Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Gun Control in the US: Second Amendment "Incorporated" in CA

mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
edited April 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Well, not just California but the entire ninth circuit.

Citizens can challenge state, local gun laws
(04-20) 19:10 PDT San Francisco -- A federal appeals court ruled Monday that private citizens can challenge state and local gun laws by invoking the constitutional right to bear arms - the first such ruling in the nation - but upheld a ban on firearms at gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton.

So basically the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which covers the entire West Coast, Alaska, Hawaii, and a couple flyover states, ruled that an individual right to bear arms (as established by the Supreme Court earlier with the Heller decision) applies at the state and local level as well (a question that was avoided in Heller). Which means that citizens in the entire district (California and Hawaii in particular) can now challenge firearms restrictions, including carry restrictions, on Constitutional grounds.

I haven't read the entire decision yet, but it seems the question of what level of review to apply was not addressed yet (also avoided in Heller). However, considering it's an enumerated Constitutional right (in the original Bill of Rights, no less) it's not unlikely that it will eventually fall under strict scrutiny.

The case involved gun show organizers who were restricted from holding a gun show on the fairgrounds in Alameda County by a law banning firearms on all city/county property. The court upheld the restriction, but stated in the ruling that the Constitutional right did apply in this case (but that, under Heller, the fairgrounds was a "sensitive" area that could be restricted).

I'm not sure if the County can even appeal (seeing as they won), and I doubt the gun show organizers are likely to, so this is probably fairly final. To my understanding, this can be considered as a non-binding precedent in any other circuit now as well...though it can also be ignored (conflicting rulings would almost certainly trigger a Supreme Court decision).


So, yeah. Discuss? I'm thinking this will become a huge issue in California right quickly, despite the fact that (at least judging by news.google.com) it's receiving very little press coverage. For instance, you've got pretty much instant grounds to challenge any county where "may-issue" concealed carry pretty much means "no-issue," seeing as loaded open carry is also (to my knowledge) illegal. Not sure how successful some of these challenges will be, but it should be interesting to see what happens.


EDIT: I'm guessing part of the lack of coverage is the fact that this was pretty much a foregone conclusion? I mean, it hadn't happened yet but did anybody really think that after Heller the second amendment wasn't going to be incorporated eventually?

EDIT: Upon further google-monkeying, I see two corrections. One, the circuit still hasn't decided whether to hear the case en banc, so this isn't "final" final yet. Two, I should probably put "incorporation" in quotes since that term apparently technically only applies when the Supreme Court does it.

EDIT: Also I'm retroactively making this not the thread for discussing the likelihood of success of an armed insurgency against the U.S. government by armed citizens. If anybody really wants to discuss it, start a thread and go wild.

mcdermott on
«13456

Posts

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Let me be the first to say:

    Yes!

    *Fist Bump* anyone?

  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    For my celebration I will shoot my gun

    edit-But seriously this is fucked up

    I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks..
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Oh, I'm fist-bumping. Like I said, it's an expected outcome but it's good to see it becoming (nearly) official.

    I don't know whether anybody will have much luck challenging California's carry policies now (Heller didn't specifically protect carry, to my knowledge, but it does imply self-defense as a reason for the right and does not imply that general limitations on carry are Constitutional, only more specific ones), but it's almost certainly going to happen if/when this becomes final.

    Can you imagine California having to go shall-issue? Yikes. Heads will explode up and down the coast.

  • stawkstawk Registered User
    edited April 2009
    i imagine allot of people are going to be carrying concealed weapons now...

  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So, does this mean you will soon be able to carry a weapon concealed in California as long as you don't have a felony?

    Spoiler:
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    never die wrote: »
    So, does this mean you will soon be able to carry a weapon concealed in California as long as you don't have a felony?

    I'm also wondering what this means practically, could someone explain it in simple terms to my extreme layman?

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Well someone has to specifically challenge the carry laws right? It'll be a while before any application of the law is changed.

    rodq.jpg
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Sounds good.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    never die wrote: »
    So, does this mean you will soon be able to carry a weapon concealed in California as long as you don't have a felony?

    Maybe, maybe not.

    - First, the ruling has to be finalized (the 9th Circuit needs to decide whether or not to hear it en banc...this was only a, IIRC, 3-judge panel, though a unanimous one)

    - Then, a resident has to successfully challenge limitations on carry based on the second amendment. That's going to be tough. Like I said, the only reason I think such a challenge is possible in California is because many counties effectively do not issue permits and open carry is illegal as well...thus making any sort of carry for self defense outside the home (and outside "sensitive" areas) illegal for most residents. Though really it opens up challenges to "may issue" laws in general.

