Municipalities can`t ban people from owning handguns, court rules

[GGReporter]

San Francisco`s ban on handguns, blocked by a legal challenge since voters approved it in November 2005, suffered a possibly fatal blow Wednesday when a state appeals court ruled that local governments have no authority under California law to prevent people from owning pistols.

More...

[jashoffa]

A good deal but what we really need is the high court to finally once and for all uphold the 2nd admindment protecting our right to keep and bare arms!

[Bryan]

I live here in burlington North Carolina,yesterday,police from two counties busted 3 drug dealers,ended in a shoot out, police man from lee county shot in the leg,thug, shot in the eye.Thugs had prior convictions. This amazes me how people like this get guns, with all the background checks. Wake up! Leaders have no common sense, When they decide to do something they should stop,and do right the opposite. Here we are in a serious drought,resevours drying up,its serious,the jackasses in our local government are issuing building permits daily. I hear people talk everyday about living in the end times.Read your Bible it will scare the hell out of you. I wish people would wake up to the problems in the United States. Quit with the sympathy and treat drug dealers,rapist,murders,and child malesters the way they they deserive to be treated. Once there convicted take them out back. Put them on there on there knees and shoot the basterds in the head push em in a hole and televise it. I am so scared that Obama or hillary are going to get in the office. If so its over.

[ghost_raven]

Surprises me that this happened in California, of all places... maybe there is hope after all.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by ghost_raven

Surprises me that this happened in California, of all places... maybe there is hope after all.

If you'll notice, San Francisco tried this in 1982 and lost; you'd think they'd have learned their lesson.

And despite the stereotypes, most of California is a fairly normal place, with fairly normal people. After all, most of them came here from somewhere else in the country. The nuttiness seems to be concentrated in the legislature and a handful of coastal cities.

I think also that as a rule, California has decent, qualified judges who try to uphold the law as they understand it. But they can only work with the laws they're given...

[Cyrano]

Troy, do you think it's something in the coastal water? You're right. The looniness seems to be concentrated in the cities on the coast. I mean San Francisco sent one of the Top Ten Antigun Politicians to Congress - and now, heaven alone knows how, she's the Speaker of the House, and No. 3 in the chain of command!

[SwedeSteve]

It's getting scary to be sure!

[damage855]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I live here in burlington North Carolina,yesterday,police from two counties busted 3 drug dealers,ended in a shoot out, police man from lee county shot in the leg,thug, shot in the eye.Thugs had prior convictions. This amazes me how people like this get guns, with all the background checks. Wake up! Leaders have no common sense, When they decide to do something they should stop,and do right the opposite. Here we are in a serious drought,resevours drying up,its serious,the jackasses in our local government are issuing building permits daily. I hear people talk everyday about living in the end times.Read your Bible it will scare the hell out of you. I wish people would wake up to the problems in the United States. Quit with the sympathy and treat drug dealers,rapist,murders,and child malesters the way they they deserive to be treated. Once there convicted take them out back. Put them on there on there knees and shoot the basterds in the head push em in a hole and televise it. I am so scared that Obama or hillary are going to get in the office. If so its over.

+1

[Windwalker]

Troy 2000, there have been times that I have wondered if you were the only sane one in California. I see now that there are others but I am afraid ya'll are the minority.

[tlarkin]

I have a more liberal perspective, probably not like most on this forum (I am guessing). I don't think that everyone should have the right to go out and own a gun, I think it should be treated more as a privilege. I own a gun and I love to shoot it at the range. It is one of my favorite things to do. I don't hunt, and I don't plan on killing anyone with it unless as a last ditch effort I have to.

All they do for background checks is call the local ATF and see if you have any felony convictions under your full name, you don't even have to give out your social (in some states). I just recently bought a 9mm hand gun and I had no problems getting it. In fact I just pretty much filled out a piece of paper, gave the vendor some cash, walked out with a gun and ammo.

The thing is there is no way to regulate gun control in our country. Criminals get guns, there is a black market for it, and there is no way to fully regulate it. Maybe, make more strict laws that say if you commit a felony with a gun you are banned from owning a gun and any time in the future if you own a gun illegally you will go right back to jail.

The fact that people think that we should just execute people is not going to help anything, and it doesn't go along with our system. I am not saying our system is perfect by any means at all. I am saying that if we want change we need to change the system at the root. If we didn't give everyone right to a fair trial then our system would be pointless. I am sure we can all say whatever we want now, but how many of us have been on the other side of the law? Been on trial and had our day in court? I never have, but I bet the few people that have and were actually innocent and won were able to do that because of our system.

