« Discussion Topic: Romney Wins; Huckabee Gets Ray Scott's Nod | Main | The IGFA’s Newest Pending World Records »

January 17, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.

Discussion Topic: American Cities Vs. Gun Rights

As the Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on the constitutionality of Washington. D.C.'s handgun ban in March, a number of U.S. cities are already pleading their case.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
[Eleven] U.S. cities are warning the Supreme Court that gun-control laws around the nation would be jeopardized if the justices decide to eliminate the local District of Columbia ban on handguns.

In a legal brief filed with the high court, the cities . . . argue that they suffer "disproportionately" from firearm violence and should be able to enact reasonable restrictions on the weapons.

"American cities need flexibility to respond to the serious threat of gun violence facing their communities," [they] argue. The 11 cities that signed the brief were: Baltimore; Cleveland; Los Angeles; Milwaukee; New York; Oakland, Calif.; Philadelphia; Sacramento, Calif.; San Francisco; Seattle; and Trenton, N.J.

Your reaction?

Comments

John R

Notice all the cities listed that are whining to the U.S. Supreme Court are the ones with the most stringent gun laws and the highest crime rates. These are also many of the cities who oppose "castle doctrine" laws. If a thug breaks into your house and he is armed, he is fair game. If I find him and he surrenders, fine I'll call the police. If he threatens me in any way it's double tap city.
We here pretty much know all the arguments regarding gun control. Here is something to chew on and I always ask my liberal acquaintenances this question. If the government has not even come close to winning the war on illegal drugs, what make you think they can do any better with guns?
Another lucrative black market will be created and you have solved zip.
I don't think that the Second Amendment will ever be eliminated because even the liberals are smart enough to realize that eliminating any amendment to the Bill of Rights would be a slippery slope for all of our rights. The biggest danger here is in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Depending upon what the justices decide, it could be rendered worthless for the average Joe giving all the firepower to the state. Of course if the Supreme Court rules in favor of individual firearm ownership now, it is always subject to be overturned at a later date. As was wisely stated by others, we must educate our young and teach them shooting sports and the positive aspects of hunting.
My two cents.

Blue Ox

I really don't give a dead moose's last shit what the 'justices' decide, nobody is taking my guns. I would much rather die defending my home, my loved ones, and what I believe is right, than live like a mook or a sheep and have the government- thugs (they're one and the same)push me around for the rest of my no-rights-havin' life.

Blue Ox

Them's my three cents.

YooperJack

John R
That thought about enforcement of new gun laws was pretty perceptive. I don't think anyone else has ever brought that up. As far as elimination of 2A, it can't be done. Judges, however, can interpret that Amendment to render it powerless. The scary part is where new judges rely on past rulings to maintain status quo. Justice Roberts referred to it when he was testifying. Its Latin mumbo jumbo. The meaning is since we've lived with this (referring to abortion) for 34 years, we shouldn't change it. Hell, we've lived with our interpretation of 2A for more than 200 years. A liberal judge will probably fail to see that, however.
YooperJack

GREG

Ox ya sound pretty radical. I agree with you 250%. Prech on my brother!

Blue Ox

Radical? Good bet. I'm just sick of these pathetic weenies (that means you, oxlong) who piss and moan about gangsters and crime and what not, yet won't dare lift a trigger finger to help themselves.

Blue Ox

The government won't protect you. By passing gun control laws they're actually putting law-abiding citizens in greater danger. And the police can't be everywhere at once. All they can do is pick up the pieces, maybe write a report, sweep your carcass under six feet of dirt, and that's that.

r napolitano

Recently the Supreme Court of NY State overturned a death sentence on a felon that killed five employees of a fast food restaurant during a robbery to eliminate any witnesses, yet in NYS it is illegal to defend yourself until you have ALL avenues of retreat blocked, in other words, give up and let them kill you. In NYC you cannot even own a handgun or rifle without massive intrusion of the police and a variety of fees and costs to make it as diffcult as possible
yet the politcally connected, aka Donald Trump, get permits. The second ammendment afffirms the right of self protection from abusive governments and associated thugs and criminals. Yet the liberals in power return to the same methods, ban guns, prohibit lawabiding citizens from defending themselves or their property. Blame the tool never the people is their answer. I am sick and tired of it and can't wait to move out of their high taxes, liberal laws and all the associated crap of the city.

YooperJack

r napolitano:
Are you any relation to the judge? I really wish I could get his radio program. Also wish he'd get appointed to SCOTUS!
Also, you said something that's almost never noticed. Just about every lib who's against carrying by you and I is surrounded by bodyguards WHO ARE CARRYING!
Fact is, crime isn't much of a problem for the high and mighty. Crime affects the poor in this country much more than any other socioeconomic group.
YooperJack

r napolitano

yooper. no relation, but do like his ideas, and BTW no relation to the govenor of Arizona

YooperJack

I forgot about her! Can you translate Napolitano into english?
YooperJack

Irishwoodchuck

The D.C. Gun Ban was a huge blow to americans second amendment rights. To lift such a ban is verry important and restores the rights that really do belong and should belong to every hard working american.

