• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Federal Judge Strikes Down D.C. Law Barring Carrying Handguns In Public

H

Six years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which it struck down the District of Columbia’s On Saturday, a Federal Judge issued a ruling striking down the District of Columbia’s long standing gun control law which effectively banned nearly all residents from owning a handgun kept in their private homes. It was, in many respects, the first significant ruling that the Court had handed down on the Second Amendment in the more than two centuries since that Amendment had been ratified as part of the Bill of Rights. Previous Second Amendment rulings from the nation’s highest court dealt with very limited issues such as the Federal Law that tightly regulates ownership of automatic weapons that has been in place since the 1930s, and none of those cases dealt with the core question that Heller presented, which was whether or not the Amendment protected an individual rather than some kind of collective right. In a 5-4 decision, the Court found based on the history of the Amendment that it did, in fact, protect an individual right and that, based on that fact, the District’s law effectively banning handgun ownership was unconstitutional. Four years later, in McDonald v. Chicago Housing Authority, the Court held that the Second Amendment also applied to the states, an issue that it had not ruled upon in the eighty years since the Incorporation Doctrine had first been developed. As a result, in that case, the Court struck down a similar Chicago law barring handgun ownership.

The holdings in Heller and McDonald, while they were groundbreaking in several respects, were limited to a very narrow question regarding ownership of handguns that are kept inside a person’s home. Because the issue was not before it in either case, the Court did not rule on the question of whether the Second Amendment extended to the right to carry a gun outside the home, or to what extent a state or local authority can regulate that right. In the years that have followed, though, several Federal Courts have ruled on the issue. In 2013, in Moore v. Madigan, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, struck down an Illinois law that barred anyone from carrying a concealed weapon regardless. Rather than appealing the decision, the State of Illinois chose to amend its laws to allow residents to obtain a concealed carry permit upon meeting certain criteria, including the completion of a state-approved training course. Earlier this year, in Peruta v. San Diego, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a San Diego law that required a person requesting a concealed carry permit to show “good cause” for granting the permit. As I noted at the time, after Heller and McDonald were decided it was inevitable that the issue of how the Second Amendment applies outside the home would come before the Federal Courts, and that eventually the Supreme Court will have to deal with that issue.

Yesterday, another one of the cases that may eventually be the one that the Supreme Court will end up considering resulted in a ruling by a Federal Judge finding that the District of Columbia’s blanket prohibition on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional:

A federal judge has declared that one of the District’s principal gun control laws is unconstitutional and ordered that its enforcement be halted.

The ruling by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr., made public Saturday, orders the city to end its prohibition against carrying a pistol in public.

It was not clear Saturday night what immediate effect the order would have.

The order was addressed to the District of Columbia and Police Chief Cathy Lanier, as well as their employees and officers and others “who receive actual notice” of the ruling. But it could not be determined Saturday night who had received notice. Also unclear was whether the city would appeal and what effect that would have on the enforcement ban.

Legal sources said Saturday night that in general all parties to a case must be duly informed of a ruling and given the opportunity to appeal before it takes effect.

The D.C. attorney general represented the city. A spokesman for the attorney general’s office said he had not seen the order and declined to comment. However, he said city lawyers would study the ruling and consider their options.

A spokeswoman for the police department said she was not aware of the ruling.

The case was heard by Scullin, a senior U.S. District judge who normally sits in New York. In his ruling, Scullin said that, based on recent decisions, “there is no longer any basis” to conclude that the city’s “total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional.”

More detail from Lyle Denniston:

In Saturday’s ruling, Senior District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., who sits in Syracuse, N.Y., ruled that the Second Amendment right does reach beyond the home, finding that to be a natural outgrowth of the fundamental right the Supreme Court had created six years ago.   He barred city officials from enforcing a ban — first imposed in late 2008.

At one point, the city government in the nation’s capital had a law permitting the police chief to issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals.  On December 16, 2008, the city council and the mayor voted to take away that authority.  As a result, Judge Scullin noted, “the District of Columbia lacks any mechanism to issue handgun carry licenses to individuals.”

In nullifying that ban, the judge relied upon rulings by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, striking down public-carry bans in Illinois and San Diego County, respectively.

Four individuals, joined by a gun rights advocacy group, the Second Amendment Foundation, had challenged the District of Columbia ban in a lawsuit filed in August 2009.  A month later, their lawyers filed a motion seeking to have the case decided summarily — that is, without a trial.  The District’s lawyers filed a competing motion for such a ruling, in their favor.  Those are the motions that Judge Scullin has now decided, ruling for the challengers and against the city.

After the case was filed, it moved at a slow pace in the federal district court in Washington, with another judge working on it.  Finally, in a move to ease docket congestion in that court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in July 2011 reassigned it and other cases to Judge Scullin, who took over the gun rights case ten days later.

The summary judgment motions had been set for a hearing in late August 2012, but that was cancelled due to a “conflict in the court’s calendar.”  The hearing was reset for, and eventually held on, October 1 of that year.  Judge Scullin at that point took the case “under advisement.”

In August of last year, the challengers filed a motion asking the judge to expedite the case, noting that “this case is now in its fifth year before this court.”  When no action resulted, the challengers last October asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to order Judge Scullin to decide the case.  That plea was denied in a brief order last December 10, expressing confidence that the judge would act as soon as he could.

In the meantime, lawyers for the challengers and for the District of Columbia had continued to file a series of notices to the judge, about other court rulings bearing on the Second Amendment question.  The last action that the judge took, before making his final ruling, came last March, when he turned down the challengers’ request to strike one of the filings by the District of Columbia citing another court’s work.  (That motion to strike had been pending since May 2012.)

In his final ruling, Judge Scullin declared that the Second Amendment right to carry a gun outside the home applies not only to residents of Washington, D.C., but also to visitors to the city.  One of the individuals who sued was not a resident.  The ruling applies both to open and concealed carrying of handguns in public.

In his decision, Judge Scullin relied strongly on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Peruta:

As the court noted in Peruta, “[t]he Second Amendment secures the right not only to ’keep’ arms but also to ‘bear’ them[,]” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1151; and, as the Supreme Court explained in Heller, “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry[,]‘” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584. “Yet, not ‘carry’ in the ordinary sense of ‘convey[ing] or transport[ing]‘ an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but ’carry for a particular purpose confrontation.'” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1151-52 (quoting [Heller, 554 U.S. at 584]). According to the Heller majority, the “natural meaning of ‘bear arms'” was the one that Justice Ginsburg provided in her dissent in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998), that is “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (quoting Muscarello, 524 U.S. at 143, 118 S. Ct. 1911) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)).

Furthermore, “‘bearing a weapon inside the home’ does not exhaust this definition of ’carry.’ For one thing, the very risk occasioning such carriage, ‘confrontation,’ is ‘not limited to the home.'” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1152 (quoting Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012)). Moreover, it is beyond dispute that “the prospect of conflict at least, the sort of conflict for which one would wish to be ‘armed and ready’ is just as menacing (and likely more so) beyond the front porch as it is in the living room.” Id. Thus, “‘[t]o speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage.'” Id. (quotation omitted). In addition, the Heller Court stated that the Second Amendment secures “the right to ‘protect[] [oneself] against both public and private violence,’ . . . thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed to public or private violence.” United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 467 (4th Cir. 2011) (Niemeyer, J., specially concurring) (quoting [Heller, 128 S. Ct.] at 2798, 2799). Moreover, the Heller Court emphasized that the need for the right was “most acute” in the home, Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1153 (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 628, 128 S. Ct. 2783), “thus implying that the right exists outside the home, though the need is not always as “‘acute.'” Id. (citing McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044 (2010) (“[T]he Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.”)). However, Heller also pointed out that “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” is presumptively lawful. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. Finally, “both Heller and McDonald identif[ied] the ‘core component’ of the right as self-defense, which necessarily ‘take[s] place wherever [a] person happens to be,’ whether in a back alley or on the back deck.” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1153 (citing Moore, 702 F.3d at 937 (“To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.”)) (other citation omitted).

