Friday, April 6, 2012

The Way Gun-Rights Activists Keep Pushing the Boundary


A federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered the owners of a gun show business and Alameda County authorities who have banned weapons from public property to mediate their 13-year-long dispute over whether the county's policy deprives citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Lawyers for Russell and Ann Sallie Nordyke argued two weeks ago before the full U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the county's 1999 ordinance banning weapons even at gun shows traditionally held at the county fairgrounds stripped them of a fundamental right and exceeded the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of reasonable restrictions on guns in the interest of public safety.
The agreement was, after the so-called pro-gun victories in Heller and McDonald, that guns for individual use IN THE HOME were protected. That's what we all agreed on. The gun-rights folks called it a victory, the con-control people laughed.

Now, in lower courts they're trying to expand that definition, with some success all across the country.

There is a tone of desperation in all this, though. At the same time they're trying to pass these boundary-pushing laws through, they're all heeding La Pierre's warning about Obama's second term. Just look at gun sales.

It would be all fun and games it it weren't so serious. Every once in a while a report comes through of someone saving the day with a truly legitimate DGU, while EVERY day there are lists and lists of gun accidents and misuse of firearms, many of which result in the loss of life.

Although I don't believe in Wayne La Pierre's sincerity, I think he's similar to a carny hustler, greedy for his own enrichment, but for once I hope he's right. The panic among gun owners will be palpable in the air.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

18 comments:

  1. "The agreement was, after the so-called pro-gun victories in Heller and McDonald, that guns for individual use IN THE HOME were protected."

    Perhaps you should read Heller and McDonald before you blog about it.

    Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying they didn't limit the personal use of guns to "inside the home?"

      Delete
    2. "Are you saying they didn't limit the personal use of guns to "inside the home?"

      Yes, read the ruling. The SCOTUS had 3 specific questions to address. They didn't rule beyond those 3 questions.

      Delete
    3. Just so. The court identified a specific right, but gave no definition to what else it may include and certainly gave to limits beyond a vague statement that some restrictions were possible. What that means has yet to be worked out.

      Delete
    4. Yes, individual right to own guns inside the home.

      Delete
    5. You and I both know that's not all that it means.

      Delete
  2. Success followed by success in the courts and in Congress and the state legislatures--yes, we're pushing the boundaries. Your side did that during the 90s. It's our turn now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Every once in a while a report comes through of someone saving the day with a truly legitimate DGU, while EVERY day there are lists and lists of gun accidents and misuse of firearms, many of which result in the loss of life."

    That's because people have relatively few opportunities to defend themselves, and infinite possibilities to do stupid shit. Guns or no guns, the ratio would hold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for admitting the ratio is true. Wouldn't that require some controls and restrictions on guns like we have on everything else that can be harmful?

      Delete
    2. We have more than enough already.

      Delete
    3. mikeb302000 - why are controls and restrictions (presumably by the government) a solution, if anything government regulation is the problem.

      What you are doing is making the same argument used to justify the war on drugs. Illicit drugs are harmful so government needs to regulate them. But the reality is that government controls haven't stopped people from using them, it has made a criminal class out of otherwise law abiding citizens (not to mention the vast inequities in "justice" that gets meted out depending on race and class), and everyday there are lists of drug overdoses and accidents and people dying because of misuse...

      My point is illicit drugs, just like guns, are inanimate objects,

      Delete
  4. "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    Keep and bear, no limits on where or how the people could bear them nor any limits on the type of arms people could keep. You and the rest of the gun banning crowd keep trying to read limits into the Bill of Rights. Read as it was written the people have the right to carry a firearm everywhere openly or concealed with no need to jump through any government hoops.
    California has some of the most restrictive laws in the country and still only the law abiding follow them. Washington DC and Chicago are two more examples. Law abiding citizens have been stripped of their right to self defense while the lawless criminals continue to commit crimes. Criminals are the problem Mikeb and further limiting our right to self defense isn't going to stop them from committing crimes. The right to self defense doesn't end at the front door and that isn't what the SCOTUS said in their ruling. This country bought the lies of gun control from 1934 until the 1980's. Crime rates continued to rise as more and more gun laws were passed. The public has seen through your lies. Gun control doesn't lower crime rates and in fact criminals fear the armed public more than they fear the law.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MikeB gun-rights activists are pushing the boundary for a simple reason: every person has the fundamental Natural right to defend themselves if attacked. That right is not a function of a person's physical surroundings or map coordinates.

    Unfortunately local, state, and federal governments have sought to criminalize citizens who carry firearms for non-other than the noble purpose of defending themselves and their families from criminal attackers or even animals. People have had enough and are working through the courts to overturn such laws.

    The extreme irony here is how all the gun-grabbers have always stressed how dangerous gun-rights activists are ... how they might use their guns to force their agenda. Instead, gun-rights activists are using the courts. And the gun-grabbers have been using the guns of law-enforcement officers to force their agenda on citizens.

    No one has ever called for artificial limits on any particular creature's ability to defend itself in the world. Why do people call for limits on people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Artificial limits," are what you already have. You cannot own a nuclear weapon or a surfact-to-air rocket launcher. We're just haggling over where to draw the line.

      I happen to think people should be able to own personal weapons, but I suppose we differ on the qualifications I would require.

      Delete
    2. Nuclear weapons again? Do you realize that I've seen people arguing that our current understanding of the Second Amendment has to include nukes, and the vast majority of the people who say that are gun control advocates. We who support gun rights are by and large much more reasonable on this question. Of course, I've already explained how nukes aren't what the amendment is about, but let's never allow facts and logic to matter in the discussion. . .

      Delete
    3. Well, where do you draw the line? What would be your "artificial limit?"

      Delete
    4. The answer is simple. Citizens have the right to possess arms for the purpose of self defense and security of our state. A citizen does not need a nuclear bomb for self defense. Further, a citizen could use the nuclear bomb for a terrorist act which weakens the security of our free state. And a citizen couldn't even justify using a nuclear bomb to stop a "rogue government" bent on tyranny.

      You can run this simple reasoning down the line of progressively smaller weapons. I believe a sensible line is to prohibit any weapon that can easily destroy city blocks or large buildings. Anything else is up for discussion.

      Delete
    5. My answer to the question can be found here:

      http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/size-matters/

      Delete