Supreme Court Insures More Lives Will Be Lost To Guns

The following editorial is by the editorial board of The Washington Post: 

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a century-old New York gun law. Its decision is just the latest sign that the court’s conservative majority is committed to dangerous pro-gun dogma at odds with the Constitution’s words and common sense.

The New York statute required handgun owners to obtain a permit to carry concealed handguns in public, which in turn required them to show “proper cause” justifying the permit. The majority reasoned that the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves. Because people face the general risk of violence outside the home, they concluded, the Constitution demands that people be allowed to carry handguns in public without any special justification.

The court repudiated sensible distinctions between gun owners’ homes, where it is reasonable to impose less regulation on their use of firearms, and public spaces, where states have an overwhelming interest in maintaining public order. The majority said that only a few public places — schools or government buildings — are “sensitive” enough to justify such stringent gun restrictions.

Underlying the court’s reasoning is the conservative majority’s apparent concern that the Second Amendment is considered “a second-class right.” This is puzzling, given how the justices themselves have elevated the Second Amendment above others. Their interpretation — construing the amendment to convey a personal right to individual Americans and all but ignoring its stipulation that its purpose is to preserve a “well-regulated militia” — is atextual. Rather than disfavoring the Second Amendment, the court has taken an unduly expansive view of its words.

The implications are broader than this specific case. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas declared that “to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The majority then discarded the historical antecedents to the New York law.

In its decision, the court rejected balancing Second Amendment rights against the government’s compelling interest in preserving peace — the sort of balancing the court performs in the context of other constitutional protections, including the First Amendment. The court’s special treatment of the Second Amendment is a break not only with good sense but also with its recent decisions. In 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, the court found that individuals’ right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is “not unlimited” and gave several indications that legitimate state concerns could be considered in assessing gun laws’ constitutionality.

If there was anything reassuring in the decision, it was that Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. emphasized in a concurrence that the court’s opinion does not prohibit states from requiring licenses to carry handguns for self-defense, so long as they use “objective licensing requirements,” such as background checks, mental health records reviews, firearms training and other possible stipulations.

Despite this nod by the justices to the need for some regulation of firearms, the nation will pay in more lives lost to gun violence as the court continues its ideological crusade to supercharge the Second Amendment.

Appeals Court Says No "Right" To Concealed Carry

(Photo above is from wrdw.com.)

Thursday was a bad day for the NRA. The NRA wants the Second Amendment to be an absolute right -- meaning any person has the right to buy a gun and carry that gun anywhere they want. But the courts once again ruled that is just not true. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that states have the right to limit who can carry a concealed weapon. Here's how the Huffington Post describes the new court ruling:

Firearm owners have no constitutional right to carry a concealed gun in public if they face no specific danger, a divided federal appeals court in California ruled on Thursday, in a victory for gun control advocates.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sets a legal precedent in western states, was seen as unlikely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future.

The San Francisco-based court, in a 7-4 decision, found San Diego and Yolo counties in California did not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms, when they denied some applicants a concealed firearm license. 

“We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public,” Judge William Fletcher wrote in a 52-page opinion.

The two California counties had limited their permits to applicants showing “good cause” to be armed, such as documented threats or working in a wide range of risky occupations.

The ruling places the 9th Circuit Court in line with other U.S. appellate courts that have upheld the right of officials in the states of New York, Maryland and New Jersey to deny concealed carry applications in certain cases.

Under California’s concealed carry law, more than 70,000 residents or less than 1 percent of the state’s population had active permits last year, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, in the middle of a raging national debate on guns, declined to weigh in on whether firearm owners have a constitutional right to carry their weapons in concealment outside the home.

Should Sex Offenders Have Guns ?

This is not an urban legend. The Des Moines Register decided to find out who was able to get a concealed carry permit in Iowa, and they found at least 50 sex offenders (listed on the state sex offender registry) who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Most were convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes (although three were felons), but that shouldn't put anyone at ease -- many felonious sex offenders started out committing misdemeanors, and others had felony charges reduced to a misdemeanor in exchange for a guilty plea.

Jerry Dunbar, Washington County sheriff and president of the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association, said of the finding, "My concern of a sex offender having a gun is they try to typically rule in a bullish way to influence people -- and just the presence of a gun on a hip could be a threat to get people to cooperate. They intimidate to get what they want." The sheriff is right. As much as any criminal, sex offenders are intimidators -- and allowing them to carry a gun just gives them another tool with which to intimidate (and poses a substantial risk for those who might try to rescue one of their victims).

One sex offender (on the sex offender registry for an indecent exposure in 2005) with a concealed carry permit told the newspaper that he posed no danger to the public and only used his guns for hunting. But concealed carry permits are not issued for hunting rifles (since they cannot be concealed on your person). He has a permit to carry a handgun. What is he hunting with a handgun -- human victims? The only thing a handgun is good for is to intimidate or kill humans at close range.