This Court agrees with the Ninth Circuit’s statement in Peruta that “[t]hese passages alone, though short of dispositive, strongly suggest that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry a firearm in some fashion outside the home.” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1153.

(…)

[A]s the Peruta court pointed out, “[u]nderstanding the scope of the right is not just necessary, it is key to [the court's] analysis [because,] if self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to ‘bear arms’ and the [District of Columbia's] regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-end scrutiny can justify [the District of Columbia's] policy.” Id. at 1167 (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (“The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government even the Third Branch of Government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”)).

As a temporary matter, the District of Columbia Police have announced they will not enforce the ban, at least not against people who are validly allowed to carry under the laws of other states, and David Kopel summarizes what could happen next:

Nothing in the District Court’s opinion invalidates the D.C. ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.  Nothing in the opinion addresses the numerous federal and D.C. laws which prohibit carry in a huge number of locations within the District-such as most federal buildings, lots of federal property, as well as schools and colleges. (The D.C. “school” ban even encompasses a school of cosmetology whose students are all adults.) Under a 2009 federal statute, National Parks must follow the arms-carrying policies of their host state. The National Park Service regulation implementing this statute includes the following exemption to a general ban on weapons in National Parks. “(h) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable Federal law.” 36 C.F.R. § 2.4. Thus, it might arguably be lawful to carry a concealed handgun at the Jefferson Memorial, if you have a handgun carry permit from your home state (or if you a D.C. resident with a registered handgun).

(…)

What will the D.C. government do next? Immediately, the Attorney General will ask for a stay while it decides whether to appeal. Anything can happen on appeal, but over the long term, it is difficult to see how D.C. could persist as the only place in the nation which completely forbids exercise of the constitutional right to bear arms. As the case worked its way to the Supreme Court, absolute obduracy by D.C. would increase the likelihood of corrective action by Congress. The House has already passed legislation to reform D.C.’s unusually repressive limits on gun ownership and its unique and unnecessarily cumbersome gun registration system.  (And those restrictions, unlike the carry prohibition, had the advantage of having been upheld so far in the courts.)

More prudently, the D.C. government could adopt a system allowing for licensed carry. One approach would to copy the laws of Maryland, which allows anyone to apply, but very few to receive a concealed carry permit. The Maryland statute was declared unconstitutional by a Federal District Court, but upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Woollard v. Gallagher. (For which I wrote an amicus brief on the losing side, for the nation’s two major law enforcement training organizations.)

Another approach would be to follow the approach of Virginia, and of the large majority of American states, by setting up a carry permit system which requires fingerprint-based background checks, plus safety training, and allows law-abiding adults to receive permits without having to prove that they have a special need. The outer limit on how restrictive such a system can be is probably provided by the 2013 Illinois law to set up a carry permit system after the 7th Circuit (in an opinion by Judge Richard Posner) ruled unconstitutional the Illinois carry ban, in Moore v. Madigan Shephard v. Madigan. (Gura was the winning attorney on MooreShephard was a NRA case.) The Illinois system is rough around the constitutional edges (e.g., allowing some permit denials which do not provide a reason), but with some smoothing, the Illinois model would be likely to provide a constitutional safe harbor for the D.C. government.

Judge Scullin’s decision, although inexplicably delayed for far too long a period, strikes me as being largely correct. Given the holdings in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment covers a right to own a handgun for purposes of self-defense inside the home, then it becomes next to impossible to support the argument that this right does not extend outside the home to cover a right to carry a handgun for the same purposes.  The arguments for one are essentially the same as the arguments for the other, with the exception being the extent to which the state can impose regulations on the right to carry in public. The Illinois law enacted in the wake of Moore, which requires some 16 hours of training prior to the carry permit being granted, has yet to be tested in court, for example, but it most likely has a better chance of surviving a court challenge than a blanket ban on a right to carry or a law like the one at issue in Peruta, which exists in other parts of the country, that essentially leaves the issuance of a carry permit up to the whim of local officials. At the same time, though, it seems clear that the regulations that a state or locality would impose cannot be so burdensome that they would effectively deny the right to carry by making it nearly impossible for the average citizen to obtain a permit to carry, assuming one is required under the applicable law, would most likely be unconstitutional.

No doubt, this decision will set off the usual round of debates about gun control. However, I would submit that just as the Court was correct in Heller and McDonald to find that the Second Amendment included the right of individuals to own a handgun to protect themselves in their own, it seems axiomatic that it also includes some type of right to carry a gun in public for the same purpose. That doesn’t mean that the right is unlimited, of course. Even in Heller, Justice Scalia states clearly in his majority opinion that the Second Amendment most assuredly does not stand for the proposition that all regulations on firearms ownership are unconstitutional, and that would obviously apply to a right to carry as well. What the limits of the power of states and localities to regulate that right in the interest of public safety actually are is something that will have to await future court decisions, but the fact that some such regulations are theoretically permissible does not mean that the right itself doesn’t exist and should not be protected.

Here’s the opinion:

Palmer v. District of Columbia by Doug Mataconis

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. al-Ameda says:

    Good to know that Judge Scullin doesn’t often go out in public. Average people carrying guns in public – what could possibly go wrong. Let’s ask George Zimmerman, shall we?

    This country has a serious Second Amendment fetish.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 10

  2. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Good God! Does this mean that someone is actually challenging the age-old, time-proven wisdom of “if we disarm the victims, everyone will be so much safer?”

    DC has consistently had one of the highest rates of murders, and gun crimes in general. And that’s with the toughest gun-control laws in the nation. With this change, we can only expect those numbers to go even higher.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 18

  3. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda:

    This country has a serious Second Amendment fetish.

    That’s like saying, “This country has a serious First Amendment fetish” after the Citizens United case was decided.

    You don’t have to carry or even own a firearm, but don’t trample the rights of those that do.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15

  4. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    You don’t have to carry or even own a firearm, but don’t trample the rights of those that do.

    Exactly, why shouldn’t the courts rule that the public be allowed to carry handguns into public parks, public libraries, court rooms, city hall, police stations, Council Chambers, the Supreme Court Chambers, perhaps even the White House? What could go wrong by permitting average people (often with with poor judgment) to carry guns into those venues?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7

  5. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: In Virginia, with the exception of Court Houses which include court rooms, I can already carry into and have, all of those places and there has never been a problem that I’m aware of.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8

  6. Tyrell says:

    Now the law abiding citizens of Washington, D.C. can defend themselves, families, homes, and businesses.
    “This property protected by Smith & Wesson Co.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

  7. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @al-Ameda: Exactly, why shouldn’t the courts rule that the public be allowed to carry handguns into public parks, public libraries, court rooms, city hall, police stations, Council Chambers, the Supreme Court Chambers, perhaps even the White House? What could go wrong by permitting average people (often with with poor judgment) to carry guns into those venues?

    We hear this every single time another gun-grabbing ploy goes down in flames. But where is the empirical evidence from the “reality-based community” to support these dire predictions? Why can’t they point to some state or city in the US where gun control measures were struck down, and there was a following upsurge in gun-related crimes and violence? Where are these Wild West shootouts, the rapidly-escalating disagreements that end in bloodshed, the soaring gun-related accidents?