Raplh the Rifleman

Gun control, and Crime control, are really two seperate issues.
2A rights allow a person to defend themselves from ANY threat not just criminals but against government taking away our rights:IE please read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Don't mess with OUR rights to own guns.
As for inner city crime problems; that is a difficult issue to deal with, but taking away gun ownership should not be the scapegoat to cure it. I was raised in what would be considered a "poor" family by today's standards and I don't go around stealing, selling drugs, and gang bang.Stop making excuses for poor judgement and adults need to lead by example.Everytime a successful minority(concerning inner city crime) actor/business person publicly makes a comment on responsible behavior and priority in education; they are critizied by their own kind.
Enough of this BS!I don't comment crime because I choose not too people need to take responsibilty for theit actions. WOW that's a new concept,yes?

John R

What is not hard to understand about the "right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"? Preventing the right to bear arms in any manner, shape, or form is infringement. Idiotic and moronic lawmakers call all measures to regulate firearm ownership reasonable and/or sensible. I call them infringements. The concealed carry law in my state is a joke and one of the most restrictive CCW laws of all the states that have a CCW law. In my opinion our legislature passed the law only because of perceived "duress" to do so from the honest gun owners. That is the perception I received from one of the more honest lawmakers I have spoken to.

Bubba

John R

Most of the argument comes from the "In order to maintain a well regulated militia...." part. Because of the National Guard and all the military reserve programs, the detracters say "We have a 'well regulated militia' in place! We don't need the 'citizen' to be armed!"
What they know, but refuse to accept, is the fact that the writers of the constitution were trying to establish the fact that they had mounted an armed resistance against a tyrannical government (England/King) and knew that should the Gov't THEY were setting up become tyrannical, an armed citizenry would stand some chance of defending "ITSELf!". To overthrow tyranny and replace it with democracy! Being unarmed (just like England was at the time) left them (the English subjects) at the mercy of their Gov't (KING!).
I think you and I understand. No more intelligent than I am, (HS diploma only) why do highly educated people not understand?!

Bubba

Tommy S.

Control.

Mike

National guard is NOT militia!! But a govt controled force.In todays environment militias would be and are dubbed "Domestic terroists" and WILL be "disappeared"

shotgunlou

If they wont let us arm ourselves and if they are going to use the excuse that the "National Guard" is taking care of it then why doesnt the "Guard" patrol south central L.A.?!!! Why arent they patrolling our border with Mexico? Why arent they guarding?!!!

Dont get me wrong I have friends and cousins who served in Iraq. My best friend got a Purple Heart after getting blown up by an RPG and a girl I grew up with in church was killed by a bullet within a week of getting there. I support the hard work the military is putting in there and here. I just dont want the govt to use that as an excuse for taking away my right to own a gun, tell me that I have to have it dismantled or locked up.

What good does that do me when someone breaks in to my house in the middle of the night?!! What good does that do my wife when she is getting off work late and has to walk to her car BY HERSELF?!!

I dont care where I live. Nobody is gonna tell me I cant protect my home or family!!

Bubba

shotgunlou,

This is just another prime example of people that think the Gov't should "take care of them!". Which is pretty much the Democratic view point. More welfare, more Gov't programs, more taxes. You don't need guns, we have a Nat'l Guard to protect you! The police will come anytime you call!
9-1-1 should be changed to "Dial-a-Prayer"!
Don't remember the author, but the saying goes: "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject!"
The anti-gun folks want subjects. They live in constant fear.

Bubba

shotgunlou

Hey Bubba,

Thanks man. I'll second that!

Luckily I dont really have to worry too much about those laws affecting me cause Az has great gun laws. If you have a CCW you can go anywhere you want with ur gun except banks and bars. Who needs em there anyway except the wrong people.

YooperJack

Shotgunlou, Bubba
Someone said, in one of these or Petzal's posts, that the Government has a duty to protect society, but no obligation to protect the individual. I know that philosophy is status quo in D.C. What I cannot understand is how they can justify there gun control positions in lieu of the significantly lower crime rates in areas with liberal gun laws.

John R.
What state do you live in? What's your CCW law like? I've been toying with buying a pistol because of our increased Wolf population and the emergence of feral hogs in Michigan and Wisconsin. I won't though, if its impractical to carry.
YooperJack

shotgunlou

YJ,

Yeah that about sums it up. Too bad, so sad, but true.

As far as carrying goes you should be able to get a permit without much trouble as long as you have no felonies, same as purchasing. You take a class and pay the fee, at least thats how it is in AZ.

shotgunlou

Yooper,

check out this website:

http://www.skyenet.net/~jlhawk/

He offers a CCW in Michigan.

Bubba

There are too many people that see "society" as themselves!
They get angry when they get snookered in some way and then want somebody to pass laws to keep it from happening again! To THEM! Ergo: Uncle Sam, take care of me! With a law in place, I won't have to worry about that again! This instead of learning from their mistake, grabbing their boot strings and going on, knowing that they must have the spine to stand up for themselves next time somebody wants to take advantage of them again!
I hate to keep hammering this point home, but go read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and see what he had to say about a populace expecting the Gov't (ruling body) to "take care" of them.

Bubba

YooperJack

shotgunlou
Hey thanks for the info. Unfortunately, the guys that write from TN, KY & GA are closer to that school than I am. Niles, MI is in the extreme southern portion of this state. Anyway, I don't think I'll have too much trouble finding a class. I probably should have taken it years ago though. I've had my 22 mag for 28 years. Since I never had the CCW, its got tree marking paint on it.
YooperJack




Our Blogs



Syndicate