viewed (because it is) as an individual right and the collective right BS is fairly recent.

Right.  Only if almost 70 years of jurisprudence is fairly recent to you.

You could not be more incorrect about that if you tried.

Sure I could, I could agree with you.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

Judicial activism in action.

SCOTUS deciding on Const. matters is "activism." Right.

So what if there hasn't been a case on point?  The court has used the following principle from the 1939 case US v. Miller:  "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.""

Would you like to tell me exactly what page and section of the Miller case that can be found? The Miller case is often miss cited by lower courts and or people who don't like what the Miller case actually concluded, which you can read here, as well as the other 5 SCOTUS cases: U.S. v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas, U.S. v. Miller, and Lewis v. U.S., relating to this issue here:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html


The rest of our comments are based on ignorance of the topic.

[Decker]

SCOTUS deciding on Const. matters is "activism." Right.

Would you like to tell me exactly what page and section of the Miller case that can be found? The Miller case is often miss cited by lower courts and or people who don't like what the Miller case actually concluded, which you can read here, as well as the other 5 SCOTUS cases: U.S. v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas, U.S. v. Miller, and Lewis v. U.S., relating to this issue here:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html


The rest of our comments are based on ignorance of the topic.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=174  UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

I see a two part test re the reasonable relationship of the legislation to the matter at hand: 1. concerns the weapon itself and 2. concerns the weapon holder.  Was the weapon the kind related to a well-regulated militia and was the weaponholder related to a well-regulated militia.

Let’s see how that interpretation has been repeated or refined in subsequent cases:

E. Adams v. Williams 407 U.S. 143, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 322 Ed. 612 (1972)

“The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct . 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."”
--Justice Douglas

Lewis v. United States 445 U.S. 95, 100 S. Ct. 915 __ L.Ed. ____ (1980)

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S. Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does (p.37)not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1975); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that Sec. 1202(a)(1), Sec. 922(g), and Sec. 922(a)(6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

--Justice Blackmun

I don’t know about you, but I see "well-regulated militia" all over the place.
I don’t see an individual right, fundamental right or personal right anywhere.  Do you?

But in all fairness, you claim that that is a false argument anyways so I suppose the point is moot with you.

[calmus]

After reading hh6's posts on here, I now strongly support psychological testing before a firearms permit of any kind is issued. 

[www.BrinkZone.com]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=174  UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Ergo, rifles shorter than 18 inches were deemed not required for "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and not typical military arms, therefore, not Const. protected. Ergo "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

And what is the militia? From that page you linked:

"'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Who is the militia? You and I:

Federal Statutes Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" states:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males* at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

* (no longer exclusively male)


But I asked you to show me exactly where this statement you posted exists from the Miller case:

"...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

If I am missing that exact statement in the URL you posted, my apologies, However, if i does not exist, then you need to step up and admit that...

Again, I supplied a URL that covers the above issues well and you show yourself not as well read on the topic as you pretend to be. If you want to learn more on the topic, URL was supplied. People who attempt to use the militia = collective right routine are easy enough to prove wrong, as shown above. In that case, such people (hopefully not you) then start with "well the Second Amendment does not apply to todays world" or "well they didn't have m16s then" and other BS once shown their original stance is shown to be false, as yours has.

[xxxLinda]

All politicians here lie.

Amazing 240, you're so apolitical, so right on !

You've got a pro thead, a con thread and an all-out thread all going on at once?
x

[calmus]

Monster debating a dodge-the-question opinion as if it provides some answers. very good use of time.

[240 is Back]

Amazing 240, you're so apolitical, so right on !

You've got a pro thead, a con thread and an all-out thread all going on at once?
x

ain't it cool?  By taking all positions I can equally piss off all readers, encouraging them to contribute to the discussion and growing the political board.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

Monster debating a dodge-the-question opinion as if it provides some answers. very good use of time.

Don't know who you are talking to, but both Decker and I have supplied more info on the topic pro, and con, than you have. If you have the answers, by all means, supply them.

[Decker]

Ergo, rifles shorter than 18 inches were deemed not required for "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and not typical military arms, therefore, not Const. protected. Ergo "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

And what is the militia? From that page you linked:

"'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Who is the militia? You and I:

Federal Statutes Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" states:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males* at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

* (no longer exclusively male)

I have seen this kind of justification you provide before.  Of course the militia is a state run entity populated by people.  That doesn’t change the fact that nowhere does it list a personal or individual or fundamental right to own a gun.  The Miller test does reference militias or as I like to call them “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline”… Does that definition of militia look like "militia" means an individual person to you?  Of course not.  

But I asked you to show me exactly where this statement you posted exists from the Miller case:

"...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

If I am missing that exact statement in the URL you posted, my apologies, However, if i does not exist, then you need to step up and admit that...

Again, I supplied a URL that covers the above issues well and you show yourself not as well read on the topic as you pretend to be. If you want to learn more on the topic, URL was supplied. People who attempt to use the militia = collective right routine are easy enough to prove wrong, as shown above. In that case, such people (hopefully not you) then start with "well the Second Amendment does not apply to todays world" or "well they didn't have m16s then" and other BS once shown their original stance is shown to be false, as yours has.

I guess you are missing the words “well-regulated militia” in the above paragraph.  Your fundamental misunderstanding or obfuscation over what a ‘militia’ is is a problem I see prevalent among people, like yourself, prejudiced towards the proliferation of guns.

So, to clear up you fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment, here’re are some more quotes from the courts on what it means:

Eckert v. City of Philadelphia 477 F.2d 610 (3rd 1973)
Appellant's theory in the district court which he now repeats is that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that.