Sure its messed up and sure it could be lots better. I don't have any answers but I think gun control is about as pointless as the war on drugs. Last I checked drugs are still everywhere. You ban guns, they will still be every where. Prohibition, yeah that really got rid of alcohol. Banning things does not fix any sort of problem. After all guns don't kill people, they just make it easier. If guns didn't exist we would use sticks, stones, and whatever else we could to kill each other.

[Zen900]

Well keep right on voting for who you have been and you won't have to worry about people buying guns for guns will be outlawed.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I have a more liberal perspective, probably not like most on this forum (I am guessing). I don't think that everyone should have the right to go out and own a gun, I think it should be treated more as a privilege. I own a gun and I love to shoot it at the range. It is one of my favorite things to do. I don't hunt, and I don't plan on killing anyone with it unless as a last ditch effort I have to.
All they do for background checks is call the local ATF and see if you have any felony convictions under your full name, you don't even have to give out your social (in some states). I just recently bought a 9mm hand gun and I had no problems getting it. In fact I just pretty much filled out a piece of paper, gave the vendor some cash, walked out with a gun and ammo.
The thing is there is no way to regulate gun control in our country. Criminals get guns, there is a black market for it, and there is no way to fully regulate it. Maybe, make more strict laws that say if you commit a felony with a gun you are banned from owning a gun and any time in the future if you own a gun illegally you will go right back to jail.
The fact that people think that we should just execute people is not going to help anything, and it doesn't go along with our system. I am not saying our system is perfect by any means at all. I am saying that if we want change we need to change the system at the root. If we didn't give everyone right to a fair trial then our system would be pointless. I am sure we can all say whatever we want now, but how many of us have been on the other side of the law? Been on trial and had our day in court? I never have, but I bet the few people that have and were actually innocent and won were able to do that because of our system.
Sure its messed up and sure it could be lots better. I don't have any answers but I think gun control is about as pointless as the war on drugs. Last I checked drugs are still everywhere. You ban guns, they will still be every where. Prohibition, yeah that really got rid of alcohol. Banning things does not fix any sort of problem. After all guns don't kill people, they just make it easier. If guns didn't exist we would use sticks, stones, and whatever else we could to kill each other.

If gun ownership is a "privilege" instead of a right, the government can take it away from you anytime they want to, and it was pointless for the framers of the Constitution to say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

And your experience buying a 9mm is hardly universal: here in California you have to pay twenty or thirty bucks in fees every time you buy a weapon, and wait ten days before you pick it up. And you can only buy one handgun a month. In other states, you have to get a signed permission slip from your local sheriff every time you want to buy a hand gun, and he doesn't even have to give a reason for denying permission beyond not believing you're of good character.

Tell me: if gun ownership is a "privilege," who do you think should have this privilege, and who do you think should decide whether or not you're one of the privileged?

[ArkansasHunter]

Troy2000 haveing to pay those fee's is a concern to me and I'm surprised
Uncle Sugar ( federal goverment ) is not doing it.

[tlarkin]

Well it already is a privilege in many ways. You have to be a certain age, you have to meet the state requirements, so on and so forth. Not everyone just has the right to own a gun. I mean how does a non citizen get a gun? If they aren't citizens they don't have the same rights, or do they?

I am not saying I have the answers Troy, I am saying that is not a right because not everyone can just own a gun.

[mym1a]

What will be very interesting is the up coming ruling with the supremes involving citizens right to own/posses firearms in DC.from what I've read the pro gun people feel farely confident that it will be in our favor. I think there is some validity to this based on the fury antigun folks have exhibited? who knows??

Originally Posted by troy2000

If gun ownership is a "privilege" instead of a right, the government can take it away from you anytime they want to, and it was pointless for the framers of the Constitution to say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

And your experience buying a 9mm is hardly universal: here in California you have to pay twenty or thirty bucks in fees every time you buy a weapon, and wait ten days before you pick it up. And you can only buy one handgun a month. In other states, you have to get a signed permission slip from your local sheriff every time you want to buy a hand gun, and he doesn't even have to give a reason for denying permission beyond not believing you're of good character.

Tell me: if gun ownership is a "privilege," who do you think should have this privilege, and who do you think should decide whether or not you're one of the privileged?

This arguement will be hammered out by the supremes some time this year.

[Reddbecca]

I have a more liberal perspective, probably not like most on this forum (I am guessing).

It's for that reason that I'm about to do what I'm about to do.

I don't think that everyone should have the right to go out and own a gun, I think it should be treated more as a privilege.

Stop right there! This single sentence shows the ignorance of the liberal perspective on firearms, and why your side of the argument is constantly behind the blackball and resorts to absolute lies and trickery to get your way.

Not everyone can get a gun, and if you knew any of the questions on Form 4473 then you'd know that. Criminals and crazies are automatically excluded, leaving regular people with no criminal record or history of mental illness. To say that you don't think these people should have a blanket right to own a gun is declaring war on America, basically saying "I don't care if you've done nothing wrong, I still don't want you to just be able to buy a gun."

The privelage system doesn't work, at all. A privelage can be taken away at any time, for any reason. Under the privelage system a local government could automatically decide "local revenue has been lower this fiscal year than in others, so we're going to be confiscating all legally owned firearms and selling them to pick up the slack". Under the privelage system you could lose the ability to own a gun for absolutely no reason at all. If somebody didn't like your haircut and believed a bad haircut was evidence of an inability to manage your own affairs properly, they could take away your guns under the privelage system.

I own a gun and I love to shoot it at the range.

Yeah that's the usual liberal mentality, "It's alright for me to own a gun, but it's not alright for you."

I don't hunt, and I don't plan on killing anyone with it unless as a last ditch effort I have to.

And you think I bought an AR-15 thinking "I can cut down whole groups of people with this thing"? Get some common sense! Nobody buys a gun for self-defense and thinks "I really hope I get to use this" anymore than they buy a fire extinguisher and think "I really hope I get to break this thing out."

All they do for background checks is call the local ATF and see if you have any felony convictions under your full name, you don't even have to give out your social (in some states).

Are you complaining about that?

I just recently bought a 9mm hand gun and I had no problems getting it. In fact I just pretty much filled out a piece of paper, gave the vendor some cash, walked out with a gun and ammo.

Are you trying to build a case to support the argument of "the easy available of guns"?

The thing is there is no way to regulate gun control in our country. Criminals get guns, there is a black market for it, and there is no way to fully regulate it. Maybe, make more strict laws that say if you commit a felony with a gun you are banned from owning a gun and any time in the future if you own a gun illegally you will go right back to jail.

Federal laws dictate a criminal caught with a gun gets five years in prison just for that charge alone. It's never enforced though. Even gun traffickers never get the sentence they earn.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Well it already is a privilege in many ways. You have to be a certain age, you have to meet the state requirements, so on and so forth. Not everyone just has the right to own a gun. I mean how does a non citizen get a gun? If they aren't citizens they don't have the same rights, or do they?
I am not saying I have the answers Troy, I am saying that is not a right because not everyone can just own a gun.

There's a fundamental difference between a privilege and a right, larkin. You can reasonably regulate a right for public safety, but it cannot be arbitrarily denied. A privilege, on the other hand, is merely a gift from the government to the citizens, and can be taken back for capricious reasons, or for none at all.

Letting you shoot one of my guns would be a privilege which I can refuse to begin with, or revoke at will. Shooting your own gun is a right. The government can make reasonable rules as to when and where you shoot it, but it cannot deny you the right. The founders of our country thought that was important enough to make part of a remarkably short document that has no wasted words in it.

[mym1a]

Well troy2000 good question? I believe its a right as per the constitution, I'm not totaly convinced ALL convicted felonys or misdemeanors should in all cases,lose their right to own guns.I believe we need to historicly look at this and the interpretation of the second ammendment at the time it was authored. It seems rather redundant and silly for the government to have to give them selves permission to arm them selves when common sence tells you, since the begining of time, those who rule carry the purse strings and swords?as for a militia? we are the militia, can't accurately call the national guard a militia not by todays standards any way.To join the national guard you have to be prior service or you will be required to attend basic and AIT.when shipped off to basic/AIT you train with regular army/airforce you receive your issue from the federal government and pay.All national guard air/army are on loan to the states and recieve federal funding and pay.The governor can use them in a time of emergency and are under the authority of the governor untill such time that the president of the usa calls them up! To see and interpit the word militia and militia only is like saying women have no rights because they are never mentioned by gender,but in the plural sence man meaning mankind or human race.Personaly I think everyone should be armed,laws on self dense should be more libral,when everyone is on a equal plane people tend to be more civil with each other!!!

Originally Posted by troy2000

There's a fundamental difference between a privilege and a right, larkin. You can reasonably regulate a right for public safety, but it cannot be arbitrarily denied. A privilege, on the other hand, is merely a gift from the government to the citizens, and can be taken back for capricious reasons, or for none at all.

Letting you shoot one of my guns would be a privilege which I can refuse to begin with, or revoke at will. Shooting your own gun is a right. The government can make reasonable rules as to when and where you shoot it, but it cannot deny you the right. The founders of our country thought that was important enough to make part of a remarkably short document that has no wasted words in it.

twice now I have agreed with you

Originally Posted by Reddbecca

It's for that reason that I'm about to do what I'm about to do.



