(GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)

The National Rifle Association has filed a lawsuit against the city of Sunnyvale in response to a gun control law passed by voters there in November. The city now requires gun owners to quickly report firearm theft and lock up their guns at home. It also bans possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The NRA says the measure violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Guests:
Anthony Spitaleri, mayor of Sunnyvale
Chuck Michel, West Coast counsel for the NRA, senior partner at Michel and Associates and author of "California Gun Laws"
Julie Leftwich, legal director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Larry Barsetti, retired San Francisco police officer and one of several plaintiffs in a suit against San Francisco for a similar gun ordinance

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Am very much pro Second Amendment, yet I am wondering why is it wrong to expect a firearm owner to quickly report firearm theft or have a firearm locked up at home if it is not on your person,especially if there are children? And one could still have more than one magazine that holds 10 rounds can’t they? How many firearm crimes are there in Sunnyvale? Do not recall hearing about bad crime stats in that town.

    • I’ll be Frank

      Not hearing about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
      However it appears that theft is the major issue in Sunnyvale:
      https://www.crimereports.com
      http://spotcrime.com/#37.368223%2C%20-122.0372

      • Everybodhi

        That’s the reason to keep your guns under lock and key.
        So they don’t get stolen by the, “bad guys”.
        This law will protect responsible gun owners from theft of their guns.

    • Elizabeth Hitchens

      Beth, the new regulation would likely be responsible for a major increase in “gun crime” by making criminals out of gun owners that might have old magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (which have not been available in California for quite some time) or possibly making gun owners into criminals for not keeping their gun locked-up/disabled while they are away, OR at home if not actually carrying them on their person. THAT is what this piece of legislation would do, even if no one is ever (or rarely) assaulted by a firearm.

      As with most “good intentioned” gun control laws; these laws do little more than make criminals out of gun owners that lawfully obtained or possess formerly “legal” firearms.

      Unlawful gun “owners” (in quotes because they did not buy their gun through lawful channels, or they simply stole it), they don’t care about magazine capacity, they don’t care about unlawful concealed carry, or not keeping their guns locked in a safe when they’re home, because they are criminals. The laws don’t apply to them, because they are criminals! When are we going to do something about CRIMINAL POSSESSION of firearms?

      There’s already volumes of laws on the books that clearly outline what is criminal regarding firearms. Why are we making it more and more difficult for people that live within the rule of law, to protect themselves from those that have chosen to live outside the rule of law? What good is a gun inside of a safe, while someone is smashing through my front door? That b*st*rd isn’t going to wait for me to unlock my safe, or for me to get my keys out of my purse so I can remove the trigger lock from my gun.

  • Bob

    I think that the main reason for the “quickly report a firearm theft” requirement issue is the “quickly” aspect of it.

    Ultimately, not everybody who is a gun owner is diligent about how they store it or inventory their collection. They might even have arms stored at a second house in Sunnyvale. Now if it’s broken into but you don’t know for say 72 hours longer than the “quickly” aspect of the law, Then you are now both the victim and the defendant.

    As for the securing of the firearm aspect. Honestly, if you want to have a gun for self defense, which isn’t going to be used 99.73% of the time, you don’t have it set up for, when I leave the house, I have to handle my loaded gun and lock it, then when I get home, I have to rehandle my loaded gun and then unlock it. It’s generally stored in a location ready to use in an emergency. I’m not going to hear someone break into my house, pull back the slide, lock the slide, insert a magazine, release the slide, and then grab my flashlight in an emergency situation in the house. Now add stress, and a lock into that situation. Also, vaults and lock boxes do take seconds/minutes that you don’t have. And to be honest, having someone handle their loaded firearm 365 days times 2 is just asking for accidents.

    Measure C also made possession of the >10 round magazine illegal. California state law allows for “Grandfathering” of those magazines, if you owned it before 2000. Now it’s illegal for everybody, including active duty police officers, retired police officers, and people who legally purchased them when they were allowed to do say in 1999. I take issue with the government taking or forcing me to lose property legally purchased with no compensation and/or prosecuting me for owning something I’ve owned for 2 decades.

    How much crime is there in Sunnyvale, really, I think the murder count was 2 last year. To make say, 25-45% (estimates nationwide on gun ownership) legal gun owners (who may legally own these magazines) possible criminals, because you have an agenda is ridiculous.

    Now to the question of >10 rounds are more than necessary. If >10 rounds are more than necessary, then I call shenanigans on the people writing about it. They have no experience, combat, training, or skill about what they are talking about. Pistols are not great at stopping people, often requiring multiple hits. If you look at police training and police videos of actual shootings, they are almost ALWAYS empty by the time they think to do something else. These are TRAINED people, imagine regular people with a lot less training.

  • Bob Fry

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    The 2nd Amendment STARTS by mentioning “well regulated”! Seems the NRA and conservatives are very selective in reading this Amendment and probably others.

    • James Ivey

      Yes. It’s the only part of the Constitution with an explicitly stated purpose. And, the “well regulated militia” comes from the founding fathers worrying about having a standing army, believing such would make it too easy for the US to get involved in wars. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t originally about civilians protecting themselves.

      • Chemist150

        Untrue. Or not entirely true. You need to read James Madison’s and Hamilton’s points who are 2 of 3 authors of the Federalists papers that was later adapted for the Constitution.

        Self defense does include that those that “represent” us can betray us.

        “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is
        then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of
        self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government” — The Federalist, No. 28, Hamilton

        Part of the discussion was that James Madison could not conceive of the Federal government being able to put together a military that could overcome the local militias.

        It was very much the discussion.

      • Me

        You might note that at this point, the militia has a formal, legal meaning. It appears it is not what you think it is. A few things for you to look into and ponder:
        – the organized militia vs. the unorganized militia, as defined under US code
        – the Miller decision (IIRC 1939 or thereabouts), and it’s statement about “militia useful weapons”. In that case, the weapons (sawed off shotguns) were deemed not protected because they were not militia-useful weapons. Logically, militia-useful weapons _would_ be protected. Like, say, rifles and pistols that were highly compatible with current-issue military weapons.
        – The CRS report that noted that when Congress organized the National Guard, it explicitely did so as a Federal formation, and NOT as an exercise of the militia power. Which suggests that the National Guard is _not_ the militia, foaming rants to the contrary.

    • chrisnfolsom

      Ok, let’s have militias – not personal armies… Few have a problem with that. Also, in history one of the first things the U.S. Army did was get and make guns for their soldiers as they could not user their personal guns – you cannot support all the different bullets and armament, and most could not hold a bayonet which was needed back then. We have not even discussed that modern weapons have NOTHING in common with the weapons of 1776 and I am sure if a weapon the power and utility of today’s weapons were developed then there would have been limitations – you can’t really argue this as none of us knows,

      • MOLON1776LABE

        Your argument is invalid. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Second Amendment rights extend to modern firearms including rifles in McDonald V. Chicago. Next liberal looney, please.

        • chrisnfolsom

          They were also “right” about prohibition – the constitution is a living document and not a Bible (although the Bible has a few different interpretations too). What the supreme court counts as a rule does not change reality and the fact that a musket and a modern gun are vastly different in their ability to inflict harm and protect the user, and to expect society to be able to protect themselves from assault weapons, or large capacity magazines is crazy.

          • MOLON1776LABE

            And your best solution would be to deny citizens the very means of effectively defending themselves in such situations, and that they’d be better served with a sign post? Or cling onto their phones as they wait several minutes for an arm police to arrive? Average response time is 15- 20 minutes nationally. 21 minutes here in San Jose as NPR stated in yesterday’s discussion.

            You just proved my point. Using your argument as an analogy, prohibiting the lawful use and possession of modern firearms would not target crime nor improve it. Since its a living document, shall we deny alternative media (both liberal and conservative) freedom of the press? Shall we restrict emails? Cell phones? The Internet?

            So then you want to restrict instead of prohibit? Shall we bring back the arbitrary literacy tests to ensure voters are making safe decisions? History has shown that putting the wrong people in power has led to innocent deaths tenfold.

          • chrisnfolsom

            So have people been dying i droves over the last 100 years from guns – is it an imminent threat for the average person in america – perhaps if you are black with a hoodie (yeah cheap shot..)? You chance of dying is MUCH higher in a car, or from heart problems, but it is only guns that people are scared of. I said nothing about what should be done, only that a gun from today has nothing to do with a musket and when you make a rule about horse carriages they do not all apply to cars – such a driving a horse drunk is not nearly the problem of driving a car so you have different standards. You will never be able to protect yourself 100% of the time – it is the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of safety and security.

            Your analogy of comparing guns to voting does not apply as the voting restrictions were there to stop legal voting practices and the restrictions for guns are for stopping illegal gun purchasing or usage – yes there is an inconvenience, but it everything is inconvenient to do unless it is handed to you on a silver platter so inconvenience/restrictions are not the question, but how much, and if those restrictions are done in a way to target a certain group. Now if you are a hyper sensitive person who feels any obstructions is a plot against your “rights” then of course anything will annoy you – sorry.

          • Me

            People have been dying in droves for the last 100 years for a variety of reasons. 3x more people die each year due to cars, than to guns (all causes, too). 30,000 fatalities happen each year due to firearms. 75,000 people die due to AIDS. Is that cause to ban gay sex? 1 million abortions are performed every year. If you’re good with banning guns, you must be GREAT with banning abortion, therefore.

            I would suggest you need to go bone up on the term “strict scrutiny”, because that’s the basis of judgement we use for _1st_ amendment rights. Then start thinking about why, if the 2nd amendment right is also fundamental, like the 1st, what does strict scrutiny look like there?

          • chrisnfolsom

            Thanks for the condescension you obviously know more then I do….I think you need to bone up on Jefferson’s view of the constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

            Many want rigid frameworks, but one of the great features of the government out founders created was it’s flexibility as they knew things change and if you government cannot change with them some other government will have to replace it through revolution or other means perhaps more violent. I personally believe one of the reasons for keeping religion out of the government was to keep ideology out – as we can see the Muslim countries, and even communist countries as when your government is from god, or pure you can’t change it which creates a problem when times make it change – we can do that until the idealist Tea Baggers decided they wanted an economy and lifestyle from 50 years ago in an environment that doesn’t exist anymore screwing us all over.

          • Me

            Chris, I know more because I went and did the research. I went and looked up the CDC stats before making assertions about how many people die which way. I’ve gone and read the actual supreme court decisions (and more than a couple of the appellate ones).

            You’ll note I repeatedly suggest people go read up on specific concepts, on specific topics. It’s called education. You can call it condescension all you want. But at bottom, I’m still the one suggesting more and better information, and you’re the one running off inaccurate statistics with no context. I’m sorry that you see being called to learn more as condescension. Is that the approach you brought to school topics?

          • IamSome12

            its fascinating how all gun enthusiasts drum up these comparisons like a broken record.

            Car crash fatalities:
            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

            One aspect of your car fatalities decline is the fact that the last 20 years have seen drastic measures these companies have taken to beef up safety. Which means there was some oversight on safety – which lead to a decline.
            your gun argument or comparison is void – gun violence is on the rise. However you want to spin it. Suicide or accidental or whatever. Fact!

            AIDS is an epidemic which can be passed on from mother to child , Sexual contact , or exchange of other bodily fluids. – in countries which cannot afford treatment , life expectancy is about 3 years. Currently the life expectancy for any HIV patient under treatment is about 10-12 years and some cases depending on which stage they were diagnosed .
            Not restricted to just homosexuals. There are safety measures to prevent AIDS.
            I am not sure what sources you refer with 75,000 deaths. in 2010 – about ~16k deaths due to AIDS, deaths may not be directly caused due to the disease itself.
            http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

            Its like you all sing the same tune , it gets repetitive. We do not need to call out our Fundamental rights when all we need to do is use common sense.. which is severely lacking.

            Hats off to the Mayor of Sunnyvale.

          • Me

            So, Chris… by this logic, 1st amendment rights also only extend to those publishing items that existed in the 18th century.

            Typewriter? Nope. Fax machine? Nope. Copier? Nope. Computer? Not a chance. Email? This blog post? Not happening.

            So, let me ask you this: If the 1st amendment rights extend to all of this newfangled technology, AND the 1st and 2nd amendments were written at the same time, by the same people, using the same words, on the same piece of paper (all of which you can verify yourself – LOC has the actual “Bill of Rights” as submitted, and it’s a single sheet of paper), THEN wouldn’t 2nd amendment rights _also_ extend, regardless of technological change?