    There’s a restaurant in Tennessee that has the following sign on its door:

    Guns are Welcome on premises, Please keep ALL weapons holstered unless need arises.
    In such case, judicious marksmanship is appreciated!
    Thank you, Shiloh management.

    And just last week, a mental patient was seeing his caseworker in a hospital. He drew his gun and killed the counselor, then wounded a doctor. The doctor drew his own weapon and shot down the gunman. So we have a tragic case of a man willfully violating a “gun-free zone,” compounded by a second man who also violated the “gun-free zone” and turned what would have been a simple mass shooting into a “Wild West shootout” that left one dead, the gunman and the guy who stopped the gunman wounded. I only hope that the full force of the law comes down on the doctor who dared carry a gun into a “gun-free zone” and acted so responsibly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11

  8. Jr says:

    This country has a serious Second Amendment fetish.

    I call it small dick syndrome.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9

  9. stonetools says:

    Want to bet that Justice Scalia doesn’t support the right of ‘law abiding citizens” to carry a gun into the Supreme Court? I’m sure he’ll find regulation prohibiting this “reasonable” and not all an a priori restraint on the right of such “law abiding citizens.” (I somehow think Doug would agree, with respect to ALL courthouses).
    I think that DC needs to be smart about this. Just strictly regulate who can get a permit to carry, including going through a gun safety and shooting course that they have to pay for. Hold them to similar standards that the police have to go through. If gun cultists want to act like law officers using their guns to enforce the law vigilante style, let them qualify like law officers Also limit the places they can carry. And regulate which weapons qualify as “handguns”. (Tec-9s should not be handguns that people should be allowed to openly carry. )
    All this means that DC legislators need to be smarter and work harder.It can be done.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  10. al-Ameda says:

    @Tyrell:

    Now the law abiding citizens of Washington, D.C. can defend themselves, families, homes, and businesses. “This property protected by Smith & Wesson Co.”

    Private property is not a public venue.
    “This property protected by Al Cohol who carries a handgun.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  11. Jack says:

    @Jr: So, our police and military have small dicks? Tell you what, during the next crisis, we can send you out to battle street thugs and terrorists with your huge wang. I’m sure they’ll cower at the mere shadow it casts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

  12. bandit says:

    @Jr: Good projection

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

  13. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    So, our police and military have small dicks?

    No, they carry guns because their work requires it.

    Average citizens who carry guns? That is another story.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

  14. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Their work? You mean people who may want to do them harm? Police and military use firearms in the exact same way I do, to protect themselves.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

  15. Jr says:

    @anjin-san: Exactly, I am all for second amendment rights. But do you seriously need to be packing at the public library?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  16. Jack says:

    @Jr: I don’t pack at the public library. I pack. If I happen to go to the library, Walmart, the police station, Burger King,, the park, etc., during my daily travels, my gun goes with me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

  17. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    My experience is that a scared man and a gun are a bad combination. Hopefully you will never harm any innocents.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

  18. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Unlike the police?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10

  19. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: I’d rather have Jack around that Philly hospital than you. That he’s been carrying for some time now, apparently, without incident, shows that he is inclined to be responsible.

    You, on the other hand… I can readily see you standing up to the gunman, finger wagging, and yelling “DON’T YOU KNOW THIS IS A GUN-FREE ZONE?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10

  20. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Hey Jenos, since we’re doing duelling anecdotes, how about this one?:

    Katherine Hoover, from New Port Richey, Fla., was visiting a friend in Brooksville, Fla. on Saturday along with her husband. Hoover was recently married and five months pregnant.

    William DeHayes was showing Hoover his gun collection. While he was showing her his .22 caliber revolver, it accidentally fired and shot Hoover in the head, according to the Hernando County Sheriff’s Office. [More at the Tampa Bay Times.]

    Hoover died in the ER yesterday; the child she was carrying died with her.

    Not such a g-ddamned uplifting example of gun use and gun ownership , is it?
    Stats show that a lot more people get killed by morons mishandling guns than get saved by gun-wielding would-be Wyatt Earps.

    The gun owner, DeHayes, is 35 years old and has no criminal history, records show.

    So another law abiding Florida gun owner strikes again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  21. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    I can readily see you standing up to the gunman, finger wagging, and yelling “DON’T YOU KNOW THIS IS A GUN-FREE ZONE?”

    Can you show were I have ever advocated for gun free zones?

    When you have to make things up to support your argument, you don’t really have an argument.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  22. anjin-san says:

    For those that may be new to this topic on OTB, I own several guns and have been target shooting for 40+ years. In other words, unlike Jenos, I am actually competent with a handgun. This has not stopped him from inventing positions for me that I do not hold in reality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3

  23. Jack says:

    @stonetools: The police do it as well….often…

    All the yelling and cries of pain occurred out of camera view, just north of where the gunman, Jeffrey T. Johnson, collapsed and died: nine bystanders were struck, cradling bloody arms or lying on the sidewalks and curbs.

    The police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, confirmed on Saturday that all nine were wounded by police bullets, bullet fragments or shrapnel from ricochets. Mr. Kelly also confirmed that the shooter, Mr. Johnson, never fired another shot after killing a former co-worker, Steven Ercolino, moments earlier.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    During the search, the “officer accidentally fired his weapon and struck and killed another officer,” Nelson said. “This appears to be a terrible and tragic accident.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/justice/california-officer-killed/

    Police say the woman refused to show her hands, so the officer drew his gun. While drawing the gun, police say the officer accidentally shot the 19-year-old woman in the leg.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Police-Seattle-officer-accidentally-shot-unarmed-woman-222608561.html

    …but of course, these are the “only ones” that you believe should be able to carry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

  24. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: My apologies. You’re not a gun-phobic ninny; you’re a “I’ve got mine, so screw everyone else” hypocrite.

    I deeply regret the error, but I’ll probably make it again, as you’re not really worth that much of my attention. So I’ll apologize for the next time I get the details of your hypocrisy wrong.

    And yes, I would consider myself “incompetent” with a gun. Which is why I refuse to own one. If I felt the need to own one, I would take steps to make myself competent with one, but I don’t, and I’m not interested in assuming the responsibility that goes with owning a gun, so I’ll contently remain “incompetent.”

    Which, as per the Constitution, is not a matter of complying with any laws, but my choice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

  25. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Jack: I’ve also seen two videos where police had a suspect on the ground, face down, when the police drew and shot them. One was, I believe, in San Francisco, where the cop apparently thought he was drawing a taser; the other was in El Paso, where a cop apparently got tired of a handcuffed suspect continuing to struggle, so he just drew and capped the guy.

    But now maybe David Gregory can gleefully hold up that magazine on national television without breaking the law. He already could do it without being arrested, but now he won’t have to rely on his celebrity status to exempt him from the law.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  26. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    you’re a “I’ve got mine, so screw everyone else” hypocrite

    Please show were I have argued for restrictions on gun ownership beyond those for people who suffer from mental illness & convicted felons.

    When you have to make things up to support your argument, you don’t really have an argument.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  27. stonetools says:

    @Jack:

    Yet more reason why we shouldn’t allow minimally trained jacka$$es going around pretending that they can “exercise judicious marksmanship” in shooting situations. Apparently, they can’t be trusted to handle responsibly maintaining weapons in their own damned house.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  28. CET says:

    @stonetools:

    If gun cultists want to act like law officers using their guns to enforce the law vigilante style, let them qualify like law officers

    With the obvious caveat that ‘use of force’ guidelines for civilians are rather different than for LEOs, this is not a totally implausible idea. I’ve been saying for years that the best compromise in the gun debate would be for a 50-state carry license that requires an exam on the relevant laws and a qualification against moving targets (with some ‘no shoot’ situations thrown in).