Stop right there! This single sentence shows the ignorance of the liberal perspective on firearms, and why your side of the argument is constantly behind the blackball and resorts to absolute lies and trickery to get your way.

Not everyone can get a gun, and if you knew any of the questions on Form 4473 then you'd know that. Criminals and crazies are automatically excluded, leaving regular people with no criminal record or history of mental illness. To say that you don't think these people should have a blanket right to own a gun is declaring war on America, basically saying "I don't care if you've done nothing wrong, I still don't want you to just be able to buy a gun."

The privelage system doesn't work, at all. A privelage can be taken away at any time, for any reason. Under the privelage system a local government could automatically decide "local revenue has been lower this fiscal year than in others, so we're going to be confiscating all legally owned firearms and selling them to pick up the slack". Under the privelage system you could lose the ability to own a gun for absolutely no reason at all. If somebody didn't like your haircut and believed a bad haircut was evidence of an inability to manage your own affairs properly, they could take away your guns under the privelage system.



Yeah that's the usual liberal mentality, "It's alright for me to own a gun, but it's not alright for you."



And you think I bought an AR-15 thinking "I can cut down whole groups of people with this thing"? Get some common sense! Nobody buys a gun for self-defense and thinks "I really hope I get to use this" anymore than they buy a fire extinguisher and think "I really hope I get to break this thing out."



Are you complaining about that?



Are you trying to build a case to support the argument of "the easy available of guns"?



Federal laws dictate a criminal caught with a gun gets five years in prison just for that charge alone. It's never enforced though. Even gun traffickers never get the sentence they earn.

If it is only a privlage then who desides who should have them? only whites? only females? females with children? or maybe by political affiliation??? by looking at your rights as a privlage denies others the same right! driving a motor vehicle is a privlage not self protection!!

[Reddbecca]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Well it already is a privilege in many ways. You have to be a certain age, you have to meet the state requirements, so on and so forth. Not everyone just has the right to own a gun. I mean how does a non citizen get a gun? If they aren't citizens they don't have the same rights, or do they?

I am not saying I have the answers Troy, I am saying that is not a right because not everyone can just own a gun.

There's a very large difference between a right that's being restricted and treated as a privelage, and an actual privelage.

As it is now the government has absolutely no power when it comes to determining who can and can't own a gun. They can keep you from owning one until you're 18 and 21, but they can't decide that you can't ever have one for as long as you live.

Currently to lose a right you have to go through something called due process. To lose a privelage all it takes is one person somewhere saying "no".

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by Reddbecca

It's for that reason that I'm about to do what I'm about to do.



Stop right there! This single sentence shows the ignorance of the liberal perspective on firearms, and why your side of the argument is constantly behind the blackball and resorts to absolute lies and trickery to get your way.

Not everyone can get a gun, and if you knew any of the questions on Form 4473 then you'd know that. Criminals and crazies are automatically excluded, leaving regular people with no criminal record or history of mental illness. To say that you don't think these people should have a blanket right to own a gun is declaring war on America, basically saying "I don't care if you've done nothing wrong, I still don't want you to just be able to buy a gun."

The privelage system doesn't work, at all. A privelage can be taken away at any time, for any reason. Under the privelage system a local government could automatically decide "local revenue has been lower this fiscal year than in others, so we're going to be confiscating all legally owned firearms and selling them to pick up the slack". Under the privelage system you could lose the ability to own a gun for absolutely no reason at all. If somebody didn't like your haircut and believed a bad haircut was evidence of an inability to manage your own affairs properly, they could take away your guns under the privelage system.



Yeah that's the usual liberal mentality, "It's alright for me to own a gun, but it's not alright for you."



And you think I bought an AR-15 thinking "I can cut down whole groups of people with this thing"? Get some common sense! Nobody buys a gun for self-defense and thinks "I really hope I get to use this" anymore than they buy a fire extinguisher and think "I really hope I get to break this thing out."



Are you complaining about that?



Are you trying to build a case to support the argument of "the easy available of guns"?



Federal laws dictate a criminal caught with a gun gets five years in prison just for that charge alone. It's never enforced though. Even gun traffickers never get the sentence they earn.

many laws on the books but, like our immagration problem the government refuses to address the issue rather then punish those that commit violent crimes,If adhering to the laws would make the streets safer the government anti gun advocates would no longer have a platform to preach from.Create a problem to apply a solution? what better way to inslave a nation then by their own asking!!!!!!!