            That’s certainly the position the court has taken with regards to 1st, 2nd, _and_ 4th amendment rights (the recent GPS tracking device case).

      • Elizabeth Hitchens

        During the American Civil War, most Union soldiers arms were provided by the Union Army, however a number of Union soldiers supplied their own repeating rifles, the “assault weapon” of that day. (.44 Henry Rimfire) The Union Army eventually did provide Henry’s for some of their regiments.

        • chrisnfolsom

          That’s great, but my statement was in regards to the constitution and the revolutionary war 100 years before cartridges, before semi-automation and before standardization – another reason today’s weapons are entirely different then what the framers knew. Even with semi-automatics, cartridges and such there was nothing even close to an M-16. And again, we are talking about war, not in your closet.

          Btw, I am for 100% participation in the service for perhaps 1 year. I enjoyed my time in the Army and working with different people from different places gives military people – generally – a different perspective about life. After that training you can keep even automatic weapons at home – as in many countries do today – BUT you have to have it registered…

          I am not against guns, but we don’t need to treat them as candy – they are potentially extremely dangerous and need to be treated as such.

    • I’ll be Frank

      During the revolutionary war, lots of Europeans princes were sending their troops over to the colonies to fight Americans. Those mercenary forces were also “well regulated” including when they committed atrocities.

      • IamSome12

        “During the Revolutionary war”… there were muskets and bayonets.. not machine gun fire such as the AK47s etc ..which can fire rapid rounds killing many..

        • I’ll be Frank

          The Hessians also occasionally used decapitation to terrorize colonists, which did not require an AK47. Regulation was not and is not the issue, tyranny is.

          Back then, tyranny meant the British.

          Today, tyranny includes gangs and others.

          • chrisnfolsom

            The Hussein’s were effective as they didn’t just kill you, they killed your family and extended family – if the price is high enough you listen. We just are not willing to do that – and I am not advocating it either… It took a president lying and a vastly superior military to get rid of them – he had a tight control on everything in that country.

          • IamSome12

            Your rationale is infallible. More gangs . get more guns.. Another peaceful day in Gotham City!
            What is wrong with having checks on folks who have a tendency to violence or who are criminals/convicts? As a person who admires the science and technology of creating these instruments of lethal power , I do believe you should have some regulations so that it does not fall into the wrong hands and spoil it for the rest of you who love guns responsibly .

        • Me

          And during the Revolutionary war, there were quill pens, hand presses, and letters. not fax machines, email, and copiers, which can print and distribute rapid pages….

          You might want to read the Heller vs. DC decision. They actually address this very issue therein.

          • IamSome12

            Are you really posing a point by comparing bullets to copiers/faxes/emails??????

          • Me

            Yes. You tried to make that point that the weapons are different, and more capable. That technology has advanced. That… canard has been being advanced for 5 years now, and it is just as inaccurate (and as I noted, _addressed in the Supreme Court’s decision_) now as it was then.

            You’re trying to argue that Ak-47s (which, note, are illegal in this country) are more capable than muskets. I’m pointing out that technology advances don’t invalidate an underlying right. The USSC just required, not too long ago, a warrant for the emplacement of a GPS tracking device on a car, lest it be a violation of the 4th amendment. Car? GPS? Neither of these technologies existed when the 4th amendment was written. Yet it still applies.

            So, similarly, the 2nd amendment still applies, even though the technologies have changed, improved, and do more.

            But I’m betting you haven’ read the Heller decision, have you? So you really _don’t_ know what you’re talking about.

          • IamSome12

            I have read it. My opinion would not matter in terms of technology advancements. As much as Thomas Jefferson is a great leader and a visionary , I rather look at the current state of affairs rather than look back 200 years to what was defined as tyranny. I am sure pulling out quotes about tyranny and all of that provides a great dramatic effect. What you are really scared about is not tyranny .But is fear of other people. I am sure the tyranny Jefferson spoke of is nowhere close to the tyranny we are witnessing here in the US. Damn this Democratic process for a city to vote in on something they think they can do without. Why is the NRA interfering in these matters. let the supreme court figure it out. If a city has voted , respect the democratic process. There is no tyranny here. move along.

          • Elizabeth Hitchens

            Here’s a crazy parallel…
            One bunch of people in California (the majority) decided to deny homosexuals the right to marry (a minority). The courts decided that it was unconstitutional for one group of people (the majority) to deny another group of people (the minority) that right by means of a vote. Sometimes, rights trump votes.

    • MOLON1776LABE

      This is such a typical liberal talking point that twists the Constitution out of its context in order to fit your agenda, yet you fail to realize that “well regulated” in the time it was written means a well organized, trained militia. Please pick up a book.

  • I’ll be Frank

    It seems to me that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to permit the citizenry to protect themselves against a tyrannical government imposing violence on the people, an when the British brought in “Hessian” mercenaries to terrorize American colonists and defeat our revolutionary fighters. Gun advocates will argue that such tyranny remains possible, for instance citing leaked Pentagon documents about truly vile plans like Operation Northwoods and Operation Garden Plot that anticipate the US military attacking innocent Americans.

  • Kiera Swan

    Good for you Mayor Spitaleri! So nice to see public officials be responsive and make efforts toward sensible change to keep our children and communities safer. Congress disgracefully did nothing because it fears the NRA and it’s brand of extremism. Thank you for taking this stand for change!

  • James Ivey

    Why does the NRA believe that all gun battles are won by the “good guy”? That’s just stupid.

    • chrisnfolsom

      For the same reason republican’s believe all people on welfare and enjoying the good life – rhetoric that is self enforced and enhances their ego.

  • Nathan Braun

    If the NRA is so confident about the efficacy of guns, why do they block all efforts to actually compile data–about accidental deaths and injuries, about suicides, etc.–to the extent that the CDC is prevented from studying gun violence (because it’s “not a disease?”).

    • James Ivey

      Good point. I heard somewhere (perhaps on Forum) that the CDC estimates that 60% or more of all gun-related deaths are suicides.

      • I’ll be Frank

        If guns were banned, people would find other ways to commit suicide.

        • Mrs. Eccentric

          Most people make only one attempt at suicide, and suicide attempt by gun is many many times more likely to result in death. Look it up for yourself, if you are interested. steph

          • I’ll be Frank

            We should work on the causes of suicide, not the methods.
            The cause of suicide is horrible parenting.

          • Everybodhi

            What a shallow and ignorant comment.
            Suicide is a mental health issue.
            Even the best families are not immune.

          • I’ll be Frank

            You sound very much like someone who is responsible for a death.

          • Mrs. Eccentric

            I’ll be Frank – that is a despicable reply – it can only be intended to wound a person who has already experienced a terrible loss or to defame someone who you have no *actual* reason to believe has done anything wrong. In other words, you’ve been proven wrong by reasoned argument and have taken the lowest of roads in reaction.

          • Everybodhi

            I hate to disappoint the troll, but, there’s no suicide in my family.

          • Everybodhi

            Also, people that choose suicide by drugs, say it is the only way they would do it.
            People that jump off the Golden Gate Bridge don’t attempt other methods. Survivors have said, the only way they would do it is to jump off that bridge.
            People that choose suicide by gun rarely survive, but the ones that do, say a gun was the only method they would choose.
            Research shows, the method of suicide is locked into the mind of those that attempt it.
            As always, there are exceptions, but, the facts remain.
            Somehow, I think “I’ll be Frank”, is more interested in trolling and creating offense than any discussion or debate based on facts.

        • chrisnfolsom

          Fewer would – one reason why women live after suicide attempts is that they don’t use guns as often which is more effective. Few survivors of suicide wished they had succeeded so giving those gun suicides 19,392 (2010) people more of a chance of survival will increase the chance of survival.

        • James Ivey

          That wasn’t my point. My point was that, as much as the NRA says that guns are more likely to be used in your own defense, it’s just not born out by the facts and they fight any efforts to collect any more facts.

          • Me

            Actually, according to the CDC’s data, and the WH’s own scientific review, the NRA’s assertion about self defense _is_ accurate and _is_ born out by the facts.

        • Me

          They do anyway. Firearms are only one of many causes of suicide. According to the CDC data.

      • chrisnfolsom
      • Beth Grant DeRoos

        James Ivey are you suggesting a person has no right to commit suicide or just that they have no right to commit suicide using a firearm???

        • James Ivey

          Neither. I’m suggesting that “studies” cited by the NRA saying that guns are more often used by “good guys” to good effect than by “bad guys” to malicious effect are not accurate.

          I used to be a member of the NRA. I never joined; they added me because I sometimes buy camping gear from a catalog/website that also sells military surplus and hunting gear. The NRA used to send me questionaires. Every question included “law abiding citizens” and “criminals”, as if the two are so easily distinguished. The questions were similar to “Do you believe the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of law abiding citizens to use firearms in their own homes to protect their families from violent acts committed by criminals?” There would be about 20 questions in which the locale or context would change slightly, but it was always “law abiding citizens” using firearms to protect their families from violent acts of “criminals.” I just answered all the questions in the opposite manner of their clear intent. I’m no longer a member and they’ve stopped asking me for money.

          From the surveys I’ve seen, if the NRA cites a “scientific” study, you can be pretty sure they’re lying or at least that the study wasn’t fair, unbiased, or scientific.

          • tonelar

            How about the study the CDC returned under the request of the President? That showed the number of self defense uses outnumbering criminal uses (850,000 times in a year). He ordered the study then immediately ignored the results (because it did not fit into his agenda).

      • Me

        You know, rather than going on “I heard somewhere”, you can actually _look this stuff up_. The CDC does, in fact, publish this information.

    • chrisnfolsom

      They just say “guns are here to stay” so we all have to up the ante and carry guns to protect ourselves? THAT is crazy.

    • Me

      Because of some blatantly political efforts in firearms research, TBH. The Bellesisles case being a pre-eminent one.

      That being said, Obama went ahead and had the research done anyway. The research demonstrated that the pro-gun folks have been correct the entire time – that looser gun control regulations do not lead to higher fatality rates, and generally lead to lower fatality AND violent crime rates.

  • zearl88 .

    If a high capacity magazine was not owned before 2000 it is illegal to posses since it would have to be sold or imported.

  • aya

    As a Sunnyvale resident I have the right to defend my family and myself. For me the gun control low is exactly that. It allows me to defend myself and my family.

    • Me

      Actually, as passed, you are required to keep your firearms locked when not on you. Which, interestingly, directly flies in the face of the Heller decision, which mentions that particular issue as it shreds the DC ordinance. In short – you are not, by Sunnyvale’s ordinance, allowed to defend yourself.

      • rayrayz

        I think you misunderstand the post. Aya is stating that the gun laws is the protection.
        I am glad that criminals can be fended off with words or a call to the police. Never mind that recently a local Thai temple was burglarized with a monk in it. The police was called to report a burglary in progress and they show up late……12 hours. (Story here: http://www.kcra.com/news/burglars-break-into-temple-as-monk-watches-security-video-in-next-room/-/11797728/23425286/-/s6k5paz/-/index.html )

        • Me

          Oh, I got that. I was simply referring to the assertion that the Sunnyvale law protects him and his family. It doesn’t, and is a violation of every other resident’s civil rights into the bargain.

  • Bob Fry

    Could you ask the NRA lawyer how the NRA interprets the “well regulated” phrase of the 2nd Amendment?

    • Me

      Good question. While he’s working on that, can you tell us how you interpret the “shall not be infringed” phrase?

  • William – SF

    I applaud Mayor Anthony Spitaleri’s efforts to bring a modicum of sanity and responsibility to gun ownership, especially given the “freedom” expressed by the voters of Sunnyvale.

    It’s the rare exception of a politician standing up to the NRA’s liberalization of lethal weaponry. Why aren’t there more brave politicians out there?

  • Selostaja

    Mr. Michel says “no study shows”… isn’t there restrictions on gun research or studies because of a twisted interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

  • Mrs. Eccentric

    Wouldn’t any sensible, reasonable person want to take the measures required in this law as a matter of course? Proper storage prevents any accidents, tragic or otherwise, and promptly notifying authorities of theft clears your name in the case of any criminal use by the thief.

    It’s difficult to take the NRA’s protestations of good faith at face value when they oppose even such common sense measures as these. steph

    • Me

      “Proper storage” has already been ruled as a direct constitutional violation (2008, DC vs. Heller). And I mean _direct_ – it’s one of the issues they specifically address in the decision. You should read it.

