Check comment# 1
No Guns ~ No Rights!
Any laws they try to pass should be challenged as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Out of San Francisco? Ok, but exactly how do they plan to force them out?
Interesting the approach being followed in SF vs. that in Florida - Two opposite ends of the spectrum.
bang!
Wrong wrong wrong!
What the Court actually said was that they didn't KNOW of any military use of short-barreled shotguns.
The exact wording is:
"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."
In point of fact, there have been numerous military uses of short-barreled "trench guns."
I can't believe people still trot out this tired, worn out, discredited statistic!
The Fallacy of “43 to 1” The all-time favorite statistic of the gun-prohibition lobby.
About 4 years ago our grandson and his family lived 4 doors from a family newly arrived from Mexico. The father had been legally here working and saving money to buy his home and import his family. My Greatkids became chummy with their youngest child (about 9 years old) and on occasion I got to talk with the boy while waiting for the bus to pick the kids up for school. Asking about customs and holiday events, I learned that all boys in Mexico are taught by their fathers to use rifles and hand guns from about the age of 7. I asked the obvious question and was told, "Yes. My Dad takes me out in the farm areas almost every Saturday to shoot at targets. I'll get my own gun as a birthday present in 3 years."
OK. That was 4 years ago. I assume the kid got his present.
I taught high school locally for 30+ years, retiring in '92; I had some boys from Mexico (some legal families/some not...we weren't allowed to discriminate OR report). I KNOW those boys had access to guns, too. When the newspapers came up with stories about guns being brought into our schools by students, guns found in lockers, guns found in teen cars, I was surprised to find that my neighbors were surprised!
The Columbine High situation of '99 was a real eye-opener to some people.
The Mexican kids are taught at an early age that a weapon is their right of passage. Once this becomes known (through the fine art of teen bragging) to the kiddoes born and bred in this country, is it any wonder that some American kids feel they need weapons, too?
Hear that islamic terrorists: You can take out San Francisco because they won't be able to fight back.
Let me understand this --first S.F. declared criminal behavior was now legal in San Fran--then they run a pogrom
against law abiding gun owners. What a queer response.
"...the Second Amendment imposes no limitation on California's [or any other state's] ability to enact legislation regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of firearms" and ...."does not confer an individual right to own or possess firearms." See Silviera for a discussion
This little exercise in futility may in the end be good for RKBA advocates and those who insist upon liberty. A lawsuit will no doubt ensue over this insanity that may once again wind up in the 9th Circuit who will no doubt uphold the ordinance, thus setting up yet another appeal to the US SC. While I don't really trust those distinguished gentlemen (and that buttwipe, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) this ban also involves a confiscation, a move so ludicrous that the SC might finally have to "do the right thing" and actually rule in line with the Constitution (for a change). It is more likely that the California Supreme Court will hear the appeal. Although those bastards upheld the West Hollywood "Saturday Night Special" ban, the San Francisco ban goes much much further; to the point of confiscation.
I'm not sure this was a correct interpretation. In the second amendments language "well regulated" was a qualifier for the militia, not the people.
It seems more likely the second amendment was saying, although the federal government has to have control of an army to secure our state, the citizens are protected from misuse of this army by their own right to have their own arms.
The context of the bill of rights was, after all, to ease the peoples fears that the new government might become a tyranny.
Prosecutors and police officers say it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist — that there is no case of someone being prosecuted for use of deadly force when they were protecting their home.
They said the same thing about gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act.
The article should have mentioned that the District of Columbia has a changing demographic. The city is pushing the poorer people to the suburbs, and the crime rates are rising there as a result. The crime will not rise as swiftly because all of the bordering areas allow gun ownership, and Virginia is a concealed carry state (we do not need a permit for open carry).
Think it'd be an affirmative defense in court?
Yeah... me neither. Too bad the Constitution is on our side but the Law isn't....
Truth? Gun banners don’t need no stinkin’ truth!
Bill would broaden deadly force rights
Good article and good references too. Facts demolish their emotion-driven arguments.