    Key word? Successfully.


    But in general what this decision means is that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution now applies to state and local laws, regardless of whether their state constitutions grant the right. Previously, Heller only applied (basically) to federal laws and the District of Columbia.


    EDIT: Basically it opened up the challenge to carry restrictions. Previously, if you tried to challenge California carry restrictions on second amendment grounds a California court could just tell you to fuck off and die.

    EDIT: En banc just means, IIRC, the whole court. Well, in other circuits. In the 9th, since it's ZOMG HUGE, it means a 15-judge panel. New arguments, new ruling.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I find this funny because the Ninth Circuit has been accused of being a bunch of dirty liberals.

  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.

    steam_sig.png
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Good ruling. I'm one of those crazy liberals who actually supports gun rights. It's apparent to me that the founders intended for everyone to have the right to carry a firearm. If they want to change that and take the right away, it requires a constitutional amendment.

    Now if you are fucking crazy or a felon, then of course you can lose your right to bear arms, just like you can lose other rights by violating the law. I'm not that crazy.
    False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    For those non-Americans among us, could you explain what this means? Good/Bad thing? More legal wrangling to sap state resources? More restrictions on 'gun restrictions'?

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.

    More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?

    An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    So, does this mean you will soon be able to carry a weapon concealed in California as long as you don't have a felony?

    Maybe, maybe not.

    - First, the ruling has to be finalized (the 9th Circuit needs to decide whether or not to hear it en banc...this was only a, IIRC, 3-judge panel, though a unanimous one)

    - Then, a resident has to successfully challenge limitations on carry based on the second amendment. That's going to be tough. Like I said, the only reason I think such a challenge is possible in California is because many counties effectively do not issue permits and open carry is illegal as well...thus making any sort of carry for self defense outside the home (and outside "sensitive" areas) illegal for most residents. Though really it opens up challenges to "may issue" laws in general.

    Key word? Successfully.


    But in general what this decision means is that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution now applies to state and local laws, regardless of whether their state constitutions grant the right. Previously, Heller only applied (basically) to federal laws and the District of Columbia.


    EDIT: Basically it opened up the challenge to carry restrictions. Previously, if you tried to challenge California carry restrictions on second amendment grounds a California court could just tell you to fuck off and die.

    EDIT: En banc just means, IIRC, the whole court. Well, in other circuits. In the 9th, since it's ZOMG HUGE, it means a 15-judge panel. New arguments, new ruling.

    There's also the fact that there is some precedent for cities and states being allowed to limit permits to two a decade in Marijuana law, of all places. There's one case that found the government can require permits to sell pot even if it stops issuing them, and another says that the government can't require the applicant to break the law to comply with the law (one law required that the applicant bring in the pot before he could get the permit, thereby breaking possession laws).

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2009
    I agree with giving citizens the right to challenge, but I also agree that the state isn't compelled to have a gun show on fairgrounds. All gun shows are usually on private property, anyway.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.

    More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?

    An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...

    For example, those four cops shot by Mixon a week back. They even knew how to use their guns.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    For those non-Americans among us, could you explain what this means? Good/Bad thing? More legal wrangling to sap state resources? More restrictions on 'gun restrictions'?

    It means that state gun control laws have to hold up against the federal standard of constitutionality in regards to the Second Amendment.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • ToxTox I kill threads Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Good.

    Look, personally, I'm not opposed to certain, very mild, levels of gun registration.

    But! I firmly believe that any such conversation should start with the second amendment. If you think gun laws need to change out of what is allowed for by the 2nd, then the amendment needs to change, first.

    Which will never happen.

    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    James Dean was the actor, Jimmy Dean was in the sausage business.

    James Deen is both an actor AND in the sausage business.
    Secret Satans! Post | Gaming Wishlist | General Wishlist
    Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    I agree with giving citizens the right to challenge, but I also agree that the state isn't compelled to have a gun show on fairgrounds. All gun shows are usually on private property, anyway.

    Same here. I saw no reason the County should have been compelled to allow the gun show.
    Scalfin wrote: »
    There's also the fact that there is some precedent for cities and states being allowed to limit permits to two a decade in Marijuana law, of all places. There's one case that found the government can require permits to sell pot even if it stops issuing them, and another says that the government can't require the applicant to break the law to comply with the law (one law required that the applicant bring in the pot before he could get the permit, thereby breaking possession laws).

    Is this still relevant, since selling/buying pot is not an enumerated Constitutional right?

    It would be on the challenger to show that the second amendment protected carry in public (outside "sensitive" areas), but if they could then California would be fucked with a capital F.
    More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?