      • Mrs. Eccentric

        Hi Me! “”Proper storage” has already been ruled as a direct constitutional violation (2008, DC vs. Heller).” First, thank you for providing the reference – i know that it takes extra time and effort to do so. I will respond that in my opinion this is just another instance in which the constitution as originally written is wrong from both the practical and moral perspectives, just like the ‘un-landed men can’t vote’ thing, the women thing, and the slavery thing (as a few examples).

        Again, i find it difficult to believe that the NRA is truly interested in safety above all else when they spend their time fetishizing a document which was quite obviously written by fallible people, in a time and land very different from our own. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution foresaw just such inevitabilities, which is why they provided means for amending the document. steph

        • Me

          Here’s the relevant language from the Heller decision:
          “3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

          Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

          You may, if you wish, consider the constitution wrong. That is your choice. Unless and until you can convince 3/4 of the states to agree with you (one of the necessary tests of a constitutional amendment, as you may recall), however, it’s still the law of the land, and while you may choose to violate that personally, I would have to question what right you have to impose that violation on others…and why, having done so, you should be immunized from the consequences of doing so.

          You will note, btw, that _all_ of the issues you raise above were subsequently resolved via amendment.

          As to your question about the NRA… you could as well ask it of the ACLU.I would simply note,however, that some 2/3 of all constitutions on this planet are in some wise derived from that document you so callously disregard. That would suggest to me that if someone were mistaken in that regard, it would be much more likely (orders of magnitude, in point of fact) to be you, rather than several billion other people.

  • Launa

    On a trip to Australia recently everyone wanted to ask me what’s the deal with violence in the US. In 1996 Australia passed aggressive gun laws and although they meet their share of “it’s never going to work” and protests the reality is it did work! We have a proven model of aggressive and effective gun regulation yet all people can say is it will never work. The world notes our ignorance.

    • Me

      Interesting. Why? Because
      – Since Australia passed that law, US gun violence and violent crime has gone down substantially.
      – Since Australia passed that law, Australian violent crime rates have gone _up_ substantially, to the point where, for example, women in Australia are currently between 2x and 3x more likely to be raped than women in the US.
      – Mass murder fatality rates in Australia have gone up. In the US, they’ve gone down.
      – The law didn’t even stop gun crime – it still happens, and there’s been at least one firearm mass murder incident since Pt. Arthur. (though the preferred mode now seems to be arson rather than guns).

      Oh, and “We have a proven model of aggressive and effective gun regulation” which, note above facts, is not accomplishing what it set out to do.

      So…the world notes our ignorance, eh? WHOSE ignorance are we talking about again?

  • Lee Work

    A recent potential school shooting in San Francisco was recently averted, but the story wasn’t widely reported. A few weeks ago, a 16 year old student brought a sawed off shotgun and extra ammunition to high school in the Portola District. Another student noticed a suspicious-looking backpack and school administers notified the police, who then arrested the student with the gun. It can be easy in the Bay Area to think of school shootings, a particularly horrific kind of violent event, as being a far away threat since they have largely occurred in other geographies, but in fact that threat is already here.

    – Lee W.

  • Guest

    It seems to me that the NRA is suing Sunnyvale as an effort to keep other communities from passing their own laws. Since the Federal government will not pass laws, then it becomes up to cities to be the way to pass laws that respect the will a majority of citizens. I suspect the NRA will be vigilant in opposing all such efforts across the country.

    • Me

      You make this sound like it’s a bad thing.

    • The NRA is suing Sunnyvale for publicity. One should ask if the government of Sunnyvale is in collusion with the NRA. The NRA will get lots of money from folks thinking the NRA is on its side while at the same time the NRA files lawsuits arguing to uphold California gun control laws (e.g., Peruta v. San Diego), lobbies for gun-control laws and endorses anti-gun politicians like McCain. http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  • Chemist150

    California epitomizes the disregard of the US Constitution as seen with many of it’s voter proposition laws such as Prop 8. One main issue of the right to bear arms was the ability to dispose of the government if necessary; a point which is always lost in the argument.

    • Bob Fry

      The government nowadays owns every weapon from knives to nukes. To overthrow the government, what do civilians need? And what about “well regulated”?

      Anyway in practice gun owners are all talk and no action when it comes to dealing with government abuse. Where were the gun owners during all the NSA spying revelations? They didn’t raise a trigger finger against that abuse.

      • Chemist150

        With an argument that a resistance must have every thing that the government does, Syria’s Assad would have won very quickly.

        Background checks makes sense. Magazine size requirements do not. They can be easily made with machine shop tools and there are plenty of criminals that have the skills.

        Law enforcement works because they’re organized and crime generally is not. A trained unit can easily overcome an individual when equally armed. If crime gets to that level, then the economy is messed up too bad and that’s a Congress issue.

        If there is a resistance, the argument becomes that the discontent outgrew the ability to contain it and then the law enforcement bunkers will fall into the hands of the resistance such as in Syria and every other attempted disposal of governments.

        Background checks and possibly gun locks/cabinets makes sense but magazine size simply does not make a Constitutional or rational argument.

    • William – SF

      Geez, and all along I thought it was democracy and the ability of democratic countries to have its citizens decide the makeup of their governments by … wait for it…. voting.

      So what I should have been doing all these years is to learn how to shoot a gun, not vote.

      • Chemist150

        Read some history.

        I’m sure Assad wants to take away guns from his citizens.

        • William – SF

          Get some fresh air.

          Syria isn’t a democracy…

          • Chemist150

            I fail to see why that’s relevant.

          • William – SF

            Apparently we agree that relevancy is important, so using a dictatorship as an example of why citizens should be armed – because they need the ability to overthrow their government – in a thread where you mix a CA voter initiative and how you believe it disregards the Constitution (a non sequitur to the topic being discussed, which I chose to ignore) with a well armed citizenry capable of overthrowing its government, given the CA reference presumably you mean the US, fails the relevancy test.

          • Chemist150

            The CA Constitution has to be consistent with the US Constitution by law.

          • Chemist150

            “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government” — The Federalist, No. 28, Hamilton

          • William – SF

            Or you could just vote them out of office.

          • MOLON1776LABE

            But neither are we. It’s called a “republic.” Look it up. But then again, that would be an inconvenience for your liberal agenda.

          • William – SF

            Try tracking the thread first before replying.

            How’s your agenda going?

          • MOLON1776LABE

            I find my comment appropriate as I did track the thread. Your comment however is hardly an argument.

            BTW, I never considered standing up for individual liberty as “an agenda” as if I had something to gain but rather to LOSE. You, on the other hand, are the one gutting the Constitution and oppressing lawful gun owners. This is a perspective that can only be derived by a misguided mind.

          • William – SF

            Imagining a society where responsible gun owners promptly report firearm theft, lock up their guns at home, and where magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned is hardly gutting the Constitution – not to stay on topic here…

            Do I need to remind you the citizens of Sunnyvale *voted* for it? Or are you only interested in votes that conform to your ideology or your definition of the Constitution?

            …yeah, those are rhetorical questions.

            In your myopic, gun powdered infused rarefied air, self-righteous world does the Glenn Beck crack pipe taste better?

          • David

            Neither is the USA

      • chrisnfolsom

        Remember just as only certain Christians are “real” Christians to many – only certain “freedoms” are freedoms to conservative. It helps when you can make the rules as you go. They want local autonomy when it suits them and then they sue a city when they try to do something they don’t like.

      • MOLON1776LABE

        Your vote would be meaningless if there were no means to preserve it. The Second Amendment is what gives teeth to the Constitution. You think your vote counts in an era where the elites can throw money that speaks louder than words?

        • William – SF

          Cool — let’s all just shoot our way to democracy… … or the democracy “we” want, whoever that “we” is, … oh, right, those well armed.

          I think we are living different realities … my ability to exercise my vote has never been influenced by ownership of a gun.

          Solely public financing of political campaigns — I’m there.

          If by “elites” you mean democrats or liberals, … your prejudice would preclude further discussion – neither party is more culpable or innocent than the other.

          Lastly, I’ll preserve my ability to make informed decisions regardless of how much money is spent to persuade me. If you want to opt out of making your own decisions that’s your choice but it’s not one left to be decided by a gun.

          • MOLON1776LABE

            Who said anything about shooting? You fail to realize that it’s a means of last resort. Using hyperbole and sensationalism to satirize a value that’s been defended by blood and sacrifice just to prove your invalid point is child’s play.

            I find it comedic that you consider what you live in as a reality. Again what protects and ensures your ability to vote?

            By elites I mean those on both sides of the isle. I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that I’m prejudice against liberals and democrats. And by that, you reveal your own prejudice and misconception that only republicans and conservatives want Second Amendment rights when the truth is the Consitution is sees no political color, and both sides have worked toward eroding the Consitution not just the Second Amendment.

            Lastly, you fail to comprehend my point. My previous comment wasn’t regarding your ability to make informed decsisons although now is actually the appropriate time to question it. My original question is how does your vote count when when you lose your last means to hold government and the powers that be accountable?

            If you claim to have such a knack for making your own informed decisions, then why do you consistently resort to government for solutions? Again, without the Second Amendment the rest of the Constitution has no foundation to build on. But your only defense is to satirize legal gun ownership as a first means of political action when it is merely intended as a contingency if all else fails. How do you think for yourself when your opinions show that you subscribe to liberal talking points?

          • William – SF

            Clearly you neither listen to, comprehend or perhaps care to parse any argument other than the one you make.

            You’re beyond having a civil discourse with… enjoy your company.

      • Gray Wolf

        So, Bill – Oakland, do you think the Oakland PD would still be rousting African-Americans with impunity had not the Black Panthers driven around armed to stop them.

    • Everybodhi

      If we are going to fight the largest most well armed and trained military on the planet, we all need nuclear bombs and biological agents.
      But seriously, I don’t care how big your gun or how much ammo it can shoot, do you really think your militia has any chance against the USA?
      It seems a silly fantasy and not very well thought out.
      Good luck with that.
      I think you should look into getting a drone.
      To fight their drones.

      You’re funny.
      Thanks for the laugh.

      • Guest

        And, a drone. We will need drones too.
        To fight their drones.
        You’re funny.

      • Chemist150

        You clearly miss the point and will likely continue to do so. It’s not about overthrowing the government by some militia of 20 guys from Montana.

        It’s about unrest of the whole country when they realize the negative forces have overwhelmed the process.

        Lybia, Syria, Egypt…. When the populace collectively agree that the government has overstepped it’s bounds and something needs to be done, a true force is born.

  • Bob Fry

    Yeah, I’m pretty skeptical about the stat of prevented gun violence the NRA lawyer is quoting. Source? Who paid for it? The NRA has lobbied Congress to shut down scientific studies of gun violence.

    • chrisnfolsom

      They shut down the studies and say what they want – Fear Uncertainty and Doubt used to it’s utmost effectiveness – in a way it’s a form of the tyranny they are so eager to eliminate.

      • Me
        • chrisnfolsom

          Thanks for the link – some interesting information I would like to see vetted a bit more, but still is not an argument against the Sunnyvale gun law as you can still own Guns – many guns. You just have a few restrictions. So if your point is that the few people who will not be able to get guns because they are felons, or have mental problem and now defenseless I am not sure that is a good argument. Why is a restriction considered anti guns? Of course the argument usually degrades to a 2nd Amendment infraction, or protection from the government, from tyranny…

          • Me

            It is, however, an argument (and a strong one) against this assertion: “They shut down the studies and say what they want”

            The reason restrictions are often considered anti-gun is, well, the New York, New Jersey, and California examples. One restriction leads to another, leads to another. The systems for “protection” routinely get abused.

            Do you recognize these words?
            “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
            same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
            it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
            to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the
            patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity
            which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

            Do you see the applicability here?

          • rayrayz

            Are you serious?! Only a few restrictions? Top 3
            in restriction……
            There are laws in place for felons and the mental already……we just need to enforce them.
            It feels good that the prison population will be lessened in a few months, more felons on the street *sarcasm /*
            As far as the CDC’s report is concerned it is conducted at the president’s want not NRA.

    • Me

      The source? The CDC.
      http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm

      Now, would you care to stop spreading blatant falsehoods?

      • Bob Fry

        The link is a very biased comment on a supposed CDC study. Not impartial at all.

        • Me

          Mr. Fry, obviously you are unwilling to do the work to actually find that CDC study. So here it is.
          http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=1

          Are you unwilling because a five-second google search is too much work, or is because you’re unwilling to look at data that might cause you to rethink your ideology?

  • Nathan Braun

    This good guy bad guy terminology is such a clear sign of how simplistic–not to say simpleminded–the NRA’s thinking is. What’s it hiding?