    Of course, hoplophobes would never go for a 50 state CPL, and gun nuts would scream bloody murder over the requirements,* but sometimes the best solution is to piss off everyone equally.

    *Some might also be concerned that the requirements would be altered by progressives to create another one of their de facto bans. This would obviously have to be addressed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  29. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    as you’re not really worth that much of my attention.

    Hmm. You’ve probably directed thousands of comments at me on OTB. So are you confused, or just lying again?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  30. Jack says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Actually, the magazine over 10 rounds ban in DC is still lawful. I believe David Gregory had a standard capacity, 30 round magazine. Those are still illegal. This decision does not change that. It just means I’ll carry my standard .45, 8-round piece when I go to DC.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  31. Jack says:

    @stonetools: But it’s OK to trust the minimally trained officers because their badge somehow gives them superpowers?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  32. bill says:

    Those who really feel like carrying a gun will be the “law abiding ” types. The local gang bangers usually have too many priors too even own a gun legally.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  33. stonetools says:

    @Jack:

    But it’s OK to trust the minimally trained officers because their badge somehow gives them superpowers?

    I sure as hell don’t trust them much-and I speak as someone who has been stopped for “walking while black.” But I trust them 100x as much as I trust the untrained, undisciplined “shooting-pregnant-women ‘accidently'”yokels walking around out there with their shiny black “manhood enhancers”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  34. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: You’re right. You are very careful. You mock and denigrate people who want to make the same choices you are proud to make, but you’re very careful to avoid saying anything concrete. Your use of weasel words and tactics is quite masterful.

    As far as our many disagreements… it might have escaped your notice, but I get into arguments with a LOT of people here. I can think of half a dozen “regulars” without trying. I don’t keep detailed notes on just who says or does what, but I generally lump them into general categories. There’s the very well-spoken GOP-hating sociopath, the two idiots who never seem to say anything of substance, the Media Matters spokesvermin, and a few who actually sometimes put up semi-reasonable arguments. I suppose I’ll have to carve out a new category for you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

  35. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @stonetools: But I trust them 100x as much as I trust the untrained, undisciplined “shooting-pregnant-women ‘accidently’”yokels walking around out there with their shiny black “manhood enhancers”.

    Got a couple of actual examples there, sport, or are you just engaging in stereotyping and profiling?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

  36. beth says:

    @stonetools: I can’t imagine living my life being so scared of everything that I had to carry a gun with me everywhere I go. How sad. If they really want to save their lives, most of these gunhuggers would do much better spending the money on a defibrillator and carrying that around with them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  37. Jack says:

    @stonetools: I would venture to say, having never been a police officer but knowing many, that I have more training with handguns and longuns than ~80-85% of all officers walking around on duty today. SWAT and other Special tactics units aside, I’ve had more professional training and I have put more rounds, by a margin of over 100 to 1,downrage compared to officers in most departments.

    Most departments require annual certification during which the department pays for 50 practice rounds and 50 test rounds. No other ammunition is provided to officers except their carry ammo. As a result, most officers shoot 100 rounds per year, period.

    Yeah, those are the guys I want drawing their weapon in a time of need.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  38. PJ says:

    @bill:

    The local gang bangers usually have too many priors too even own a gun legally.

    Why is it ok to infringe on their right to keep and bear arms?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  39. Jack says:

    @beth: But I bet you wear a seatbelt whenever you drive and your home has a fire extinguisher. What are you so afraid of?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  40. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    You’re right. You are very careful. You mock and denigrate people who want to make the same choices you are proud to make,

    The choice I have made is to own a few guns for sporting use, and keep them in a safe for when they are not being used in that manner. Please show where I have “mocked and denigrated” anyone who does that.

    For the third time today – when you have to make things up to support your argument, you don’t really have an argument.

    I have always maintained that citizen carry is a bad idea. It’s certainly not anything I do. It seems to attract exactly the sort of people who create more danger than the guns might ever mitigate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  41. Jack says:

    @anjin-san:

    I have always maintained that citizen carry is a bad idea. It’s certainly not anything I do. It seems to attract exactly the sort of people who create more danger than the guns might ever mitigate.

    The only people I have ever had problems with while carrying are cops who don’t know the laws they are enforcing. I have never attracted unwanted attention from regular Joes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  42. beth says:

    @Jack: Actually I don’t have a fire extinguisher in my house. I wear seatbelts because I’ve nearly been in car accidents many times and it’s the law. In spite of living in some big cities I’ve never once felt so afraid I needed to carry a gun. I guess I just don’t look at my fellow citizens as the enemy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  43. anjin-san says:

    @ beth

    In spite of living in some big cities I’ve never once felt so afraid I needed to carry a gun.

    And there you go. It’s kind of sad that some grown men are apparently so frightened that they need to take a gun to Burger King to order fries and a coke.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  44. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: I’ve never needed the towing package on my truck, but it’s nice to know it’s there if I ever needed it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  45. Jack says:

    @beth:

    I wear seatbelts because I’ve nearly been in car accidents many times and it’s the law.

    So if it wasn’t the law yiou wouldn’t wear your seatbelt? OR It’s come in handy in the past, so even if it wasn’t the law, you would still wear a seat belt…you know, just in case?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  46. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    @Jr: So, our police and military have small dicks? Tell you what, during the next crisis, we can send you out to battle street thugs and terrorists with your huge wang. I’m sure they’ll cower at the mere shadow it casts.

    Y0u equate an average guy with a gun to our military and police personnel?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  47. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: No. I responded to Jrs comment that those exercising their 2nd amendment rights have small dicks. Police and military also exercise their second amendment rights while carrying firearms. Thus, by “extension”…no pun intended, police and military must have small dicks….according to Jr.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  48. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    I’ve never needed the towing package on my truck

    How many Americans were killed by towing packages last year?

    Now how many were killed by careless/incompetent use, handling, or storage of guns?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  49. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: How many Americans were killed with my guns last year….zero.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

  50. beth says:

    @Jack:Statistically my chances of being in a car wreck are very high. Bejng in a situation where I need a gun is infinitesimal. I might as well carry around snake venom – I’d probably need it about as much as I ever need a gun.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  51. anjin-san says:

    You know, it’s interesting that so many conservatives venerate Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers” but seem to have missed “Tunnel in the Sky”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  52. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    It’s ok, I undersand why you want to duck the question.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  53. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    The only people I have ever had problems with while carrying are cops who don’t know the laws they are enforcing. I have never attracted unwanted attention from regular Joes.

    That’s because the regular Joes who might have a problem with you carrying a firearm where you have need for one are avoiding you. Because they don’t want to risk the chance of getting shot by a lunatic. Way to make society a better place.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  54. Jack says:

    @beth:

    Car accidents 44,757 annually, lifetime risk 1 in 84

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/how-scared-should-we-be/

    * One out of every 133 Americans will become a murder victim. Among black men, the estimate is dramatically higher: 1 out of 30.

    * One out of every 12 women will be the victim of a rape or attempted rape. The rate for black women is 1 out of 9.

    Almost 3 out of 4 households will be burglarized at least once in a 20-year period, and theft without forcible entry will occur in 9 out of 10 homes. Urban households have a 93 percent of being burglarized, and rural homes 82 percent.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/09/us/83-to-be-victims-of-crime-violence.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  55. @Jack:

    Almost 3 out of 4 households will be burglarized at least once in a 20-year period

    The Times is misusing statistical data here. If we pick 1,000 homes and over a 20 year period note that 750 robberies are reported, that does not mean that 3 out of 4 households were robbed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  56. @Stormy Dragon:

    To be more specific, if we assume the 750 robberies are uniformly distributed over 1,000 homes, the chances of a specific home owner never getting robbed is (999/1000) ^ 750 = ~47%, so those 750 robberies are going to be spread among roughly 53% of the homes, many of which get robbed more than once.