    An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...

    How many crimes are committed with legally carried firearms in the many states that do routinely issue permits? They're not all hicksville...Texas, Florida, and others contain plenty of large urban areas.***
    For those non-Americans among us, could you explain what this means? Good/Bad thing? More legal wrangling to sap state resources? More restrictions on 'gun restrictions'?

    More restrictions are likely on gun restrictions, particularly at the state level. Every citizen has a Constitutional right to firearms for self-defense (a la Heller) and that right can no longer be infringed by the states or cities (due to this ruling).


    *** - Note that at no point here do I make a positive argument that shall-issue concealed carry (or open carry) improves safety. But since we're talking about an enumerated Constitutional right, I'm asking you to explain to me how allowing it decreases safety. Like, actual objective arguments.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.

    More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?

    An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...

    I think it is.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2009
    I just knew that as soon as we got Obama in office, he'd come in and take our guns!

    Wait, no, that doesn't fit.

    I bet this is a response by all right-thinking justices to the impending tyranny of the Obama administration and its desire to take our [strike]jerrrrrbs[/strike] gunnnnns!

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Tox wrote: »
    Good.

    Look, personally, I'm not opposed to certain, very mild, levels of gun registration.

    But! I firmly believe that any such conversation should start with the second amendment. If you think gun laws need to change out of what is allowed for by the 2nd, then the amendment needs to change, first.

    Which will never happen.

    Actually, the conversation needs to start with "compelling interest."

    Then it needs to continue with "narrowly defined scope" and "least restrictive means."

    Basically I'm absolutely fine with any restrictions on gun rights that pass the strict scrutiny test (to my wikipedia-level understanding of it). But first you need to start by arguing, objectively, that there is a compelling interest in infringing the right...not just "guns are bad, m'kay."

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I just knew that as soon as we got Obama in office, he'd come in and take our guns!

    Wait, no, that doesn't fit.

    I bet this is a response by all right-thinking justices to the impending tyranny of the Obama administration and its desire to take our [strike]jerrrrrbs[/strike] gunnnnns!

    In 2 years, we'll all be carrying handguns, but our rifles that look spooky and scary will be taken away from us.

    rodq.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Septus wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I just knew that as soon as we got Obama in office, he'd come in and take our guns!

    Wait, no, that doesn't fit.

    I bet this is a response by all right-thinking justices to the impending tyranny of the Obama administration and its desire to take our [strike]jerrrrrbs[/strike] gunnnnns!

    In 2 years, we'll all be carrying handguns, but our rifles that look spooky and scary will be taken away from us.

    Just buy some brown paint. You'll be fine.

  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I don't see why people being allowed concealed weapons all of the sudden turns into the wild west. Deaths due to firearms in Indiana, a state that allows concealed firearms, has 11 deaths per 100,000 people, most of which are probably due to hunting accidents. It just seems to me the people saying a lot of people will hurry to try to get a gun are the same as people arguing against gay marriage because of the huge influx of gay marriages.

    Oh, and my source: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&rgn=16

    Spoiler:
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    never die wrote: »
    I don't see why people being allowed concealed weapons all of the sudden turns into the wild west. Deaths due to firearms in Indiana, a state that allows concealed firearms, has 11 deaths per 100,000 people, most of which are probably due to hunting accidents. It just seems to me the people saying a lot of people will hurry to try to get a gun are the same as people arguing against gay marriage because of the huge influx of gay marriages.

    Oh, and my source: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&rgn=16

    Aren't most of the guns in areas where you're more likely to hit a banjo than a person if you start shooting randomly, though?

    I also love how Texas was on a list of states that are supposed to prove that the states that give out these permits aren't hicksville. Florida isn't as bed, but the size of the confederate flag I saw when I was down there should probably also disqualify it.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.

    More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?

    An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...

    I think it is.

    I'll try to adress both you and mcdermott here.

    I'll just throw some points out there.

    I'd imagine there'd be an increased risk for collateral damage, as in people getting killed. I base this on that cops tend to use guns very restrictively (exceptions have been common though...), something I don't think a regular guy might be when faced with a potential robber for example. Cops are also trained with guns - which as far as I've understood it, a citizen does not have to be to own a gun. Where do the citizens learn proper use of force, marksmanship and so on to use in dangerous situations?

  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited April 2009
    never die wrote: »
    I don't see why people being allowed concealed weapons all of the sudden turns into the wild west. Deaths due to firearms in Indiana, a state that allows concealed firearms, has 11 deaths per 100,000 people, most of which are probably due to hunting accidents. It just seems to me the people saying a lot of people will hurry to try to get a gun are the same as people arguing against gay marriage because of the huge influx of gay marriages.