  • Nathan Braun

    So if urban violence is the problem, why does the NRC block cities’ efforts to control crime?

  • Chemist150

    One cannot compare the US to the UK. The UK is surrounded by water.

    If you look at a northern state such as Montana, the gun violence compares to the UK.

    If you look at the gun violence on a southern border state such as Texas, it’s high. There is a strong correlation between the southern border and gun violence that supports the arguments of those pointing to criminals are not bound by the “law”.

  • Charloose

    Start with the basics… if no gun then no death by gun. The NRA needs to change their approach and focus on helping control illegal sales and acquisition of firearms and ammunition. That can only be accomplished by legislative action and changes on the street. Until then, nothing will change.

    • I’ll be Frank

      People die of caffeine overdose. Therefore let’s close Starbucks.

      • chrisnfolsom

        I am all for banning coffee, but not due to it’s toxicity – it’s just an addicting waste of money (which I enjoy 😉 What in the hell kind of comparison is this?

        • I’ll be Frank

          A funny one?

  • Guest

    Ms. Leftwich just said that this bill was democratic and justified because the people want it. Well, the constitution is meant to protect our RIGHTS from the tyranny of the majority. Nobody would argue that a simple vote could limit your RIGHT to vote, speak or worship. Why is it different with the 2nd amendment?

    • chrisnfolsom

      A musket and a modern gun are not the same. Muskets are only effective in formations and right there – needing more then one person to work with you – means that it would take two crazy people (or actually more) as guns were really only effective when you had a group to fire. So NONE of the massacres could have happened with muskets….

      • Guest

        ??? I don’t think you addressed my question. However, I will attempt to answer your argument or at least what I understand it to be. Are you saying the Second Amendment didn’t anticipate modern firearms and therefore modern firearms are not and should not be protected? Well, if that is your argument then couldn’t one argue that when the First Amendment was enshrined into the constitution the founders didn’t anticipate the internet, phones, or television and are therefore not protected? Nobody would argue that those forms of speech (you are exercising your right on this forum) are not protected.

        The truth is the Constitution protects natural rights. Thus understanding the origin of rights becomes paramount to the discussion. Rights are endowed by our creator, meaning they are given to us at birth. If you are of the misguided understanding that the government establishes what is and isn’t our “rights” then I understand your point of view. However, thankfully that is not the system of government that our constitution established. If, as you seem to believe, rights come from government then they are not rights at all but rather privileges, which can be repealed at the discretion of the government or by simple majority vote. History, reveals what this form of society looks like See Russia (great constitution with a laundry list of “rights” but no ability to exercise them in practice because the government suppresses the FREE exercise of those rights). Let’s support all rights!

        • chrisnfolsom

          1. Amendments are interpreted by the Supreme Court, and are voted on or changed by our representatives.
          2. The First Amendment HAS been interpreted and limited such as the yelling fire in a crowded place.
          3. The founders (Jefferson) though the Constitution should be regularly rewritten – now I don’t go that far, but the constitution is a great, incredible document, but it is a living document as ALL documents are as everything is interpreted – like all the different versions of the Bible…
          4. The very name “2nd Amendment” shows that it was a compromise, an Amendment, an afterthought, validated by the people, our representatives, but it still has to fit into our new reality as with all the other Amendments concerning rights of blacks, women, or all the other Amendments – what about the 18th and 21st??? WE control our destiny given the framework our founders gave us and we have to respect not just what they wrote, but the fact that they made it not a fixed document, but a living document otherwise instead of Amendments and Interpretations (Supreme Court) it would have died like so many of the documents of human history.

          • Jdberger

            No. 2. was overturned. Please see Brandenburg v. Ohio.

            Also – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU

            Not exactly the precedent I’d like to quote.

          • chrisnfolsom

            Thank you for the reference and link. I generally enjoy Hitchens and would redefine my statement as yes there is still a limit set to speech under the First Amendment, but it is much narrower then I had mention in my previous response as it states “the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite,imminent lawless action.”.

          • LiveNLetLive

            The Bill of Rights was demanded by the States as a condition for ratification of the Constitution. Without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would not have been ratified.

          • chrisnfolsom

            Well, at least certain states would not have ratified it – we already were recognized by Britain as an independent country (1783) and the constitution was written in (1787) and ratified by 9 states (1788) upon which it became the supreme law of the USA. We also had a president (1789) and the Supreme Court (1790) and then finally the Bill of Right were added (1792) – yes so the other states would sign, but the constitution was already there. In verifying this I was reminded of the interesting fact that the Bill of Rights really was not used much until the 20th century – and now we are arguing over interpretations of a very old document as it that should dictate how we deal with issues in the current day – Jeffereson had it right: Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at
            the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of
            force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding
            generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as
            free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to
            nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the
            right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an
            equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so
            perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be
            obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form.
            The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal
            and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative
            proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery
            corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general
            interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to
            prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much
            more manageable than one which needs a repeal.” –Thomas Jefferson to
            James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

          • LiveNLetLive

            The Constitution sets out a method to adjust the Constitution. It is a carefully described process requiring a super majority in both houses of congress and ratification by 3/4 the of the legislatures of the states.

          • chrisnfolsom

            That is right, and it has been changed and even corrected (prohibition). I think we can all agree that the changes have been needed to update the wording to the times. I can think of few things that have changed more then information and technology – both of which have incredible implications in our freedom.

          • LiveNLetLive

            So amend the Constitution by the proscribed process if you can. Until then obey the law. Until then leave my Glock alone. It is not a threat to you. I am not a threat you, except by depriving of you of sleep. Why does it bother you so much that I have a Glock?

          • chrisnfolsom

            Keep your Glock, but do you need a larger magazine? Does your need mean that any yahoo should be able to buy larger magazines without notice? Does the law mentioned say anything about taking away your gun? That is like saying because conservatives want to lower the amount of aid to Food Stamps they want to take away all aid, or even make it illegal to provide aid to people – I don’t thing that. There are grey areas – keep your guy, but register who you sell it to, lock it up and aren’t 10 rounds enough – you can carry as many magazines as you need with you… or perhaps move to ohio where you can have a 33 round magazine (limit) which will help you how?

          • LiveNLetLive

            Maybe when there are 4 thugs kicking down your front door in the middle of night, 10 rounds won’t seem all that excessive.

            Why do the police want 15 or 17 rounds in their magazines. Why does the military want 30 round magazines and 240 round magazines. Maybe because they are going into combat.

            I have news for you, when a thugs pulls a gun, which they can always get even in England and Australia, you are in combat. You do not always have to go to combat, sometimes it comes to you, like at the Naval Yard in D.C.

            That piece of crazy filth did not have a 100 round magazine. He had a shotgun with a 5 round magazine. Oh, and there were two 17 round magazines in the pistols he stole from security guards. He knew who had guns and killed them first.

            That is why I am so pleased to see people open carrying. They wear a “shoot me first” sign on their hip so I have time to run away or deploy my legally carried concealed gun, whichever, I determine to be in my best interest at the time.

            I am not Zimmerman. When I see a bunch of teenagers vandalizing a church I call the cops from my car and go home. Cops have a purpose, they did not protect the Church but they did collect perpetrators. The Church still paid to have the graffiti covered over.

            However, if someone has me on my back and is pounding my head into the sidewalk, I have another option you do not have.

      • Are you completely ignorant of the fact that firearms capable of firing more than one round have been around for 1,000 years? http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

        • chrisnfolsom

          So you are comparing those to today’s weapons? I am not ignorant of weaponry, and enjoy owning and firing rifles and pistols (and still jones over my Army days shooting my M-60 or the 50 cal in auto…) You think than anyone had any idea of the power that one soldier, one person with some money has today? I don’t think so – just as no one had any idea of the power of the automobile, and rules that applied to horses and carriages needed to be changed when applied to cars – the rules applied to modern weapons need to be adj accordingly. Btw, what weapons are you talking about? there were some 4 shooter guns with rotating barrels, and some rockets and such, but nothing like a machine gun, or even semi auto handgun that I am aware of – the size, the power, the large magazines that are easily swapped – get’s me excited just thinking about it, but NOTHING like was was available to our founding fathers.

          • Anyone can Google the types of arms that have existed throughout history. Constitutionally, the US Supreme Court has already settled the question that modern firearms are protected arms.

            “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2791-2792.

            As Justice Scalia, who wrote the Heller decision, remarked in a Fox News interview. Whether that right extends to machine-guns or even to shoulder fired missiles that can bring down an airliner is a question yet to be decided. http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

          • chrisnfolsom

            Please don’t bring up Scalia – he believe is witches, fairies and a devil that prowls the earth… Anyway, again, all Amendments can be changed or interpreted differently or we would not need the Supreme Court. I had not remembered the “bearable arms” quote which seems limiting as when the government attacks you will need more then what you can carry to fight….

            Sorry, no arms come close to modern day weapons and none of them were used in the Rev War – they had cannons, muskets/bayonet and hand guns. A musket was really needed a group to be effective – as with the killer in the Giffords shooting – he was easy to stop once he stopped to reload which would have only allowed one bullet to go off if he had had a musket. Yes we have a different situation now – we need to talk and think about what kind of life we want to live.

          • Jdberger

            Right. Good idea to ignore a Justice of the Supreme Court. His opinion can’t matter. Nope. Nothing to se here….

          • chrisnfolsom

            Scalias opinions matter – and that is what scares me. Like the judge recently who said the NSA was overstepping(I think it has) – that was his opinion, it is on appeal, but many people use it to “prove” a point – it proves nothing even though he is a judge and while I will take it into consideration his opinion doesn’t define what I should think. I mean if that is the definitive argument a few people might actually give the President’s ideas some recognition, but we know that is not going to happen.

          • LiveNLetLive

            Yes!! I want me a CANNON! That would be cool. Cannons are really loud.

            As for the Tucson trash, he was and is mentally unstable. Personal attributes and actions have long justified depriving a particular person rights after due process of law.

            What bothers me is that after over 50 years of peaceful, law abiding demonstration of responsible, non-threatening firearms possession and use, you still want to deprive me of my freedom and property. Why?

      • Shawn Leaver

        Yes the musket and modern gun are not the same but none of our constitutional rights are based solely on the technology of the time of its framing. Do you enjoy your 1st Amendment privileges when it comes to email, computers and other technology? Or are they only protected as they could have been envisioned by the founding fathers. You have the freedom of expression and the right to redress government in person or by handwritten letter only according to that mindset and any other freedom be it phone calls, text messages, blogs, websites and so on are okay to be censored, deleted, blocked or whatever by the government. You know, to protect the kids and all. Should your 4th amendment right to be free from search be thrown out the window when it comes to your automobile since that technology didn’t exist back then? Or is it just okay for the 2nd to be limited? As new technology emerges the Supreme Court is often tasked with applying the intent of the constitution to the new technology, their answer has never been that the rights outlined in the constitution don’t apply simply because the technology is new.

        • chrisnfolsom

          I don’t believe that is true – you cannot own a missile, a bomb, or a tank – that can fire weapons. For those interested in the – tyranny from the state – argument having guns is just the beginning of what you would need. AGAIN, who is talking about you not being able to have a gun? To have a radio station you need and FCC license – does that limit your free speech? There are differences, and in reality talking about what people 200 years ago would think is a bit ridiculous.

          I believe that those thinking about the “good old days” also would like to have a safe environment where you didn’t need a gun. This is getting tiring as usual as the arguments always go back and forth and we are left with the great statement by Ron Burgundy “We agree to disagree” as much as it pains me to think that. I actually hope that technology will make all this a problem of the past – not sure how, but there are many ways.

          • LiveNLetLive

            Chris, Chris, anti gun people like to use missile, bombs, and tanks in their arguments. Please answer this. I have over 50 years of history in the safe use of firearms. I have never threatened or injured anyone. So, how does my possession of a M1A1 Abrahams threaten you? Don’t get all up tight I want better gas mileage in my vehicles, but if it is used safely what is the danger to you? My Glock has never threatened or injured anyone. I obey the law. Where is the threat to you from me having a gun, or any other weapon on that predicate?

          • chrisnfolsom

            I have no problem with you having anything (Tanks, Artillery, Bombs) as long as you are trained and certain rules are followed – securing weapons and such. You I am not scared of, but you are not typical, and any bozo can get a weapon that is insanely powerful and potentially deadly. Of course the more dangerous the weapons the more security should be needed – which of course will mean registration, paperwork and money to comply. I would love for us to have private militias which could even supplant, or augment a state or national Army, but that is not the argument. Again, I enjoy firearms and have a handgun, shotgun and a few rifles – and still remember shooting auto (and nightfire) when in the service.