    Of course in the real world, robberies aren’t uniformly distributed, so in practice they’ll be spread among an even smaller group of repeat victims.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  57. PJ says:

    @Jack:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/09/us/83-to-be-victims-of-crime-violence.html

    Not sure if you noticed, but the data used is between 30 and 40 years old…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  58. mantis says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    Also, that data is over 30 years old. Crime rates have been dropping in the intervening years. And he only cites car accident fatalities. You are far likelier to get in an accident and survive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  59. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Read above. There are a jillion more examples on the # gunfail Twitter thread. More examples:

    SC man grabs 9mm to “scare his son,” accidentally shoots him. He died.

    It appears someone in family responsible for fatally shooting 5 in Saco, Maine, apartment

    Minnesota man guns down teen girl after she asks him to stop riding lawnmower in her yard

    SC 11-y-o “educated in gun safety” shot himself Friday. He died

    Baton Rouge man trying to unload a gun accidentally Second Amendments & kills another

    Alabama Man Holding Baby And Gun Accidentally Kills Girlfriend While Jumping On Trampoline

    And on and on. All “law abiding”, responsible gun owners-until they weren’t.

    At least this idiot just shot himself:


    An Orange, Texas, man was taken to the Carthage hospital Friday afternoon after accidentally shooting himself while at the Gateway Travel Plaza, 1086 Highway 59 South.

    Around 4:18 p.m., July 18, Chief Jim Vanover said the man, Jason Paul Bryant, 37, a concealed handgun licensee, entered the convenience store, pulled his shorts up, and accidentally shot himself in the leg.

    “He walked maybe six feet in the door when he pulled his shorts up, something caught the trigger and the gun discharged into his leg,” Vanover said. “People immediately rushed over to help.”

    Sadly most shoot other people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  60. @mantis:

    Yes, but given the math education discussion this morning, I found the faulty statistical reasoning more disturbing than the out of date data. The Times should, frankly, be humiliated to have published a math error that obvious. Yet I’m sure if you called the reporter out on it, they’d just shrug, go “well, I’m not really a math guy”, and laugh it off.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  61. stonetools says:

    @Jack:

    I would venture to say, having never been a police officer but knowing many, that I have more training with handguns and longuns than ~80-85% of all officers walking around on duty today

    You do understand that this is an argument for police to better trained, right? And that it’s NOT an argument for allowing untutored persons for carrying around any kind of firearm they feel like buying-including firearms more lethal than the police are authorized to carry.

    To rephrase the argument, if you distrust a (in your opinion) poorly trained law officer carrying around a revolver or a Baretta, you should distrust even more the idea of an untrained “regular Joe” carrying around an AR15 with a 30 round magazine.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  62. rudderpedals says:

    @Jack:

    How many Americans were killed with my guns last year….zero.

    It’s not about you

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  63. anjin-san says:

    Almost 3 out of 4 households will be burglarized at least once in a 20-year period, and theft without forcible entry will occur in 9 out of 10 homes.

    Interesting. I’ve lived in my neighborhood for five years now. The only theft I am aware of is of a motorcycle helmet that was stolen when it was left sitting on the seat in a driveway. I have not heard about any burglaries at all.

    My experiences in most of the other neighborhoods I have lived in were similar.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  64. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “You, on the other hand… I can readily see you standing up to the gunman, finger wagging, and yelling “DON’T YOU KNOW THIS IS A GUN-FREE ZONE?””

    While you hid under a chair, cheering on the gunfight and hoping you got to see someone else’s blood.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  65. wr says:

    @anjin-san: You are clearly of no interest to Jenos. Just like George Zimmerman. I think he only aims messages at you because Doug isn’t posting enough about you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  66. wr says:

    @Jack: “But it’s OK to trust the minimally trained officers because their badge somehow gives them superpowers?”

    Yes, Jack, the answer to insufficient training of police officers is to arm every mouth-breathing moron who can’t pull a gun out of its holster without killing a pregnant woman.

    You seem to have this fantasy that if you see police acting badly, the fact that you pull a gun on them will make them stop. Well, it might… but only for the amount of time it takes for every officer on site to fill you with bullets. Police tend to assume that those who aim weapons at them need to be taken out right away.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  67. wr says:

    @anjin-san: “It’s kind of sad that some grown men are apparently so frightened that they need to take a gun to Burger King to order fries and a coke.”

    And of course what’s really hilarious is that he’s so terrified of being killed or injured in the Burger King he frequents and yet he doesn’t seem to notice that it ain’t the gangbanger who comes in that’s likely to kill him — it’s the Whopper.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  68. stonetools says:

    @rudderpedals:

    It’s not about you

    Sadly, for gun cultists, it’s all about them. That’s why they oppose background checks-because it would inconvenience them, even though it would save lives.Its why they carry AR15s into playgrounds and restaurants, and object that their rights are being violated when families with children object to them carrying their guns. They don’t understand that they come around as entitled a$$holes when they privilege their “rights” over the lives of children.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  69. anjin-san says:

    @ wr

    it’s the Whopper.

    Obviously, you hate traditional America. You probably eat tempura and other communist dishes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  70. PJ says:

    @Jack:

    How many Americans were killed with my guns last year….zero.

    Yes, lets play anecdote!

    How many lives were saved by your guns last year? How many robberies where thwarted with your guns? How many assaults?

    Also, how do you store your guns? Are they stored safely enough so that your guns will not be stolen if you’re away or the thieves are quiet enough? So that your guns won’t be used to kill someone this or next year?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  71. Jack says:

    @stonetools: Most who want to rid our streets of law abiding gun owners totin’ their guns due to poor training or bad habits also say that police should be the only people carrying guns.

    I’m simply saying that the police are no better trained than those law abiding citizens many want to take away the right to carry a firearm from.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  72. Jack says:

    @rudderpedals: Sure it’s about me. I’m one of those “conservative gun toters” everyone wants to be able to restrict from carrying.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  73. Jack says:

    @wr: Being a police officer does not grant superpowers. They are not able to miraculously deduce who is a criminal or who is not and they can’t make the bullets that have left their guns magically hit their intended target.

    I’m just stating that these are the same people you entrust your safety, meanwhile, I know my abilities and I entrust my safety to no one but myself.

    When seconds count, the police are only 11 minutes away.

    “Detroit police take an average of 58 minutes to respond to emergency calls, compared with a national average of 11 minutes.”

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323997004578642250518125898

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  74. Jack says:

    @stonetools: I don’t oppose background checks…from the original point of purchase, i.e. the FFL. I do oppose background checks if I want to give my gun to my relatives or sell it at a garage sale.

    Additionally, my rights don’t supersede anyone else’s rights and on the flip side, no one else’s rights supersede mine.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  75. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    I’m simply saying that the police are no better trained than those law abiding citizens many want to take away the right to carry a firearm from.

    All I can say is this:

    My father was a city police officer for 30 years and he was well-trained in the care and use of his police-issued gun – not only for gun maintenance and use, but in when and under what circumstances he might be required to use his gun. And such training and instruction was an annual requirement, along with marksmanship testing. During his 30 years on the force he occasionally had to show (or brandish) the gun, however he never once fired his gun while he was in service.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  76. Jack says:

    @PJ: It’s impossible to say how many crimes were thwarted by my guns as they didn’t happen…which, by my open carry method of carry, is the point.

    My guns are stored in safes when not carried. I also have a security system. I know I am probably in the 10th percentile when it comes to this, but that’s my choice.

    You are pro-choice aren’t you? Or does that only apply to abortions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

  77. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: I too have studied the laws on when I can and when I cannot use lethal force, how I can and cannot carry, castle doctrine, etc., Not just in the state in which I reside, but also the states I frequently travel.

    Again, I am probably in the 10th percentile, but I consider myself average when it comes to gun knowledge, use, storage, laws, etc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  78. Jack says:

    This is from a former police officer in Arlington, VA:

    Now, I can tell you that the general feeling of Cops out on the street is that this should have happened YEARS ago. They know that the ban put in place by DC has only skyrocketed violent crime rates, because victims are helpless, and criminals are emboldened. Street Cops, by and large, WANT concealed carry. They are tired of watching helpless people get hurt.

    https://www.facebook.com/SaltyDad1911

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  79. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    Don’t you have any more BS statistics to throw our way?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  80. Jack says:

    Good guy saved by average Joe with a gun on 16 July…but it never really happens.

    http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/7/23/stabbing_victim_says.html

    Where were the cops? Oh yeah, 11 minutes away.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  81. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Do you have anything to add to the conversation or will you continue to be obtuse?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  82. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: need a stat to chew on? Try this.

    Chicago boasts Americas strictest anti-self defense regulations—from a city wide gun registry to a ubiquitous ban on almost all semi-auto rifles.

    However, recent data reveals that more people were shot in the city of Chicago in 2012 alone than in every “mass shooting” in the U.S. combined—on record in the past 30 years.

    Approximately 1,007 individuals were killed or injured in a “mass shooting” in the last 30 years—-whereas in a single year in Chicago, Americas anti-gun dystopia, 2,670 people were shot.

    Source?????

    I’m glad you asked. As an even further rebuke to the anti-gun lobby, the source used was their own sources to reveal the blatant failure that anti-gun laws truly are.

    Sources & References:
    Mother Jones Mass Shootings “Data”
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/12/national-mass-shooting-toll-since-1980s.html?m=1
    (given the fact that Mother Jones is an extremely leftist site, total shootings are likely exaggerated substantially—which only further strengthens our point).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  83. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @beth: I can’t imagine living my life being so scared of everything that I had to carry a gun with me everywhere I go. How sad. If they really want to save their lives, most of these gunhuggers would do much better spending the money on a defibrillator and carrying that around with them.

    Sounds like you’ve made your choice, beth. And it sounds like it’s the same choice I’ve made.

    Why do you want to impose your choice on everyone else? Why are you so convinced of your choice’s rightness that it’s the right choice for everyone else?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  84. beth says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: When did I sver say I wanted to impose my views on anyone? I find gunhuggers and their fear very sad. I’m for training and insurance for anyone who wants to carry a gun with penalties similar to DUIs for any “accidental” or negligent discharges of weapons. Eventually I’m confident society will just point and laugh at the poor sad people who need to walk around in public brandishing weapons. Until fhen I just hope the only people whose lives they ruin are their own.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  85. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    Chicago boasts Americas strictest anti-self defense regulations—from a city wide gun registry to a ubiquitous ban on almost all semi-auto rifles.

    Because one can only defend oneself with an unregistered semi-auto. There are no other means.

    However, recent data reveals that more people were shot in the city of Chicago in 2012 alone than in every “mass shooting” in the U.S. combined—on record in the past 30 years.

    Approximately 1,007 individuals were killed or injured in a “mass shooting” in the last 30 years—-whereas in a single year in Chicago, Americas anti-gun dystopia, 2,670 people were shot.

    Yes, indeed. Also note this, from your source, (racist asshole) Steve Sailer:

    On the other hand, most of the victims in Chicago are minorities. Most have criminal records. Indeed, a large fraction of the Chicago victims are drug dealers who might well have been the shooters themselves if only they’d shown more initiative (or better marksmanship).

    See, there’s really two cities here, where I’ve lived for the past 15 years. There’s Chicago, with the Magnificent Mile and Navy Pier and all the architecture and quirky neighborhoods that used to be ethnic and some that still pretend to be, and then there’s Chiraq. There’s a constant war between several rival drug gangs going on, almost entirely restricted to a few areas of the city. Most people who aren’t stuck living in those neighborhoods never go there, and we don’t really feel the impact of this war unless we watch the local news which, these days, few do. The gangs are killing each other, with some collateral fatalities as a result. And because the gangs recruit kids, they are among the dead in high numbers. It’s easier to kill off the recruits than it is the veterans, and has strategic value as well.

    But your post implies that because of our strict “anti-self defense regulations,” good law-abiding defenders of peace and liberty are unable to prevent the murders in this city, which they presumably otherwise would be able to do. Please explain how you think getting a lot more guns in streets full of them will stem the tide of violence?

    It’s not strict gun laws behind the murder rate in my fine city. It’s weak ass gun laws. As the police superintendent has been saying all year:

    McCarthy, reciting the criminal histories of several of the suspects in this weekend’s violence, noted gang members face tougher consequences for losing their guns from their gangs than from authorities.

    “Possession of a loaded firearm — it’s not even considered a violent felony in the state of Illinois for sentencing purposes — which is why you see the revolving door,” he said.

    Among the suspects: a man wanted in connection with a murder who has 21 prior arrests, and another with six previous arrests, including one this year for aggravated assault for discharging a weapon.

    “How this individual is out on bond is beyond me,” McCarthy said.

    More specifically:

    And a relatively common sentence in state court for gun possession for offenders without other felonies is one year in prison, which really may mean a penalty of six months, said Anita Alvarez, the Cook County state’s attorney, who said such punishments failed to serve as a significant enough deterrent for seasoned criminals who may see a modest prison stint as the price of doing business.

    It’s pretty much impossible to get stronger gun laws in the state legislature, because the rest of the state outside of the Chicago area is largely rural with lots of hunters and gun enthusiasts. So we have a revolving door for the gang members because the NRA and the Illinois gun lobby prevents us from doing anything about it.

    And guns are very easy to get, despite the lack of gun stores in the city. They are all throughout the surrounding suburbs. You can take public transportation to some. The rest come from surrounding states and up the Georgia pipeline. Obviously, there are deeper problems of poverty, race, and drugs behind the crime rate, but the murders rate would never been this high if guns weren’t easily accessible and the punishment for illegally carrying them, and using them in some cases, weren’t so mild. Our problem is not strict gun laws, and no amount of NRA nonsense will make it so.

    But on to the mass shootings, and why they captivate the public and the press much more than gang violence. Let’s go back to Sailer:

    Mass shooting victims, in contrast, are almost all random innocents. Indeed, the most recent mass shooters might be engaged in some kind of competition to come up with ever more outrageous samples of innocents, such as moviegoers or small white children.

    It is so. Does one really wonder why this has such an impact on people and they seek ways to prevent it? I think the Joker summed it up well in The Dark Knight:

    You know what I’ve noticed? Nobody panics when things go “according to plan.” Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all “part of the plan”. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

    Gang members killing each other is part of the plan. That’s what gangbangers do. But shooting up a school full of children? A movie theater? Everyone loses their minds!

    Does it not make sense to wonder why these mass murderers were able to often legally acquire such weaponry? Of course it does. But we should be horrified by the gang violence, as it terrorizes parts of my city, according to plan. And many of us are horrified. Does it not make sense to wonder why gangbangers can so easily acquire weapons and are back on the street so quickly when they are caught with them?

    But what stands in our way from doing something to prevent all this violence with reasonable gun laws? You do, Jack, spouting the same old garbage that the solution is more and more and more guns. You and the rest of the gun lobby, preventing the passage of laws that would keep guns out of mentally disturbed people’s hands and gangbangers behind bars, while letting you keep your precious.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  86. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    unable to prevent the murders in this city, which they presumably otherwise would be able to do

    I think law abiding carrying firearms could certainly reduce their own murders.

    Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and you listen to the police superintendent call them “weak assed”? That’s politics and he’s taking his cue from Rahm “deadfish” Emanuel. It’s weak assed sentencing laws that are the problem. your own quotes prove it.

    “Possession of a loaded firearm — it’s not even considered a violent felony in the state of Illinois for sentencing purposes — which is why you see the revolving door,” he said.

    Among the suspects: a man wanted in connection with a murder who has 21 prior arrests, and another with six previous arrests, including one this year for aggravated assault for discharging a weapon.

    “How this individual is out on bond is beyond me,” McCarthy said.

    You’re not helping yourself here.

    Yet,

    “The most serious type of firearms violation is a felon in possession of a firearm. This usually results in a charge of Unlawful Use of Weapon by a Felon. See 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1.

    The penalty for this offense depends on the seriousness of the underlying conviction. For example, a person who has a felony conviction for a Class 4 Possession of a Controlled Substance offense has committed a Class 3 felony, with a sentencing range of 2 to 10 years. But a person who has a conviction in his background of a forcible felony will face a Class 2 felony with a sentencing range of 3 to 14 years. To determine your situation you should consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney such as Steven R. Hunter.

    An individual who has two prior felony convictions for either a forcible felony, a controlled substance offense which is a Class 3 felony or greater, or one of a list of violent crimes in 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a)(2) will be accused of being an Armed Habitual Criminal. This is a Class X felony that carries a sentencing range of 6-30 years with no possibility of probation.

    http://www.srhunterlaw.com/Illinois-Felon-in-Possession-of-a-Firearm

    So, it seems to me that Chicago is simply failing to prosecute. Stop electing Chicago thugs to office and maybe the city will turn around.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  87. beth says:

    @mantis: Everything you say is so true. When I hear someone use Chicago gun stats as proof that gun control laws don’t work, I know they’ve either never set foot in the city or really don’t think very deeply. I lived in Chicago for over a dozen years, working for a while at jobs that often had me coming and going to work at strange hours. As I’ve said before, I never felt unsafe or felt like I needed a gun. I wasn’t in the neighborhoods where the violence was taking place – most people in the city aren’t.

    It would be like using the stats to prove that Newtown is a very dangerous place to live. It was for a few minutes one day but overall, on a day to day basis, it’s probably one of the safest places in the country in spite of its high death toll from guns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  88. Jack says:

    @beth:

    Eventually I’m confident society will just point and laugh at the poor sad people who need to walk around in public brandishing weapons.

    And you call conservatives intolerant. The Hypocrisy burns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

  89. beth says:

    @Jack: Why? I’m tolerating you – I’m just laughing at you. Or are my 1st amendment rights superceded by your 2nd?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  90. Tyrell says:

    @mantis: Consider some novel solutions: make it easier to arrest gang members. Once arrested and convicted they are no longer allowed to live in the city (the old banishment treatment), they must relocate somewheres else if they are ever released. Identify current gang members by putting a large sign in front of where they live. Publish their names and photos in the paper and on tv.
    A legal definition of a gang could be any organization formed to break laws.
    Get judges on board. If they don’t want to help they can resign. Give neighborhood associations more power and police to deal with the gangs. Let the neighborhoods form their own police squads and courts.
    Clean up the streets of thugs. Get young people involved in wholesome activities: clubs, sports teams, bowling leagues, gardening, music/drama, camping, scouting, and regular church attendance. They must be at home with their parents after 8:00 pm each night.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  91. Jack says:

    @beth:

    on a day to day basis, it’s [Chicago] probably one of the safest places in the country in spite of its high death toll from guns.

    This, despite the fact that Chicago has led the nation in gun deaths for years. “[W]hile some 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago during that time, based on Department of Defense and FBI data.”

    Yeah, Chicago is a real safe place to live.

    Maybe if all the cops weren’t on duty at politicians events…
    “Chicago Police Department has assigned at least 100 officers to secure the wedding of White House advisor Valerie Jarrett’s daughter.”

    …maybe something could be done. Keep running that city into the ground and it will be Detroit in a few years. But hey, at least the Detroit Police Chief credits armed citizens for their drop in crime, so maybe that won’t be too bad.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140716/METRO01/307160034

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  92. Jack says:

    @beth: I called you intolerant. You can laugh all you want, but the definition of intolerance is

    in·tol·er·ance
    inˈtälərəns/
    noun
    noun: intolerance; plural noun: intolerances

    unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.

    So yeah, that’s you. Own it!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  93. Jack says:

    @Tyrell:

    A legal definition of a gang could be any organization formed to break laws.

    The Chicago PD might get in trouble on that one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  94. beth says:

    @Jack:on a day to day basis, it’s [Chicago] probably one of the safest places in the country in spite of its high death toll from guns.

    You put the word Chicago in there – I was making a point about Newtown. Please don’t add words to my posts and change the meaning.

    If you think Chicago is ever going to be like Detroit, it’s obvious you know nothing about Chicago.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  95. Jack says:

    @beth: Oh, I’m sure there are parts of Afghanistan that are just lovely as well, that doesn’t make the death toll any less.

    I obviously put the word Chicago in there, that’s why I enclosed it in [ ] brackets. I was using your words in a different context to show how ludicrous that statement was.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  96. beth says:

    @Jack And my view is that people carrying guns in stores and restaurants where I’m shopping and eating are disruptive and stressful. You are intolerant of my views too so in your own words – OWN IT!

    How about you just go on your business carrying your silly guns around and I’ll go on laughing at you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  97. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    I think law abiding carrying firearms could certainly reduce their own murders.

    The ones not in gangs? The collateral damage in random firefights? You really think so? Want to come down to the south side with me and reconsider this nonsense you believe?

    Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country

    Try rereading my comment instead of reposting the same stupid thing again. They don’t matter.

    It’s weak assed sentencing laws that are the problem

    Gun possession sentencing laws, which are hard to get passed because of resistance downstate from gun rights activists. That’s what I was talking about. Thats what the Cook County state’s attorney is talking about in the passage I quoted above. You focus on the laws for those with several felony records. The problem is, most of these guns are retrieved by those without a felony record. Please do try to pay attention.


    So, it seems to me that Chicago is simply failing to prosecute

    Then you are willfully ignoring key facts presented to you. If you don’t have an honest argument, you have a dishonest one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  98. mantis says:

    @Tyrell:

    Your magic wand theory of governance is touching, but childish.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  99. Jack says:

    @beth: Disagreeing with you is not intolerance. Making fun of someone because of their beliefs…which you stated you would do…is.

    Eventually I’m confident society will just point and laugh at the poor sad people who need to walk around in public expressing their gayness.

    Eventually I’m confident society will just point and laugh at the poor sad people who need to walk around in public expressing their faith.

    Eventually I’m confident society will just point and laugh at the poor sad people who need to walk around in public while black.

    Yeah….you’re intolerant. Own it!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  100. Jack says:

    @mantis: Did you read the link I posted? Either they have weak gun laws…which they don’t, or they are not prosecuting. It’s one or the other.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  101. mantis says:

    Yeah, Chicago is a real safe place to live.

    15 years and I’ve had no troubles. Never personally seen a gun fired in this city. Never seen any real violence worse than a fist fight. Worked on the south side for 8 years, right down the street from a housing project. But I don’t go to Englewood or Lawndale or the far west side. It’s pretty safe, as cities go, for most of us. If you’re black or Latino and live in a shitty neighborhood, it’s Chiraq. And lots and lots and lots of guns. Strict gun laws mean nothing when you’re an island in a sea of loose ones. Your argument is garbage based on nonsense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  102. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    Did you read the link I posted? Either they have weak gun laws…which they don’t, or they are not prosecuting. It’s one or the other.

    Yes, we do have strict sentencing guidelines for gun charges against people with multiple felonies. I acknowledged that, and am now informing you for the third time that the problem is most gun charges are against those without felonies, and when prosecuted they are out in six months. If you continue to ignore these facts, it only further shows how full of shit you are. Gun charges for non-felons are a joke. Thanks, Illinois Rifle Association.

    Furthermore, the Chicago gun registry is gone, by the way. Heller killed it, making it even easier for gangbangers to illegally possess weapons and walk the streets. Any discussion of a state registry has been thwarted by your buddies. All the gun rights movement does is increase the body count and make enforcement harder.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  103. beth says:

    @Jack: So you really put your carrying your gun on the same level as being gay, or black or religious? I’m sorry you live in such fear – I just find that to be truly sad.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  104. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    I see you’ve moved on from making up positions for me that I do not actually hold to doing the same for Beth.

    Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  105. Grewgills says:

    @Jack:

    I do oppose background checks if I want to give my gun to my relatives or sell it at a garage sale.

    You do realize that the second completely thwarts the purpose of the first don’t you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  106. Grewgills says:

    @Jack:

    My guns are stored in safes when not carried. I also have a security system. I know I am probably in the 10th percentile when it comes to this, but that’s my choice.

    If you do have the experience you state you do and care for your guns in the way you state, then you wouldn’t be losing anything in any of the regimes that I have seen most here propose, ie background checks, and licensure requiring safety training. Most every government building here and all of the federal ones are gun free zones. Where do you live that the federal buildings let you carry?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  107. T says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I would consider myself “incompetent” with a gun. Which is why I refuse to own one. If I felt the need to own one, I would take steps to make myself competent with one, but I don’t, and I’m not interested in assuming the responsibility that goes with owning a gun, so I’ll contently remain “incompetent.”

    nah. you’re afraid.

    ice up son.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  108. Rob says:

    @Tyrell:

    Defence of life and limb house and property is best left to those trained in how to react in high stress situations. The average person isn’t trained to deal in this. As we see with the SYG laws people think it’s licence to shot first and ask questions later.

    Am I anti gun, no, simply to say you need a gun to defend your property is flase economy.

    Rob

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  109. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @T: So… people who own guns are cowards. They let themselves be governed by fear, and are so paranoid that they pose a clear and present danger to the public at large. That’s one talking point here.

    Now I’m a coward because I don’t want to own a gun. I argue for other people to have the right to keep and bear arms, I say that I don’t feel threatened by average people being armed, and I’m a coward, too?

    Do you even THINK about things before you toss out your stupid insults?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  110. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: I see you’ve moved on from making up positions for me that I do not actually hold to doing the same for Beth.

    Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

    Tell you what, annie — how about if, from now on, you refrain from speaking to me unless you’re actually going to STATE a position? Just give your comments a quick scan to see if you’re actually taking a stand on something when you’re talking to me. If you aren’t actually offering anything of substance, don’t bother posting it. Because your empty calorie observations just lead the discussion into big circles of nothing.

    I really need to stop making the assumption that, when you disagree with me, you actually disagree with me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  111. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:
    @

    beth:
    Eventually I’m confident society will just point and laugh at the poor sad people who need to walk around in public brandishing weapons.

    And you call conservatives intolerant. The Hypocrisy burns.

    What hypocrisy are you talking about – I see none on Beth’s part.
    People are supposed to be tolerant of those people who walk around in public brandishing weaponry primarily for the purpose of intimidating other people in public? Really?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  112. wr says:

    @Jack: Your self-pity is truly touching. It really makes me comfortable knowing that some angry clown who insists on going armed to fast food joints jst in case he needs to defend democracy is so easily wounded by someone thinking he’s foolish that he has to whine about it over and over and over and over again. Nope, no potential tragedies waiting to happen here, folks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  113. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    Tell you what, annie — how about if, from now on, you refrain from speaking to me unless you’re actually going to STATE a position?

    Tell you what junior. You’ve been caught lying on this thread four times now, three times about me. I don’t think anyone gives a rats ass when you stamp your little feet and make demands.

    You are the guy who says he is all about personal freedom. You are free to ignore me any time you please.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  114. rudderpedals says:

    @Jack:

    Sure it’s about me. I’m one of those “conservative gun toters” everyone wants to be able to restrict from carrying.

    Sigh. Jack isn’t the problem. The problems are not with the conservative gun toters that are seized with military training, highly verbal and intelligent, and thoroughly responsible as you are. The problems are with the untrained, the stupid, the reckless, the blind, and the irresponsible. Step back and depersonalize it a bit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  115. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Tell you what junior. You’ve been caught lying on this thread four times now, three times about me. I don’t think anyone gives a rats ass when you stamp your little feet and make demands.

    Lying about you? That requires intent to deceive. Made assumptions about what your positions are, yeah; you’ve been deliberately vague.

    At this point, as far as I can tell, you agree with the 2nd Amendment about the right to keep arms, but don’t go along with the right to bear arms.

    And until you actually stake out a position, I don’t see any value in discussing things with you. You manage to avoid bringing any substance to the matter while still trying to contribute by engaging in ad hominem attacks that give the impression of saying things, but then you sneeringly point out that you haven’t actually put forth any position. Odd that you seem to take such pride and glee in that, but to each their own.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  116. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    I repeat:

    You are free to ignore me any time you please.

    Or you can simply keep digging.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  117. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “And until you actually stake out a position, I don’t see any value in discussing things with you. ”

    Then SHUT UP.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

  118. bill says:

    @PJ:criminals/ felons lose some rights due to their inabilty to function in society. That they get out of prison is enough, arming them would not be beneficial.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  119. T says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I argue for other people to have the right to keep and bear arms

    but yet you dont actually own any yourself

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  120. T says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    So… people who own guns are cowards. They let themselves be governed by fear, and are so paranoid that they pose a clear and present danger to the public at large. That’s one talking point here.

    and like you, i disagree with that assertion.

    like anjinsan…i also own several firearms. handguns, a few shotguns and a lever action rifle that is a hoot and a holler to shoot.

    Now I’m a coward because I don’t want to own a gun.

    yep, tough break, eh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  121. T says:

    @anjin-san:

    I own several guns and have been target shooting for 40+ years. In other words, unlike Jenos, I am actually competent with a handgun.

    and they are presumably locked and unloaded in someplace where only you can reach them, correct?

    not stuffed into the back of a pair of jeans or in a glove compartment…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  122. anjin-san says:

    @ T

    and they are presumably locked and unloaded in someplace where only you can reach them, correct?

    You bet. They only come out for cleaning and target practice. I don’t feel any need to have them handy for home defense, I have my trusty baseball bat around just in case. I’m lucky, I live in a nice neighborhood where crime is pretty much nonexistent. That being said, if anyone wanted my TV set badly enough to break into my house, they can just let me know and I will leave it in the driveway for them. I can always get another TV.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  123. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    Made assumptions about what your positions are, yeah; you’ve been deliberately vague.

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    You mock and denigrate people who want to make the same choices you are proud to make,

    That is not you “making an assumption” that is you lying about my past behavior.

    BTW, I am not “proud” of my choice to own a few guns. Any idiot can buy a gun. So, you are, yet again, telling tall tales.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  124. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: So, you’re still declining to state an actual position here. All you’ll say is that my assumptions about them are wrong.

    Sorry, but you’re just not interesting enough to play “20 questions” to find out just what you believe, and you most likely wouldn’t answer the questions anyway.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2