    Oh, and my source: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&rgn=16

    Yep. And both are invalid. Gun laws only prevent the law abiding from carrying guns, not criminals.

    A gun is only a tool. Besides, even as a resident of CA, if I wanted to carry a concealed weapon for the express purpose of committing a crime the law obviously isn't going to stop me. I've already decided to commit a crime.

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.

    More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?

    An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...

    I think it is.

    I'll try to adress both you and mcdermott here.

    I'll just throw some points out there.

    I'd imagine there'd be an increased risk for collateral damage, as in people getting killed. I base this on that cops tend to use guns very restrictively (exceptions have been common though...), something I don't think a regular guy might be when faced with a potential robber for example. Cops are also trained with guns - which as far as I've understood it, a citizen does not have to be to own a gun. Where do the citizens learn proper use of force, marksmanship and so on to use in dangerous situations?

    I would like to repeat just how unfortunate an example the Mixon case is, given that the cops had guns, and still died.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ToxTox I kill threads Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I just knew that as soon as we got Obama in office, he'd come in and take our guns!

    Wait, no, that doesn't fit.

    I bet this is a response by all right-thinking justices to the impending tyranny of the Obama administration and its desire to take our [strike]jerrrrrbs[/strike] gunnnnns!

    Turk eh [strike]jerb[/strike] gurnz!

    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    James Dean was the actor, Jimmy Dean was in the sausage business.

    James Deen is both an actor AND in the sausage business.
    Secret Satans! Post | Gaming Wishlist | General Wishlist
    Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    I don't see why people being allowed concealed weapons all of the sudden turns into the wild west. Deaths due to firearms in Indiana, a state that allows concealed firearms, has 11 deaths per 100,000 people, most of which are probably due to hunting accidents. It just seems to me the people saying a lot of people will hurry to try to get a gun are the same as people arguing against gay marriage because of the huge influx of gay marriages.

    Oh, and my source: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&rgn=16

    Aren't most of the guns in areas where you're more likely to hit a banjo than a person if you start shooting randomly, though?

    I also love how Texas was on a list of states that are supposed to prove that the states that give out these permits aren't hicksville. Florida isn't as bed, but the size of the confederate flag I saw when I was down there should probably also disqualify it.

    If you'll read the full meaning of the sentence you can go farther than "Nuh-uh, Texas is too full of hicks!" Texas has many very large metropolitan areas, compared to some other states. Concealed handguns are not problems there.

    Honk: Many states with concealed permits do require education, and practice, to receive them. Any new concealed law enacted could do the same, or go even further.

    rodq.jpg
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.

    Septus: Ok, as far as I knew concealed carry was only allowed very restrictively. I was under the impression that this act would mean that everyone owning a gun could walk about with it as he pleased.

  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    Where do the citizens learn proper use of force, marksmanship and so on to use in dangerous situations?

    Requirements vary based on the state. Also based on prior status in the military or law enforcement.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    I don't see why people being allowed concealed weapons all of the sudden turns into the wild west. Deaths due to firearms in Indiana, a state that allows concealed firearms, has 11 deaths per 100,000 people, most of which are probably due to hunting accidents. It just seems to me the people saying a lot of people will hurry to try to get a gun are the same as people arguing against gay marriage because of the huge influx of gay marriages.

    Oh, and my source: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&rgn=16

    Aren't most of the guns in areas where you're more likely to hit a banjo than a person if you start shooting randomly, though?

    I also love how Texas was on a list of states that are supposed to prove that the states that give out these permits aren't hicksville. Florida isn't as bed, but the size of the confederate flag I saw when I was down there should probably also disqualify it.

    Yes, because having three of the ten largest metro areas in the country (between FL and TX) isn't significant.
    I'll try to adress both you and mcdermott here.

    I'll just throw some points out there.

    I'd imagine there'd be an increased risk for collateral damage, as in people getting killed. I base this on that cops tend to use guns very restrictively (exceptions have been common though...), something I don't think a regular guy might be when faced with a potential robber for example. Cops are also trained with guns - which as far as I've understood it, a citizen does not have to be to own a gun. Where do the citizens learn proper use of force, marksmanship and so on to use in dangerous situations?

    In theory, citizens learn these things during the classes that most states require to get a permit. But those are largely rubbish.

    In practice, the fact that private citizens are not protected in the same ways as police officers for liabilities arising from their uses of force probably helps keep every swinging dick from thinking he's Dirty Harry. If you shoot somebody, you will likely be arrested, may be charged, it's not unlikely you'll be sued, and generally you're in for a long series of bad days.

    Also, I'd suggest that maybe you look at finding some numbers regarding the number of injuries and deaths of bystanders caused by shootings by people carrying in public. Like I said, you've got at least three "major" (top ten) metro areas in shall-issue states with loose restrictions to look at. Five in the top fifteen.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    never die wrote: »
    I don't see why people being allowed concealed weapons all of the sudden turns into the wild west. Deaths due to firearms in Indiana, a state that allows concealed firearms, has 11 deaths per 100,000 people, most of which are probably due to hunting accidents. It just seems to me the people saying a lot of people will hurry to try to get a gun are the same as people arguing against gay marriage because of the huge influx of gay marriages.

    Oh, and my source: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&rgn=16

    Yep. And both are invalid. Gun laws only prevent the law abiding from carrying guns, not criminals.

    A gun is only a tool. Besides, even as a resident of CA, if I wanted to carry a concealed weapon for the express purpose of committing a crime the law obviously isn't going to stop me. I've already decided to commit a crime.

    You have a very strange conception of how crime works. Most criminals don't just disregard all laws out of hand, and almost none of them have connections. That's why knife crimes go up in places where guns are banned, not that they want to hide the fact that they bought a howitzer on the black market. Even if they do have the connections, there is nothing easier that going to a gun show. You don't even need to enter the show, they'll sell them to you while you're waiting in line!

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I would like to repeat just how unfortunate an example the Mixon case is, given that the cops had guns, and still died.

    A single example does not disprove the utility of a firearm for self-defense. If I can go find one "fortunate" example, do I win?

    Regardless, I agree...carrying in public for self-defense is unlikely to have any significant impact (positive or negative, though maybe you disagree on the latter...but note "significant") on your safety. Still, the point is that with it established as an individual right it's on you to prove to me why I shouldn't be allowed to make that choice anyway. Basically you have to show a significant negative impact on public safety, whereas I don't have to show jack shit.

  • ToxTox I kill threads Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.

    Septus: Ok, as far as I knew concealed carry was only allowed very restrictively. I was under the impression that this act would mean that everyone owning a gun could walk about with it as he pleased.

    Ninjas.

    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    James Dean was the actor, Jimmy Dean was in the sausage business.

    James Deen is both an actor AND in the sausage business.
    Secret Satans! Post | Gaming Wishlist | General Wishlist
    Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.

    This isn't meant as a slight to you but against this general paradigm of argument- 'your' ability to defend yourself isn't eponymous with that of the larger public. I'm a physically able, mentally acute young man. When someone asks me to assess my ability to use my gun effectively in an instance of self-defense... studies mean nothing to me. Why should the ability of other Americans reflect on my ability? Old drunk guys might have hunting accidents or crotchety old women might fire their home defense guns in error... but they're not me. Of course, I'm not saying this as a defense of concealed carry- how well I can drive drunk shouldn't exclude me from the law- but just as a general conversation piece. I don't see why people tell me that studies prove I'm less safe if I carry a gun. I'm not necessarily the average American.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Septus wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    I don't see why people being allowed concealed weapons all of the sudden turns into the wild west. Deaths due to firearms in Indiana, a state that allows concealed firearms, has 11 deaths per 100,000 people, most of which are probably due to hunting accidents. It just seems to me the people saying a lot of people will hurry to try to get a gun are the same as people arguing against gay marriage because of the huge influx of gay marriages.

    Oh, and my source: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&rgn=16

    Aren't most of the guns in areas where you're more likely to hit a banjo than a person if you start shooting randomly, though?

    I also love how Texas was on a list of states that are supposed to prove that the states that give out these permits aren't hicksville. Florida isn't as bed, but the size of the confederate flag I saw when I was down there should probably also disqualify it.

    If you'll read the full meaning of the sentence you can go farther than "Nuh-uh, Texas is too full of hicks!" Texas has many very large metropolitan areas, compared to some other states. Concealed handguns are not problems there.

    Honk: Many states with concealed permits do require education, and practice, to receive them. Any new concealed law enacted could do the same, or go even further.

    Yeah. Almost everyone I know and myself included(and I don't own any guns) go through hunter education classes, which emphasize to death the importance of gun safety.

    Besides, like he said, Texas (and Indiana) have some pretty good sized cities, and even with the incredible amount of guns in the state, still have pretty low gun rates. I mean, I could easily go to a gun show, buy a carbine, load it up, and go shoot down plenty of people in a city. Yet very few people do that.

    Spoiler:
«13456
Sign In or Register to comment.