This is just crazy. Sex offenders (and domestic abuse misdemeanor offenders) should never have a concealed carry permit. In fact, in my opinion, they should not be allowed to even own any kind of firearm -- because the sex offenders are likely to offend again (and the gun makes that easier) and the domestic abusers are the most likely to injure or kill a member of their own family with a gun.

It's time for some reasonable gun restrictions in this country. Guns may not kill people, but they certainly make it much easier for criminals and other dangerous people to injure or kill other people. It's time to ignore the NRA (which has just become a lobby for gun manufacturers) and pass some reasonable laws to make it more difficult for dangerous people to buy or carry a firearm -- and that includes ALL sex offenders.

NRA Members Favor Common Sense Rules

The leadership of the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, in recent years, become little more than a super right-wing shill for weapons manufacturers. They hide this by scaring their members into thinking that everyone from Democrats to President Obama to the United Nations is conspiring to take away the right of Americans to own firearms. And that leadership brings up these overblown conspiracy theories every time any new regulation is being discussed -- no matter how tame or reasonable the regulation is.

After the shooting in Aurora, many people are once again talking about making some changes in the regulation of firearms in America -- and of course, the NRA leadership is over-reacting as usual. They try to present their organization as monolithic and in agreement on all gun regulation issues. And polls have shown that when the question is asked that way (Do you favor gun control?) an overwhelming number of NRA members (and probably the public at large) will quickly answer NO. It is quickly assumed by many that the question implies an erosion (or overturning) of the Second Amendment.

But when asked about separate issues (without labeling it as gun control), a pollster recently found a majority of gun-owners (both NRA members and non-members) are not opposed to some common sense rules regarding firearms. The pollster is Frank Luntz (who commonly does polling for the Republican Party), and his survey was done last May for Mayors Against Illegal Guns. His survey included both NRA members and gun owners who are not in the NRA, and here are some of the results he found (with the percentages shown being those in favor):

BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN OWNERS.
NRA...............74%
non-NRA...............87%

BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN SHOP EMPLOYEES.
NRA...............79%
non-NRA...............80%

PROHIBIT TERRORIST WATCH LIST MEMBERS FROM BUYING GUNS.
NRA...............71%
non-NRA...............80%

MANDATE GUN OWNERS TO TELL POLICE IF THEIR GUN IS STOLEN.
NRA...............64%
non-NRA...............71%

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS SHOULD BE GIVEN ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED A SAFETY TRAINING COURSE.
NRA...............74%
non-NRA...............84%

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS SHOULD BE GIVEN ONLY TO THOSE 21 OR OLDER.
NRA...............63%
non-NRA...............74%

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO THOSE WITH VIOLENT MISDEMEANORS.
NRA...............75%
non-NRA...............81%

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO THOSE ARRESTED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
NRA...............68%
non-NRA...............78%

It seems that a majority of gun owners (whether in the NRA or not) agree with these common sense rules. Unfortunately, the NRA leadership does not. They even came out against the proposal to keep guns out of the hands of those on the terrorist watch list. They automatically oppose any new regulation -- whether it makes sense or not. And since they are the ones that control the purse-strings and put out the NRA propaganda, nothing will be done by Congress (where most members are afraid of being labeled as "anti-gun" and would take a campaign donation from the devil himself).

Hopefully, at some time in the future, the NRA leadership can be wrested from the ultra-right-wingers -- and given to those who would protect both the Second Amendment and reasonable gun regulations.

Guns In America

The is a new gun bill winding its way through the U.S. House of Representatives. It is House Resolution 822, and it would force all states to accept the concealed-carry permits of all other states for out-of-state visitors --even if they have not met the licensing and training requirements of the state, and even if the person carrying the concealed weapon would be barred from possessing a gun in that state. This is a very bad bill, especially considering that some states require little more than the paying of a fee to get a concealed-carry permit and will license even people not living in that state.

This is not a Second Amendment issue over whether a person can own a gun or not. It is pretty much settled law that Americans with no criminal record or dangerous psychological problems have the right to own one or more firearms. The passage or defeat of HR 822 would not infringe on the right of anyone under the Second Amendment.

Instead, this concerns the right of every state to determine who can and who cannot carry a concealed (or hidden) gun in that state. And the crazy thing about this is that the supporters of this new gun law that would infringe on a state's right to make their own concealed-carry law are the same people who scream for state's rights in other areas. They obviously only care about state's rights when it comes to something they don't like. This is a bill that needs to be defeated, but it will probably pass because politicians are afraid of the gun lobbyists.