U.S. v. Johnson 497 F.2d 548 (4th 1974)
The statute prohibiting the transportation of a firearm in interstate commerce after having been convicted of a felony is not unconstitutional as violative of defendant's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms since the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a reasonable relationship to the presentation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.(p.39)

Stevens v. U.S. 440 F.2d 144 (6th 1971)
Constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies only to the right of the state to maintain militia and not to individuals' rights to bear arms. Congress had authority under commerce clause to prohibit possession of firearms by convicted felons, based upon congressional finding that such possession passes threat to interstate commerce.

U.S. v. Day 476 F.2d 562 (6th 1973)
As to the alleged right to bear arms, Day's claim is meritless. There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.

U.S. v. Warin 530 F.2d 103 (6th 1976)
It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right. The fact that the defendant Warin, in common with all adult residents and citizens (p.41)of Ohio, is subject to enrollment in the militia of the state confers on him no right to possess the submachine gun in question.

There’s boatload more where those came from but I think you get the point.

Now we have an activist right-wing court changing longstanding jurisprudence.

[calmus]

Don't know who you are talking to, but both Decker and I have supplied more info on the topic pro, and con, than you have. If you have the answers, by all means, supply them.

I haven't read most of the posts on here.  However, if you're looking for answers in Miller, you're not going to find them.  Miller was basically brought by the Federal govt to see if their regs would pass judicial review.

McReynolds took the middle path: the pragmatic approach.  2nd amendment does guarantee a general right to bear arms, but the government can regulate firearms. 

You can post about Miller till you're blue in the face, but you're not going to get any further than the preceding sentence.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

I guess you are missing the words “well-regulated militia” in the above paragraph. 

And I am now asking you again, were does "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." appear in the Miller case?

If  you will not stop dodging that simple question, then you have shown that you are an intellectually dishonest person who can't be trusted to have an objective debate on the topic.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

You can post about Miller till you're blue in the face, but you're not going to get any further than the preceding sentence.

Agreed. And he has now been nailed fabricating quotes from the Miller case that don't exist. Must work for the Brady Bunch....

[Decker]

And I am now asking you again, were does "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." appear in th Miller case?

If  you will not stop dodging that simple question, then you have shown that you are an intellectually dishonest person who can't be trusted to have an objective debate on the topic.

It's not a dodge.  The 2nd amendment as it is quoted, as it is interpreted and as it is applied by the court in subsequent cases states the principal of group right over individual right b/c under your reading, the word "militia" loses all meaning.  If the founders meant individual they would have used a word to denote that.  Instead they used a word denoting a group.

Here is the crux of the matter that you have to understand:  It's not an explicit holding, rather it's an implicit principal of judicial construction of the 2nd amendment.  

That's why there's a long litany of court cases recounting that principal.  

Although I don't care about the gun debate, this is fun.

[Brixtonbulldog]

It's not a dodge.  The 2nd amendment as it is quoted, as it is interpreted and as it is applied by the court in subsequent cases states the principal of group right over individual right b/c under your reading, the word "militia" loses all meaning.  If the founders meant individual they would have used a word to denote that.  Instead they used a word denoting a group.

Here is the crux of the matter that you have to understand:  It's not an explicit holding, rather it's an implicit principal of judicial construction of the 2nd amendment.  

That's why there's a long litany of court cases recounting that principal.  

Although I don't care about the gun debate, this is fun.

A collective right defeats the definition of a right.  Rights are individual freedoms LIKE EVERY OTHER AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.  Duh...

People like you make it impossible for honest Americans to defend themselves.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

It's not a dodge.

It sure the hell is. Your words:

"The court has used the following principle from the 1939 case US v. Miller:  "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

Would ANYONE reading the above, in quotes no less, who didn't know better, not read that as a direct quote from the Miller case?

Although I don't care about the gun debate, this is fun.

Translated, you fabricated a quote and are now busted. You assumed I would not check it and or know it off hand. You were wrong.You lied, and were nailed, which confirms you are intellectually dishonest, and thus not worthy of objective debate on the topic as you are willing to fabricate/lie to support a position.

[Brixtonbulldog]

which confirms you are intellectually dishonest

ah HAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!! Sing it sister!!  oh man...

[Decker]

A collective right defeats the definition of a right.  Rights are individual freedoms LIKE EVERY OTHER AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.  Duh...

People like you make it impossible for honest Americans to defend themselves.

I guess you've never heard of implied rights or collective rights.  Do a search and then get back to me.

[xxxLinda]

ah HAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!! Sing it sister!!  oh man...

Guns have always been illegal here in England, so I don't know what you're talking about.  I used to think that the American Constitution and "The Right to Bear Arms" was rather a fabulous unique US thing and I admired it.

For sure it's not been administered well, but surely your candidate Obama can't be "favouring a ban on handguns"?  What would you do with them all, I thought every American had one under the bed.  Will you hand them all in and ship them to a place where they may be put to better use?  Or maybe Obama is proposing to melt them all down?  Please let me know what he thinks he'll do with them. 

I'm not rereading all your US laws, I've defended them all my life.  Now you wanna rewrite it all?  Can't keep up, we're not getting any of this on the BBC.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

I guess you've never heard of implied rights or collective rights.  Do a search and then get back to me.

Why, you gonna fabricate another quote for him too? Here's my quote:

"Every American should have a LAW Rocket under their pillow" - George Washington. Hey, as long as we are fabricating quotes....