Mikeb302000

Monday, May 31, 2010

Murder - Suicide in Minnesota

The Northlands News Center reports on this latest tragedy.

What's your opinion? Do you think he would have used a knife if there'd been no gun in the house? Isn't a gun less personal, less hands-on, and therefore an aid to someone like this?

Please leave a comment.

Concealed Carry Guns in Bars

The problem with this is twofold: The pro-gun crowd pretends all the concealed carry guys are responsible, which they're not. And they pretend all the bars are classy eating establishments where families go, which they're not.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Loopholes Loopholes Everywhere

WKTV reports on the issues surrounding a shooting incident which took place in upstate New York last week.

79-year-old Abraham Dickan walked into the store and opened fire with an illegal gun. For now, it's the scene of a crime but gun control advocates are calling it a sign of the times.

"What this showcases...is how easy it is for someone to possess a gun that is illegal," says Angelo Roefaro, New York State Coordinator for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

The Coalition says the shooting begs the question, how did a 79-year-old man get his hands on the weapon? They say it could be an example of the loophole law. People cross state lines and buy guns with cash, no questions asked. The Coalition says illegal gun trafficking can happen anywhere.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association says loophole law or not, it's up to law enforcement to crack down on who is carrying the gun.

The article provides links to the background stories. Basically, the guy was an angry and unfit gun owner. When his pistol permit was revoked he didn't miss a beat. He picked up an unlicensed gun to continue his aggressive behavior.

What's your opinion? Is it too easy for a guy like this, who is obviously dangerous, to arm himself? Is that just a small price we must pay for the rest of us to enjoy the 2nd Amendment?

What do they mean by "loophole law?" Is that just another way to describe the ease with which disqualified people can cross state lines to buy guns more easily? Or is there more to this "law?" Either way, can we all agree that they're really overusing the word "loophole?"

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

McDonald vs. Chicago

The Huffington Post published a wonderful article by Lonnie Saunders about McDonald vs. Chicago.

I had a front row seat, next to the attorneys for Petitioner Otis McDonald, the 76-year-old South Side African-American grandfather, who brought this action. From the justices' questions, it sure didn't seem like a slam dunk for the gun lobby.

Now, that's a refreshing and hopeful change from what I've been hearing from the pro-gun side. Ms. Saunders goes on to explain in very simple terms the difference between the District of Columbia and Chicago, pointing out the fact that even the conservative Justices favor States Rights in many cases.

Attorney Benna Ruth Solomon, who represents the city of Chicago, explained it this way: "We are defending the right of choice for state and local governments. We are not the party seeking to change the law that has existed for the past 200 years. We are not seeking to impose Chicago's handgun ban on other jurisdictions. Gun regulation decisions should be made based on local conditions."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in particular, have traditionally paid careful heed to states' rights. As Justice Antonin Scalia put it during oral arguments in McDonald, "If there is a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is, and everything above that is up to the states. In Heller, we did not decide the concealed carry law. You may have a great deal of divergence from state to state, and on that I suppose the legislature would do statistics. Statistics are not important for judges but they would be for the legislatures."

What's your opinion? Is this decision a slam dunk for the gun rights side? Are the gun control folks just whistling in the dark here?

Please leave a comment.