            ALL weapons were legally manufactured at one time – now we have 200 million+ and we know very little about them – why? Who’s safety has this benefited? Is my wife safer, my daughter – do we need more guns out there unregulated? Am I to think now that I need my own arsenal, a reinforced house and front door, a bullet proof car? Where does it end?

    • srcarruth

      this law is part of the “well regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment.

      • Poltroon

        What was the meaning of “well regulated” when the 2nd was passed..what was the meaning of a “militia” back then. Word meanings change. Think “gay”

        • Menelvagor

          what did militia mean then and what does it mean now?

          • LiveNLetLive

            According to federal law the militia means all males age17 to 45 and those female who are members of the national guard.
            The National Guard is defined in the immediately preceding section of the law. Read the U.S. Code, federal law clearly defines the militia and the National Guard as two separate constructs.

          • Menelvagor

            all males where and when? is the whole population the militia? I dont think so. Guns are meant to be regulated in well-ordered–ordered militia–a local volunteer organization with authority from the local people and the state, im sure. But is it regulated and ordered. GUns are not meant to used like fists by all citizens. guns are meant to be regulated.

        • srcarruth

          so the 2nd Amendment is open to a contemporary interpretation based on revised definitions?

      • tonelar

        The regulated part of the amendment is in reference to the militia, not the right itself.

        “Regulated” at the time the constitution was written referred to a degree of efficiency / effectiveness. By not infringing on the right, we all benefit by having a citizenry that is proficient in the handling of firearms.

        • Menelvagor

          you are wrong

          • LiveNLetLive

            Sorry Frankie, but you are the one out of step with reality.

          • Menelvagor

            why?

          • LiveNLetLive

            I do not know why you do not recognize reality, Maybe your education was defective.

            I have some other sad news for you, Frank. The KKK was a function of the Democrat Party. It was conceived. organized and ran by Democrats. No Republicans were allowed. Lynched maybe, but not allowed to join. When the KKK was king in the South, if you wanted a career in politics, you joined the KKK and you were a registered Democrat.

          • Selostaja

            Sorry to burst your ignorance bubble but ‘Republicans’, at the time the original KKK was established, was very similar to today’s Democrats. The KKK’s primary agenda was white supremacy; they were not ‘Democrats’ just because they were anti-Republican. At the time, Republicans were generally liberal in domestic policy, supported unions, and supported much of the New Deal. Times and semantics have changed since Lincoln’s era and Republicans of today would horrify those of the past.

          • LiveNLetLive

            We could debate the structure of the two parties, but that is a waste of time. The fact is the KKK and Democrat party were bed partners through 1940s and into the 1950s. If a man wanted to be a political person he joined the Klan. In the South the KKK owned the Democrats. When he got his start in Politics Senator Byrd was Grand Wizard of the county Klan. It was a political necessity. So perhaps I misspoke, maybe the Democrat Party did not own the KKK, Maybe the KKK owned the Democrat Party.

            Even in Mississippi David Duke a KKK Grand Wizard was rejected by the Republicans when he tried for political office.

            I believe in limited government, freedom and personal responsibility. If I ‘regulate’ myself, pay my own bills, and do not injure you, leave me alone. I will accord you the same freedom.

            I do not use my firearms to intimidate, threaten or injure anyone. How is taking my property from me going to make you safer?

          • Menelvagor

            its a waste of time because you feel dumb–its a waste of time to talk about the facts and the truth. wow. i still say the uneducated should not be allowed to vote.

        • srcarruth

          owning a personal arsenal does not mean you are a ‘proficient militia’

          • nunyaeffinbizness

            How does banning the mere possession of tools of the militia make for a “proficient militia”?

          • srcarruth

            the goal of gun control is not to make a militia it is to protect the citizenry from gun violence

          • LiveNLetLive

            An unarmed militia is a collection of targets. The latest attempted murder at a Colorado High School demonstrates the value of having an armed law abiding person close at hand in a mass murder event. There is still a need for an effective distribute militia to respond to would be murderers.

          • Menelvagor

            oh right yeah because armed students and security in schools would have made that event so much more peaceful–shoot outs–a war zone–emmm, yeah, you like that huh, get your rocks off on that huh, guns a blazing shooting up all up, bullets flying zinging hitting poor kids in the face, bystanders in your madness. Bullets dont have names on them. ANd no–_NO–evidence shows that being armed makes you safer–or deters crime–but plenty evidence does show that less guns means safer streets and schools. DO you not even care that your brethren dont feel comfortable with nutty guns in a movie–you do NOT have the right to walk into private establishments or public buildings with nutty guns. ANd by the way the forefathers were referring to invaders and a tyrannical government. not school kids. stop shooting our kids. and hey we have no invaders except tea party members–and the NRA. But we do have a fascist oligarchy in power on both sides of the aisle that has become tyrannical and worthy of abolishing as the constitution gives you that right. the militia is to defend against the government and invaders–not black people. if you want to live and let live–put down your gun.

          • LiveNLetLive

            Every honest research organization that looked at the question, comparing violent crime rates in states that passed “Shall Issue” CCW laws, putting more guns on the street in the hands of law abiding citizens, has noted a statistically insignificant decline in violent crime. Only, all of the trends are in the same direction, downward.

            CCW holders have a lower incidence rate of “gun” crime than the police officers. Not denigrate the police, but CCW holders for the most part are not wild eyed crazies.

            Putting more guns on the street in the hands of peaceful, law abiding citizens may not be the path to a radical increase in public safety, but It has been amply demonstrated that it does not make the problem worse.

            For the record, even I do not trust my fellow man/worman enough to allow free concealed carry, A person should have to demonstrate that they live the rules before they carry concealed. Shall Issue,CCW permits, based on reasonable, objective criteria, have proven themselves.

            As for your attack on the tea party and the NRA. No Tea Party member or NRA member has ever been involved in a mass murder event. However, at least, the vast majority of mass murders have had socialist leanings. The press keeps hoping against hope that a violent Tea Partier will be show up, but their hopes keep getting dashed and mass murderers keep proving to hold socialist beliefs.

            The latest Colorado dirt bag (at least I haven’t heard he was a murderer yet) was a socialist who had demonstrated his hatred of Republicans and conservatives on Facebook. That little tidbit was cleansed from the press pretty quickly.

            So, assuming you are a card carrying Democrat government control freak, (for which I have only my interpretation of your writings), you and yours need to stop shooting kids, yours, mine and everyones kids should be safe.

            In Israel, when the Palestinians targeted Israeli schools, the Israelis armed volunteer teachers and parents. A discretely armed adult was present on school ground during every school day and accompanied every school outing. The Israelis do not have mass murders at their schools. Discrete Armed Defense works.

            Surely, every school has few teachers who are sufficiently sane that they can be trained and discretely armed to protect their charges. Surely, the Unions have not purged all of the peaceful, law abiding, sane teachers from our schools yet.

            Sandy Hook proved that some teachers are sufficiently committed to the defense of their pupils to take on an armed assailant with their bare hands. Don’t we own people with that kind of courage a fighting chance.

            That gets me back to that citizen militia I was talking about, every male citizen between 17 and 45 and any female citizens who are willing to volunteer. That definition comes from the present U.S. Code.

          • LiveNLetLive

            Fact: Sandy Hook lasted 5 minutes or more.
            Fact: Arapaho lasted 80 seconds.

            40 states have adopted “shall issue” CCW laws. Your kind has predicted blood in the streets, the O.K. corral on every corner. Fender bender shoot outs. Isn’t being wrong 40 out of 40 times enough?

            Occupy Whatever Street was filled with rape and murder, public obscenity and public health disasters. No Tea Party event has been marred by violence.

            By the way, we do agree about a tyrannical government. The Tea Party wants to use the ballot box to throw the bums out. What is your answer?

          • srcarruth

            we totally have an effective distributed militia where I live! maybe we should share our model with other municipalities. we call ours: The Police (not named after the 80s band)

          • LiveNLetLive

            I guess there is no crime, at least no violent crime, in your community if your Police are “totally” effective. I think I saw a movie about that once, “Minority Report”. Tom Cruise did not end up so happy with the police in that story.

            The fact is, police use their sidewalk chalk to clean up after murderous attacks much more often that they use their guns to prevent the attack.

            They can not be everywhere all the time. Criminals can see who the police are and the criminals then either go somewhere else or like the DC Naval Yard murderer, kill the police first.

          • srcarruth

            I do love a good Phil Dick reference but I have to disagree with the idea that amateurs with guns are going to make things more peaceful in the world. did you read about the woman who was shot in the face by homeowner when she drunkenly knocked on his door at 4am after crashing her car? trial is currently underway and he is pleading self-defense. he shot her through the screen door.

          • LiveNLetLive

            There are stupid people in the world.

            Had he undergone CCW training he would have been told his definition of ‘reasonable’ was a guaranteed ticket to jail.

            That is an education issue, not a gun control issue.

            It would be nice if the Press would inform people that lawful self-defense requires 1) the reasonable belief that there the defender is subject to a threat of death or great bodily injury, 2) That that threat is imminent (reasonably expected to happen in the next instant of time) 3).the use of deadly force is reasonably required to stop the threat. Self defense only authorizes stopping the threat. If the threat stops short of death for the attacker, the authorization use deadly force stops. Reasonable is within the parameters that a normal person on the street knowing what the defender knew could conclude assuming normal person wanted to do right.

            Stand your ground laws merely say that if you are in a place where you have the right to be, and you reasonably believe under the facts as you reasonably believe them to be, that you are in imminent danger of the attacker inflicting death or great bodily injury up on you, then we will presume that deadly force was reasonably required to stop the threat. The State has the burden to prove to the contrary and the fact that you were standing in a parking lot and did not try to run away is not available to the State. It requires more, like you could have shut the door.

            Rather than educating the idiots, the press would rather see ignorant defenders kill people to advance the press’ agenda.

            I knew a guy (“Stupid”) who found out his ex-wife was sleeping with another guy. Stupid got drunk and decided to scare the crap out of them. He went by the house and when she came to the door he waved a baseball bat at her and issued threats against them. Then Stupid left, got on a really loud motorcycle and charged up and down the street in front of her house. On the 3rd or 4th pass, the boy friend stepped out from behind a van parked on the street and clocked Stupid in the head with a 2X4. Stupid’s helmet and luck kept the blow from killing Stupid. Stupid asked why boy friend did not get in trouble. “I was just out to scare them. I would never of actually hurt them.”

            Given that Stupid had shown a weapon, made loud unambiguous threats of death or great bodily injury, and was continuing to harass them. (The 2×4 certainly constituted deadly force.) Was boy friend justified? Your call.

          • srcarruth

            why would he undergo CCW training for a gun in his house? education is great but in a true crisis situation we need people trained and experienced in handling a dangerous situation. a man who shoots a woman in the face for banging on his door needs more than a training course to deal with actual danger.

          • LiveNLetLive

            Like I said it was a education issue. He has a house he wants to defend. What can he do? What can you do?

            Lets put you at the door and 4 white skinheads with ball bats on the porch. What can you do?

            How long before the police get there? How much damage can your friendly neighborhood skinheads do while you wait? What can you do? Should you inform yourself?

          • srcarruth

            and if it was Godzilla we’d all be dead but the fact is that he opened his door and blasted a drunk and injured woman in the face with a shotgun through his screen door. he is claiming self-defense but he did not have to open his door.

          • LiveNLetLive

            I did not speak well. This guy committed murder because he did not know what his limits were. Do you know when you may be authorized to use deadly force to protect your self. It does not have to be a gun. It could be a golf club, a ball bat, a butter knife or a screwdriver. Do you know what is required to constitute self defense?

          • Kdoc1

            Your proposition is hardly true. You will recall the shooting of Jeffrey Johnson outside the Empire State Building by trained NYPD officers. They did manage to hit their target, but they also shot nine innocent civilians. How accurate would your ‘law abiding person’ be in a stressful situation? I would suggest he/she might not cope too well at all. Clearly the ‘trained’ people have some difficulty, the average law abiding person would be likely to do even more damage.

          • LiveNLetLive

            Have you explored the reality of Police department marksmanship training? Most officers carry a gun because it is part of the uniform, not because they are good with it.

            Plus, what about “civilian” equals untrained? I regularly shoot with a group of civilians and police officers that have an interest in firearms. I am usually in the middle of the pack. None of the top performers in the club are officers.

            I have been in training with officers. Some of them were very good. More of them were more like me. A few were positively dangerous to the public. They could barely qualify. They were good officers, just bad shots.

            You want better training armed personal of either uniformed or civilian varieties – promote training and education.

          • Kdoc1

            It’s not merely a matter of firearms training – it’s also how to act/react when presented with a dangerous situation.. I think a NYPD officer who is dealing with many different types of people and situations in the course of his working day, has more than an edge on the average law abiding citizen when it comes to challenging situations – and yet still they can manage to cause further casualties.

            A peaceful society requires less lethal weapons not more.
            I think it’s worth noting that the cops on the beat in some less violent societies don’t even carry guns: The UK (excluding Northern Ireland which has complex political issues), the Irish Republic & New Zealand, are some examples. (Of course, they have armed response units to deal with crisis incidents should they arise,) The beat cop knows that if he has to deal with some headbanger it comes down to his interpersonal skills, or, at worst, a swift right hand.

          • LiveNLetLive

            Your unarmed peaceful society has never existed. A peaceful society requires peaceful people. If the people are peaceful and respect one another, weapons are immaterial.

            Have you ever been in a convenience store at 2 a.m? Have you ever been accosted by two thugs as you tried to leave? Have you ever been advised you did not belong and significant quantity of obscenity and violence was in your immediate future? Have you ever apologized and suggested that you just leave? At that point, have you ever been visited with more obscenity and threats? Have you ever been assaulted and forced to answer physical violence with physical violence? Do you plan on being lucky enough to win that fight?

            What if it is all over in less than a minute, two at the most? Do you really think you are going to be able to dial 911? Do you think the clerk will even see anything? Do you really think the cops will be there for you?

            Do you know how many times you can be stomped and kicked in 2 minutes?

    • whomedoyou

      Makes one wonder that we are so concerned about the tyranny of the majority. But what about the tyranny of a minority?

      • nunyaeffinbizness

        So which minority are you talking about? The minority of criminal invaders demanding Americans reward them for their crimes? Or the tyranny of the minority of homosexuals who demand everyone bow to them? Or the tyranny of the minority who think the first amendment bans the mere mention of God in a public place? The list of the tyrannical minorities is extremely long, please be more specific when calling them out.

    • Ehkzu

      It’s plain that you don’t understand the Constitution. It provides a framework for governance, to which the Bill of Rights was added. The Constitution tries to prevent any faction from both being oppressed and from oppressing.

      Currently the Republican Party holds a majority in the House, even though it would be the minority there if every state had nonpartisan redistricting like California’s.

      And for years now the Republican Party has prevented the Senate from functioning normally by imposing a 60 vote requirement to get almost anything done–something not envisioned by the Constitution, which clearly intends for most things to be decided by a simple majority.

      So the Republican party is oppressing the rights of the majority by the tyranny of its minority.

      Making it always entertaining when right wingers talk about rights and freedoms.

      Oh, and the 2nd Amendment was primarily added to the Bill of Rights as a sop to the slave states which wanted to keep the right to organize and arm white militias to put down slave revolts. So it’s about rights, all right–the right of whites to enslave blacks.

      • Jdberger

        Right. That’s why non-slave states like Pennsylvania have clauses almost identical to the Second Amendment in their constitutions. To put down slave revolts… Yeah. Sure.

    • Menelvagor

      YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A GUN–SORRY–BUT YOU ARE JUST SILLY. aND I QUESTION YOUR SANITY. bY THE WAY YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH OR A VOTE IN aMERICA –THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS ABOLISHED UNDER TH EPATRIOTI ACT AND OTHER FASCIST CORPORATE MOVES. bUT YOU DONT CARE MUCH ABOUT THAT. IT IS TIME TO ABOLISH THE DEM-REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT UNDER CORPORATE TULE AND YOU DO NOTHING WITH THAT RIGHT–WHICH YOU SAY YOUR GUNS SERVE THAT PURPOSE.

      • Menelvagor

        IF YOU DONT LIKE A GOV DOES THAT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO ACT VIOLENTLY–WHA TIF YOU ARE JUST DUMB AND IGNORANT. ISNT IT A DANGEROUS IDEA TO GIVE PEOPLE TH ERIGHT TO BE ARMED AGAISNT THE GOV WHEN YOU THINK YOU HAVE TH ERIGHT TO KILL WHEN YOU DDONT LIKE A FEW LAWS DETERMINED BY THE MOJAORITY. iN ESSENCE YOU ARE SAYING YOU DO NOT SUPPORT DMEOCRACY–WHAT YOU DO SUPPORT IS VIOLENCE.

        • LiveNLetLive

          How does a resort to the courts when a misinformed citizenry attacks me in violation of the law, constitute acting violently?

      • LiveNLetLive

        I never said my guns have any particular purpose. I asked what threatens you that I possess a weapon? For over 50 years I have owned guns. I have never threatened or injured anyone. What makes you think I have any desire to change that status? What worries you about my gun?

    • AceGirlsHusband

      Because it is the crusade du jour of the progressives. When they are on a campaign to impress their constituency, the Constitution is merely a hindrance and can be overlooked.

  • kimmik

    The police officer is right. I am a citizen living in Spain. I was harassed for months and the day i bought a Bb Air gun the Stalker came to my house with a shovel to beat me up. If i did not have it i would be dead. But tomorrow i will be prosecuted for having an arm. Please dont live here in Madrid.

  • Selostaja

    I’m curious of the % of NRA members who oppose the Affordable Care Act which would expand mental health care.

    • Beth Grant DeRoos

      NRA has come out in FULL support of more mental health programs and as an NRA member I have NO problem with the ACA paying for mental health care, if it actually happens. But how do you get families to NOT have firearms in the home where someone with mental health issues?

  • Neal Strummer

    Okay; so what about all the deaths from car crashes….that number exceeds deaths from firearms. Let’s give everyone bicycles….hooray!

    • Bob Fry

      Not really. On a national basis it’s about equal, or slightly more car deaths than gun deaths. In some states there are more gun deaths than car deaths. More importantly, car deaths continue a many-decades decline, while gun deaths continue without reduction.

    • chrisnfolsom

      Yes that would make sense if we rode our guns to work – vicious back fire btw… We DO need to stop the vehicular carnage though as we are all choked up about the 5K deaths from war (and I am as I have served), but during the same time we have lost 400,000+ Dad’s, Mom’s, Kid’s and others on the road – and who know how many maimed, wounded or pedestrian.

    • srcarruth

      trouble with your specious logic is that guns serve no practical purpose beyond killing things. cars have been known to appear in parades.

    • John Kusters

      There used to be an ever greater number of deaths from automobile accidents. You know what happened? The Federal government started insisting on things like seat belts and collision standards. You know, they regulated it. If they hadn’t, car-related deaths would be much higher now.

      So, are you ready to do to guns what we’ve done with cars? Otherwise, your argument is pretty vapid.

  • Neal Strummer

    Seriously, I think all firearm owners should go through training. I know in Canada firearms owners have to go through a 2-day training in how to use. Canadians can also own semi-automatic rifles, Glocks, and other firearms we have in CA…yet they have less deaths…maybe it’s our society and not the firearms themselves that’s dangerous.

    • Selostaja

      When I adopted a shelter animal, my ability to care for it and a vet visit was required and included. When you buy a gun, is there a requirement to prove mental stability and the ability to use it included?

      • Beth Grant DeRoos

        What about the people who adopt n animal and pass the requirements yet later on end up abusing or neglecting the animal?

        • Everybodhi

          By your reasoning, we may as well give up drivers tests and licenses, because some people drive without them or drive drunk.

      • Me

        Given that you’re talking about an enumerated constitutional right, that might be problematic. Are you ok with having that kind of requirement for exercise of your right to free speech? What about freedom of religion? Right to privacy?

        Because that’s what you’re suggesting.

      • JimmyChao

        In California such a requirement exist.

        You must pass a background check and the handgun safety certification to purchase a handgun, after the 10 day waiting period you must demonstrate your ability to operate the functions on the handgun (loading, inspecting, operating the safety mechanism, clearing the chamber, etc).

        More info: http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo

    • chrisnfolsom

      Hey, it’s a slippery slope… it used to be about hunting, but now all the nonsense about militias and tyranny.

      • srcarruth

        as if a personal arsenal could rival the US Military

        • Aaron Horrocks

          That’s the point of the 2nd amendment. We’re supposed to own the same weapons. Did you know that the first machineguns that the military used, were made by a private company, purchased by private citizens, and then given to the military?

          • srcarruth

            I just don’t trust my neighbors with a tank

          • Aaron Horrocks

            Some of my friends have tanks. What’s wrong with that? I have a military truck large enough to drive through my neighbor’s house and destroy most of their belongings. But I don’t. I’m not a criminal.

          • srcarruth

            don’t draw arbitrary limits on yourself, you could be a criminal in many other ways and not even realize it

    • Beth Grant DeRoos

      I had to take a Ducks Unlimited gun safety course in the 90’s in order to get a card showing I passed the class, and could then buy a hand gun.

  • EstouOcupada

    “Most guns are stolen and were legally purchased ”
    “Most gang guns are bought by ‘not yet identified criminals'”

    Both of those reinforce the fact that reducing legal purchases of automatic/high round weapons/ammunition would reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals and therefore gun-related death and crime.

    • I’ll be Frank

      In the view of the 1%, 300 million Americans are “not yet identified criminals”.

  • Jonathan Mooney

    When is pro-gun and anti-gun camps going to change the conversation and start talking about how we can deal with this epidemic systemically from a cultural aspect. It is a cultural and sociological issue. Yes gun laws do make a difference, Australia proved that 10 years ago. But the NRA and gun owners do have a right to self protect. Your law enforcement guests have made some good points on why criminals and people who are mentally ill cause a majority of the gun violence. All of our policies should be a multi-pronged approach. We should be putting our resources towards building a stronger education and mental health system, beefed up law enforcement coupled with community building AND smart gun regulation with thorough background checks and safety education. It’s a BOTH AND situation. I would be surprised if gun violence didn’t go down when this type of policy effectively implemented.

  • Eric Taylor

    2 issues r.e. 2nd amendment. They it includes dependent clauses, meaning the right to bear arms is in order to form a militia. This seems lost. Also, the need for a militia is archaic as this was written in the days before government defense systems existed, such as army. Would like to see these topics addressed.

  • joe in sf

    the day you lose your second amendment right is the day you lose your first. and okay “well regulated militia” “we should only be able to have and use muskets only” etc…..well then you should only be able to use “old print technology” such as pamphlets and newspapers in regard to the first amendment and not be able to use “Facebook” “twitter” or “instagram” to exercise their 1a right!!!!

    • srcarruth

      can you please name an example of when guns have protected the 1st Amendment? i think you are confusing guns with lawyers

  • rplantz

    I am tired of the NRA’s black-and-white defense of gun ownership. Mr. Michel has used the “good guys” versus “bad guys” argument several times. If the NRA really cared about responsible gun ownership, they would sponsor gun safety programs and finance TV ads promoting gun safety (ala Smokey the Bear). Their current bad versus good rhetoric simply serves to escalate gun violence.

    • chrisnfolsom

      Yes the old argument “Guns don’t kill, but people do” Well, people without guns kill less – which actually is proven in the case of suicides. It is amazing that right after the Newtown massacre there was that guy in China who slashed 20+ people – but none died. Don’t you think that those Newtown parents would have traded with China that day? Or do you think those Chines people wish they had easier gun laws in China so they could have shot the slasher if one of them happened to have a gun – and of course hope that he didn’t…

      • David

        As of October there are roughly 1300 political prisoners in china that would likely trade for the rights that most Americans seems to assume will always be there for them.

    • Elizabeth Hitchens

      rplantz said, “If the NRA really cared about responsible gun ownership, they would sponsor gun safety programs and finance TV ads promoting gun safety.

      The NRA does indeed provide firearm safety programs in addition to firearm proficiency training; hundreds, if not thousands of events annually. As for TV ads… it’s doubtful that many stations would agree to carry such advertisements, out of fear that some viewers would be outraged. Yet TV stations seem not to have much conscience when it comes to taking advertising dollars from video game makers that produce games that portray extreme violence. Ironic.

      • rplantz

        But we don’t hear about these programs promoting gun safety. All we hear is Wayne LaPierre’s call to escalate gun violence — “more good guys with guns.” That sort of message reinforces the thrill of the video games, violent movies, etc.
        I would like to see the NRA take a more gentle approach. If Wayne LaPierre were to emphasize the safety programs, We The People would see the NRA in a different, less belligerent, light. In my opinion, TV stations would welcome such advertisements.
        I see guns as necessary tools to help control bad situations. I am generally against killing other animals, but I can see the sport in target shooting. I am against glorifying gun violence as a way to decide who is “good.” When we were kids and my brother and I would get into an argument, my mother would poke her head into our room and say, “I told you boys to play nice.” Wayne LaPierre would say, “Hit him harder!” That’s the attitude I dislike. Life can be tough. Let’s learn how to play nice together.

  • chrisnfolsom

    The flaw with the whole “arm everybody” idea is that is a false argument. The main reason a gun would protect you is that criminals assume you don’t have them today. IF a criminal assumes you have a gun how will you protect yourself? How will your daughter or wife protect themselves? The trick is stop people from using guns in crime – and today most crimes do not use a gun. The more guns we have the more chance guns will be used in crimes as we all know there will always be crimes and criminals will adjust to whatever environment they are presented with.

    BTW, I am former military, gun owner and enjoy my guns, but I would rather have a safe area then all of us carrying feeling we needed to carry our own protection.

    • srcarruth

      and less guns in circulation means less guns being stolen & resold

    • Me

      OK, Chris, the logic of this doesn’t work. Studies on criminal populations have made clear that they prefer known-unarmed victims. If they know the victim is armed, they generally stay away. If they don’t know if the victim is armed or not, they’re less likely to perpetrate. They _look for_ unarmed victims. Can not stress that enough.

      You will note, BTW, that violent crime rates have been declining in direct proportion to more widespread access to concealed carry across the US. _Direct_ correlation there.

      The deterrent effect is not “he’s got a gun”. It’s “s/he _might_ have a gun.”

      • IamSome12

        You fail to mention cultural and economics differences. While we have statistics indicating Australia clamped down on guns and has seen lesser gun violence , we have cities like Chicago and NY which really don’t have effective gun control. I am not talking about a gun ban. You have countries like Switzerland who have gun enthusiasts such as yourself and that country has insignificant crime rates with respect to gun. Our neighbours to the North (Canada) are also as gun crazy as this country . So , bottom line , no one particular single statistic cited can define a correlation. But when it comes to statistics – it’s awesome how all gun supports just point out that gun-violence is just a mere statistic.Oh i hhave heard this as well , majority of the gun violence are suicides rates or not.. it still is a problem.

        • Me

          The Australian example? BAD choice. Australia has seen a reduction in firearms violence, but a significant increase in overall violent crime – rape incidence has taken off like a rocket, for example. The US, in contrast, has loosened carry restrictions, and seen a substantial decrease in violent crime rates. Similar effects in the UK, where violent crime rates are now 7x that of the US.

          And I will again say “I have heard this” doesn’t do well when you stop and actually look at the CDC data.

          • IamSome12

            it just amazes me how you find a statistic and then go on a narrative trying to compare one to another.

            Lets utilize this as a platform to debate your rhetoric:
            http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

            Based on the CDC on 2010 statistics

            Car related death : about 37,000 fatal injuries
            out of which:
            Homicides:39
            Suicide:114

            Gun.Firearm Related Deaths: About 30,000 fatal injuries
            out of which:
            Homicides:19,392
            Suicide:11,078

            There is regulation on each of these. Car related deaths is on the decline attributed to more safety regulations , more stringent laws on DUIs etc.

            Comment on the homicide / suicide rates. If that is not bad enough , you spew out another statistic of another country’s crime rates on rape like every anti gun control fanatic does. Next you ll tell me statistics on choking on food is high.. they should regulate that as well…
            here:
            http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

          • IamSome12

            With respect to what you said ” And I will again say “I have heard this” doesn’t do well when you stop and actually look at the CDC data.”

            Right back at you!

          • TomJe

            IamSome12,

            you mixed up the homicide and suicide rates, they are reversed, meaning:

            Homicides: 11,078
            Suicides: 19,378

            see: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
            around page 40 or so.
            The gun grabbers conveniently use the combined number to make it look more dramatic. Suicidal people are creative and use other means if a gun is not available.

          • IamSome12

            Not intentional. Thanks for pointing that out.
            to say there are methods to kill yourself is a cop out really!! . Gun Suicide deaths are still among the highest if you look at all the statistics put together i.e poisoning , choking , cutting , drowning. its a staggering 19k as compared to some of the other deaths. I like how we all start calling names ‘gungrabbers ‘ liberal looneys etc.. these numbers are still high for anyone to ignore. DRAMATIC – you say… hehe- I am not the one quoting Jefferson at every step of the way. there is NOTHING dramatic about 11,000 homicides a year. Its like a war zone in the US itself. Heck some wars don’t even have those number of casualties. How can you be sooooo numb???
            Something needs to be done. How about starting with not giving guns to people who cannot use them or can’t handle their own. Gun grabbers ! HA!

    • rayrayz

      How about those ” gun free zones”? Those areas are the safest…… You cannot legislate criminal behavior. Gun ownership has skyrocketed in the past 10 years but the homicides with guns have gone down dramatically (almost by half). http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
      Perceptions of gun violence has increased in the minds of the general public probably due to the internet and other advancements in disseminating information. The caveat is that the information may be accurate or not. The fact is gun violence has decreased.( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/gun-crime-drops-but-americans-think-its-worse/2139421/ )
      Unfortunately, information that is put out may be tainted with personal bias or worse….emotion. Take for instance, the Sandy Hook incident. The immediate reaction to ban semi-auto rifles was very strong but over time when emotions calmed the calls waned.

  • Robert Thomas

    Has this program illuminated anything or changed anyone’s mind in any fundamental way? In any tangential way? Just curious.

    • kimmik

      It makes me realize that the right to bear arms is not available to others through out the world. Fight for the second amendment is what this discussion makes believe.

      • srcarruth

        the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside the United States. it does carry an important message, though: a well regulated militia

      • Robert Thomas

        So, this was a new thought for you? Your mind is changed? Your conception is altered?

  • Sam Badger

    Everyone forgets that the NRA was all *for* gun control in the 60s when the black panthers were buying guns. They’re happy with White libertarians buying guns but not black communists. It goes to show what their priorities REALLY are – playing off of the fears of middle class white families for their own financial and institutional benefit.

    • MOLON1776LABE

      “In 1956, Williams took over leadership of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which was close to disbanding due to a relentless backlash by the Ku Klux Klan. Williams canvassed for new members and eventually expanded the branch from only six to more than 200 members.

      Williams also filed for a charter from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and formed the Black Guard, an armed group committed to the protection of Monroe’s black population. Members received weapons and physical training from Williams to prepare them to keep the peace and come to the aid of black citizens, whose calls to law enforcement often went unanswered.”

      SOURCE: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

    • I haven’t forgotten. I have a Federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the Black Panther Open Carry ban of 1967 as well as the two recently enacted bans on openly carrying unloaded firearms. The NRA currently has a lawsuit pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where it argued to uphold the 1967 Black Panther Gun ban. http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  • MOLON1776LABE

    Sunnyvale’s measure C was pushed through by the anti gun lobby (Bloomberg and MAIG) on an off year election cycle where the antigun advocates had a 10 to 1 funding advantage against the local grassroots groups supporting the Constitution. Only a fraction of the population turned out to vote, and most of those who were even aware of the measure were the fringe left who were promoting it to begin with.

    I’m a supporter of progressive movements, but this notion of legislating personal responsibility is astonishingly misguided. If background checks worked then why did the DC Navy Yard shooter slip through several of them? His employer had 1 background check and then a couple additional checks done through third party contracts. Don’t forget there was another check for his shotgun as well….. The one similar to what Biden was preaching!

    • srcarruth

      haven’t you read the 2nd Amendment? what part of ‘well regulated’ do you find most confusing?

  • tom

    It matters little what NPR thinks… when point in fact this is a pretty slam dunk law suit.

    • William – SF

      NPR isn’t providing an opinion but a *forum* for discussion … yeah, yeah, you kinda missed that point. Perhaps listening to the discussion might have helped.

      ‘slam dunk law suit’ … we’ll see.

    • The NRA’s goal isn’t to win lawsuits. Its goal is to get as many suckers as they can find to give them money.

  • John

    The NRA is one of the most evil organizations operating within the borders of the United States.

    • MOLON1776LABE

      Oh but Bloomberg and his Mayors Against ‘Legal’ Guns are just saintly along with Moms Demand Action, Coalition Against Gun Violence , etc. HTH are you to sieze monopoly of the moral high ground when you and your friends parade the tragedies of dead children?!

      • srcarruth

        so we can’t be against guns unless we do it when nobody is looking?

    • The NRA is the largest organization in the country promoting gun-control. Their leadership is evil, but not for the reasons you think. http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  • Hunter Mann

    As always, Michael did a great job at leading the discussion/debate, not an easy topic to be the umpire/referee for.

    I don’t have any official survey numbers or statistics to offer, but just from my own experience over the years in debating gun control with NRA members, this is what I find common: most NRA members are republican, right of center, blindly patriotic, anti-immigration, anti-foreign language/culture, and most of them are hypocritical: they are pro-war, pro-guns, yet they are also pro-life. What, I dare ask, is up with that?!

  • RXpatriot46

    Gun ownership has sky rocketed over the last twenty years at the age time that the murder rate was cut in half. Every human had a God given right to defend himself and his family and no one should be able to tem you that a weapon is to efficient to use. Rifles are rarely used in homicide and of the 364(or close to it…can’t remember the exact #) only 2% were wrongfully labeled assault rifles. The gun is not the problem, it’s the criminal. Well regulated, means organized, it certainly didn’t mean regulated by the same government that may become tyrannical. Shall not be infringed means just what it says. If the militia is to stand against a tyrannical government, then it ought to have just as effective weaponry as said government.

    • William – SF

      The scary part is not being able to recognize the difference between a tyrannical government and one that doesn’t represent your views. The former is unlikely in the modern age and in the US, the later is subjective – a matter of opinion.

      Owning a gun neither makes you right nor wrong, it only makes you a gun owner.

      Being informed, as difficult as that is, makes you able to decide how to vote in your best interest.

      Perhaps focusing less on owning a gun and more on being well informed is the prudent course.

      Peace.

      • RXpatriot46

        If you don’t think NSA spying, using the IRS to target political adversaries, and regulating virtually every aspect of our lives is tyranny in a supposedly free country, then I’m not sure what is. It doesn’t matter if I’m a gun owner or not, the constitution guarantees my right to bear arms. If the government can take that away, then we are in serious trouble and the first amendment is right behind it. However, we are already in deep trouble under a massive heap of debt with an out if control government that thinks that spending more than you take in isn’t big deal. You have a president that has czars for everything, has been weakening military, has a horrible foreign policy, wants to redistribute wealth, rules through executive fiat, and lies through his teeth. In reality is not about being a gun owner, it’s about defending or rights. It’s about not letting a main stream media and slimy politicians create a false perception of Gun ownership and crime. Most politicians on both sides care less about the people abd more about government power. It’s time the people became involved in the political process and not just allow this gross negligence of government to continue. They are more worried about getting re-elected than actually doing what’s best for the country. Speaking of being informed, why don’t you check a history book and see what’s happened over and over throughout history when the citizens were disarmed by their government. Don’t misconstrue my words, I’m not saying it’s time to take up arms; I’m saying once you lose your rights, you are unlikely to get them back. I assure you I stay much more informed than your average citizen and I’m always active in the political process. I’m a freedom loving American that happens to be a gun owner.

        • William – SF

          Thank you for replying Brad.

          On NSA spying I think we spend way too much money on a flawed strategy to prevent another terrorist attack, but I don’t see the intelligence the President and Congress sees, so maybe if I knew more I’d think otherwise.

          On using the IRS to target political adversaries, clearly it’s wrong, punishable by loss of job. From what I read, no one, including the President/Congress thought it was right, or something the government should be doing.

          On regulating virtually every aspect of our lives, I’d say that’s an overreach. Yes, there are many stupid regulations – the tint on my car is “too dark, yet passengers are readily visible from outside the vehicle” and yet it’s illegal – it seems silly to me that it’s illegal. But I can see how regulating the tint on car windows can prevent a police officer from being killed — okay, I’m more than up for saving even one cop – but I’m not going to change the tint on my car because *no one* in my car is ever going to hurt a cop.

          On what seems your big concern that the government can take away your gun, the Obama administration has liberalized gun access and use – you can now carry a gun in Federal parks. Gun access in this country can hardly be anymore accessible.

          I’ve lived long enough to see the transition from an extremely limited number of people that want and/or have guns to what seems like an explosion (pardon the pun) in the number of people that want to own or increase the number of guns they have. Seems to me the unfounded fear of limited gun ownership is evidenced by that increase in guns sold and owned.

          Also, any thought that owning a gun is somehow going to provide you protection against the government is at a minimum silly and at worse delusional. Your vote has more power than your gun. Collective votes have more power than collective guns.

          On the debt, I would take the opposite argument, one meaningful role the government can take (since it has control over its currency) is to provide the market with liquidity during times like these when unemployment is so high. The government’s borrowing cost are extremely low, its currency is highly valued and considered a safe haven by investors, now is the time for the government to initiate projects like replacing/repairing our crumbling infrastructure. This would provide jobs for those in the engineering/construction industries that were hit hardest by the collapse of the housing bubble (Wall Street wreckage.)

          The government’s balance sheet is *not* like a household’s balance sheet — I’d recommend researching why that is…

          Clearly you don’t like the President – yeah, I’ve been there before with other Presidents. I vote, doesn’t always get me what I want, but it’s far more effective than a gun or militia or such.

          The government is no where near disarming its citizens – again, in my lifetime I’ve seen just the opposite – the government liberalizes gun ownership/use and there are many more US citizens owning guns. Sadly I’d say, and redundantly, that most of it is based on unfounded fears of government action, biased propaganda by those with financial incentives for more gun purchases, and some amount of legitimate fear that owning a gun would prevent a personal attack.

          But fine, own a gun. I’d prefer it locked in a safe when not in use, promptly reported if stolen, and the 10 round mag I’d limit too — but I’d give up the last to have the first two. Seems the point is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals – the first could work, the second is too late, the last is likely ineffective.

          And I’d guess most gun owners probably safely store their guns to prevent theft. I’m guessing most gun owners don’t feel compelled to report the theft of their firearms. And the 10 mag round is mostly considered an accessory, much like a belt for pants.

          Lastly, put me down as someone who believes the power of words, knowledge, and persuasion is vastly more effective than the threat of a gun or the concern that the second amendment is under attack with the first next in line — we couldn’t be any further away from either of those happening.

          And I’m guessing if you polled Americans they’d want their second amendment right but cherish their first amendment right. The two are as different as night and day. No history or the fear of it being repeated is going to eliminate either.

          Yes I agree, getting involved in the process is what’s necessary.

          I wish you well in your pursuit of happiness.

          • RXpatriot46

            Magazine limits are futile as a new magazine can be inserted in as little as 3 seconds. I do believe that responsible gun owners should keep there firearms secure buti don’t believe the government should make them criminals if they can’t afford a safe or forget to lock it. Safes don’t always stop theft. If my gun was stolen I would certainly promptly report it so if I’m lucky it may be recovered. However, reporting stolen items rarely results in these items being recovered. I get the feeling that you want the government to do something to make you feel safer but in reality nothing you suggest actually works. If you need to feel safer, go buy a gun and become efficient with it. Guns are almost completely banned in Mexico yet that doesn’t stop the drug cartels from getting them. Although, they have received help from the US government in the Fast and Furious gun walking scheme that was merely an effort to conjure up a reason to intact gun control. Speaking of drugs, aren’t those already banned? How’s that working out? Didn’t we once have prohibition on alcohol that led to moonshine? The point is that limiting our rights doesn’t save lives and people use guns to stop crime and defend themselves way more often than to commit crimes. The majority of homicides are in major metropolitan areas were people are on top of people, poverty is high, and gangs & organized crime have a major presence.

            Shifting to the economy and the national debt it’s obvious we are of totally different beliefs. You tell me I need to study economics, which by the way I aced in college without even having to take the final. I would tell you to study history. Study the fall of the Roman Empire, ancient Greece or Spain. They all were destroyed from within due to fiscally irresponsible economic policy and a over-dependence on government. You can also look at Greece and much of Europe today. I suggest you study Austrian economics. The government should not subject our future generations to massive debt and the oath we are in is unsustainable. It will eventually lead to hyperinflation and economic collapse. I would also suggest you research our founding fathers and their views on national debt as well as Presidents like Andrew Jackson. We are required by the constitution to pay at the very least the interest on our debt. With over $17 trillion of debt and growing I can’t understand how you believe that more borrowing is a good thing. The interest on the national debt in fiscal year 2013 was $415,688,781,248.40.You do realize that the government has no money without taking it from you and me. It’s revenue is generated by taking from the people. Do you think so much of our tax money should go to paying interest? Democrats say we don’t have a spending problem when the government took in more income tax revenue than ever in history and still had a large deficit. Not to mention that it’s curious how you could possibly squeeze the most money ever out of a dismal economy. I think you have been lied to, even indoctrinated. I don’t care what economic philosophy you study, math is still math and debt is still debt. Please wake up and just really think logically about it.

            I agree with you that it’s not the power of the gun that will change things. It’s the voice of the people but if you allow the government to trample on any of your rights, it puts all your rights in danger. If the second amendment falls the first is right behind it. We already see limits on the first amendment through political correctness and attacks on the freedom of religion.

            I believe in God. I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe that those powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. I believe in ending political corruption. I do believe in the right to keep and bear and for self defense and maintaining liberty. I believe in responsible fiscal policy and that this great nation ought not be in debt to any other nation. The American people need to ban together and rise to greatness again. To change the direction of the country you must change the hearts and minds of the people. Their must be a shift in attitudes based on principals and character. No great change will ever come through legislation alone!

          • William – SF

            Brad, apparently, at least in practice, we agree on lock safe, reporting of stolen gun(s), and even the unlikely benefit of banning 10 mags.

            And I think we both agree that enforcing the law is difficult and unlikely — much like trying to get me to remove the tint on my car windows — law enforcement has better things to do.

            Yeah, on macro economics we are far apart. (Inflation hasn’t been an issue, low employment has – more 24 million Americans out of the workforce that want/need jobs, crumbling infrastructure is and is only getting worse, austerity focused [reduce debt] nations like Ireland have suffered worse than less austere nations like France or US, the number of government jobs has gone down but that’s hurt the economy – their spending is our income, …. Squeezing the money supply only exacerbates our economic woes. We went from an overly liquid economy (too much money) to one with not nearly enough liquidity. In general, the government’s job is to prime the economy when the private sector can’t. The US economy didn’t grow after WWII because it went to war, but because the government provided incomes to Americans – yes, by building weaponry which led to manufacturing of consumer goods — why not have the government fund fixing/improving its crumbling infrastructure while debt is cheap? And there are vastly more ways the government could improve economic conditions….)

            However, I think we see these attempts at legislation in profoundly different ways – (and I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, it’s just me trying to understand how you see it … so if I’m wrong, I apologize) you, I think, see it as a step along a path where the government continues its unrelenting pursuit of taking away your gun rights, with the eventual conclusion that your 1st amendment right is removed. (If citizens don’t have guns they can’s defend their rights.)

            Me, I see the legislation as a mediocre attempt at what would seem obvious behavior by responsible gun owners – exclusive of the 10-mag — again, it’s more of an accessory, and if it’s sold in Oregon, than Sunnyvale’s law has little chance at being effective.

            In the grand scheme of things, fearing the government or in this case the city of Sunnyvale and its citizens for passing legislation they want concerning guns (and again, we both agree with their practical intents, and we both want to live in a community where we can decide things, by our votes…), is far, far, far short of infringing on anyone’s 2nd amendment and infinitely farther from brushing up against the 1st amendment.

            And again, my reality tells me there are vastly more citizens with vastly more guns and ammo than at any time in my life – and the trend isn’t slowing it is only increasing — so reality tells me the 2nd amendment is no where near being compromised – just the opposite, it’s flourishing.

            With all due respect, I’m at a loss to indulge any fear that the government is compromising the 2nd amendment.

            On a tangential note, hopefully one more entertaining, may I suggest reading the non-fiction book “Empire of the Summer Moon” about the Comanche’s — perhaps a more revealing history.

            Cheers.

  • tonelar

    Some of the comments on this thread are clearly written by people with no understanding of how the 2nd is currently interpreted via Heller. The Sunnyvale city gov’t is being manipulated by someone (most likely MAIG and/or LCAV). This law suit is exactly what’s needed to tell these outsiders that rights and freedoms can’t be voted away.

  • KQED, how about exposing the NRA’s longtime support for gun control. The NRA currently has a case pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where it argued to uphold the Black Panther Open Carry ban enacted in 1967. A ban they endorsed in 1967 and are fighting to preserve today. Chuck Michel, the NRA lawyer you interviewed in this segment was the lead attorney in the case currently on appeal – Peruta v. San Diego. http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  • Ehkzu

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. The right to bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and
    for whatever purpose. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s judgments should
    be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
    firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    Moreover, the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at this time, while enabling legislatures to prohibit the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    Do those unusual weapons include extended magazines? Maybe, maybe not. However, it’s important to note that while the Supreme Court’s decisions are the law of the land, there’s a big difference between unanimous decisions and 5-4 decisions. Unanimous ones are sure to last a long, long time. 5-4 decisions can be overturned by one of the five retiring and being replaced by one from the other side.

    Particularly when a decision–such as Heller–is so sweeping as to replace 200 years of decisions, in contravention of stare decisis.

    So who knows what will happen by the time “NRA vs. City of Sunnyvale” reaches SCOTUS? One heart attack could change the outcome dramatically.

    But even by the rules Heller sets out, Sunnyvale’s registration regulations will most likely stand. And while it’s totally unlikely that we’ll ever go back to muskets, a Democrat-appointed SCOTUS majority might well agree with the decision of a conservative Australian government to take semiautomatic weapons out of civilian hands.

    Lastly, readers should note that virtually everything stated by the NRA is either a baldfaced lie or a true statement spun so massively it works like a baldfaced lie.

    One of their favorites is the thinly veiled racism inherent in claiming that nearly all problems with gun violence are by and of inner city (i.e. black) gangbangers (i.e. black).

    In fact, gun violence varies primarly by poverty and lack of education and easy access to guns, not race.

    Also in fact, while American middle-class suburbs have the lowest homicide rate (mostly by guns) of different American demographics, they have, like, six times the homicide rate of any other comparable countries, and vastly higher homicide rates (again, mostly by guns) of comparable middle class suburbs in comparable countries.

    The difference is easy access to guns, coupled with the ability of Americans to legally own guns without having to register them.

    National, mandatory gun registration is coming, along with making straw purchases federal felonies. It will happen as the percentage of undereducated, aging white men decrases as a percentage of the total population.

    The irony is that even those folks’ kids generally prefer playing Grand Theft Auto to going hunting at dawn in muddy woods. The increase in gun purchases is mainly current gun owners building arsenals.

    A good action item to start with: Congress currently bans the CDC from studying gun violence in America and has crippled and underfunded the ATF. Working to let the federal government do its job instead of sabotaging it would be a very, very good idea.

  • Menelvagor

    lets make guns legal. lets put more regulations on bullets. Lets make bullets very expensive–more than the gun. And require that bullets cannot be sold in gun shops. Bullets have to be sold by the local government and one must undergo a federal list of minimum requirements to purchasse the very expensive bullets–the local governments can place stricter regs if they wish. If you dont like it dont live in that community. As a community member i have right to create laws and live safely without gun-terrorists like the NRA.

  • Menelvagor

    THE BAD GUY IS BREAKING THRU THe WINDOW–SO–THAT SHOUDLN’T GIVE you THE RIGHT TO KILL. Chances ARE HE SNUK OUT AT NIGHT GOT DRUNK AND WENT TO THE WRONG HOUSE OR is a petty thief who would never hurt anyone. You do not have the right to kill. you do not have the right to shoot a woman in the face asking for help or a boy getting candy at the local store. you don not have the right to enter a movie theater or school and massacre innocent people. you don to have the right to shoot children in the face or elected officials because they support health care or separation of church and state. Thousands of innocent deaths at the hands of racist gun nuts prove this. the NRA and its followers are completely f–mad. You are the threat in our society and belong in jail.

  • Menelvagor

    gun control will stop the killing. sending people to prison doenst help anyone. your gun nut guests are absolute frauds and jokers–murderers–they are responsible for our killing sprees because they refuse to criminalize killers. Gun nuts claim its black people and gangs–bullshit–!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 who brings those guns into black communities you smuck!! who brings drugs into the country–who owns ships and planes–white people in power.

    White suburban brats brings guns to black communities and sell them. