<p>The ACLU sued Jefferson County in Washington state. There were some issues that definitely needed to be addressed. One of the things that they agreed to was that the prisoners had to be housed and the temperatures in the cells had to be regulated between 60 and 80 degrees. I can understand not freezing someone to death but there is no reason they can’t sweat it out like so many others. I’m sure if I had the desire I could easily find others.</p>
<p>Be honest. There are many more people that have done nothing wrong that don’t get 3 meals a day, a bed, etc…</p>
<p>That’s not really straddling the issue, that’s being thoughtful and flexible. Everything he said is true and necessary and he doesn’t seem to have a strong opinion on gun control as long as communities are ok with it.</p>
<p>Unlike McCain who has jumped on the gun-touting bandwagon. But then again McCain is not a very bright guy so i don’t expect the same from him. </p>
<p>And don’t tell me I’m wrong about that, have you ever listened to the guy speak? He takes like 4 years to form a coherent thought!</p>
<p>McCain has a generally pro gun-rights history.</p>
<p>Obama has a shorter but very anti gun-rights record…including lying about a survey he filled out (which indicated a very anti gun-rights answer).</p>
<p>Both are politicians trying to please most people, sometimes by waivering or changing their public stances. (my opinion, anyway)</p>
<p>I have no problem with gun ownership but have always wondered- Would it be constitutional to pass a law making it a crime for failure to secure a gun so that if the gun is stolen and used in a crime or accidently found by a child and a tragic accident results the gun owner could be charged? The thought being feel free to own the gun just be sure to be responsible enough so that no else gets their hands on it- especially a criminal or a child.</p>
<p>^ why should someone be punished for something they have no control over? (this is directed at the comment about a gun being stolen - parents with children should be responsible enough to keep weapons out of reach of their children) If someone steals my car, gets drunk, and kills a carfull of teenagers, should I be charged? It defeats the usefulness of a gun to have it locked up.</p>
<p>And no it would definitely not be constitutional, as the Heller ruling recently stated (the DC law was similar to your suggestion). There was an explicit statement aobut requiring trigger locks, etc. being unconstitutional. Also, there were many many statements about being allowed to have a run ready for self-defense. </p>
<p>This decision was a wonderful ruling, and I’m very glad Scalia was the one writing it. I know the anti-gun crowd is going to go around picking apart some of the parts of the ruling that sound like openings for gun control (which I bet are in there to get Kennedy’s vote), but really Scalia wrote the decision brilliantly. It doesn’t open the door for new regulation, and decidedly strikes down many old gun control laws.</p>
<p>For example, many of California’s gun control laws have been upheald by the 9th Circuit based on their idea that the 2nd Amendment secures only a communal right to arms. Now that Heller has stated that the RKBA is an individual right, that basis for the laws no longer stands, and they are now open to challenge under the constitution. </p>
<p>Once that starts happening, we will see more formalized incorporation under the 14th amendment. Chicago’s gun ban will definitely fall soon, and I imagine CA’s assault weapons ban will shortly thereafter.</p>
<p>Icarus- it was not a suggestion it was meant as a question. I said I had no problem with gun ownership but was wondering if DC could pass a law making it a crime if you did not secure your gun.</p>
<p>^ that sounds similar to what the anti-gun crowd was screaming about prior to Florida’s shall issue CCW law over a decade ago. And do you know what happened?.. Nothing :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Scalia’s opinion looks like a mess to me. There is no standard of review given to help lower courts deal with existing regulations. He relies on original intent to interpret the meaning of the amendment but then relies on some sort of “what’s traditional” standard in discussing what types of guns could be regulated and where. Perhaps even more importantly, Scalia says there is a constitutional right to self defense. Where is that in the Constitution and why is it only in the home and not in schools or in federal buildings? So Scalia, who supposedly is loathe to create new constitutional rights has decided that the right to self defense not only exists but is a really big one. If the right to self defense in one’s home is so important, then how can it be taken away from felons who commit, let’s say, securities fraud? Does this mean all the “self defense” law is turned upside down too? A constitutional standard has never been used in those cases - the states control there - or do they? </p>
<p>The NRA has already filed suits agains Chicago and San Francisco so we’re only at the beginning of this.</p>
<p>Chicago NEEDS it’s gun ban, which is what i think people don’t understand. I’m all for the second amendment and am in know way anti-gun, but I am passionately for the right of a community to protect its law enforcement and its children. </p>
<p>Have any of you read about the number of shooting deaths that have occured in Chicago high schools recently? No wonder these kids can’t get a good education and go to college and join gangs, they have to worry about being shot by their peers all the time. The second amendment should be evaluated contextually, the supreme court shouldn’t overturn this decision if it will result in the death of more children.</p>
<p>If you want to see just google chicago teen shooting death, by March of this year 16 teens had already died in the public high school system, and it only gets worse during the summer.</p>
<p>"Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry[citation needed]. In Florida, which first introduced “shall-issue” concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[28] which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed[citation needed]. Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby’s massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law that came into effect in 1995.[29]</p>
<p>Research comparing various countries’ violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[30][27]"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the gun ban is keeping these kids from getting guns how? I’m assuming the teens doing the shooting didn’t obtain their weapons lawfully…they were stolen. Open your eyes.</p>
<p>Tyler - I agree about Chicago. Of course, I think Scalia’s opinion got it wrong all the way around. I don’t have a problem with banning all guns.</p>
<p>Of course you don’t. It seems to escape the grasp of anti-gun folks that they won’t just magically disappear. Prohibition worked really well. You don’t think there wouldn’t be a huge black market and that the average law-abiding citizen would be at more risk from the criminals…who don’t care if they break the law?</p>
<p>First, lets discount the fact that such a ban would be completely unconstitutional, especially under Heller (logically implicit in the right to have guns for self-defense and other lawful purposes is the right to ammunition for said gun).</p>
<p>And second, again, how do you honestly think such a ban would work? Do you think that the criminals will just say “well crap, guess I might as well stop shooting people and start using knives now”? I’ll refer you again to our friendly lets-ban-everything neighbors, the Brits. They also have a ban on handgun ammunition. Ask them how thats been working out for them.</p>
<p>Also, if you think that there are a lot of guns in this country, you might be surprised to find out how much ammunition people have. Some of my friends have tens of thousands of rounds stocked up as insurance against rising ammunition prices. And this is in the liberal city of Los Angeles. Banning something doesn’t make it (or the demand for it) go away and only hurts the law-abiding.</p>
<p>Okay - we don’t ban the guns. We don’t ban the bullets. I’ll support mandatory partial lobotomies in which the gun loving part of the brain is surgically removed at birth.</p>
<p>Yeah. You would also have to ban the knowledge and supplies needed to make ammunition. Face it. Until the laws regarding guns used in crimes are draconian and enforced we will have issues. The criminal element has no regard for our society or laws. What is so difficult to understand about that? Let’s see how you feel about guns one day when you are invaded and wish you had one to protect yourself and your children.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the gun crazies seem to have no regard for our society or laws either. That’s why they go around shooting up schools, places of work, etc.</p>
<p>Don’t we have enough violence in this society? I guarantee there will be an increase in accidental murders, when people “think” an intruder is in the house, and they accidentally shoot their son. </p>
<p>I think all the gun nuts should move to the same states, and leave the rest of us who would like to live without the spectre of your potential vigilante violence alone.</p>
<p>I’ll be more than happy to go to the states where all of the legal guns are. I’m quite sure it won’t take the criminals long to figure out where the easy pickings are. This isn’t utopia. Let me know how no guns for the law-abiding citizens works for you… What happened to the DC crime rate when guns were banned?</p>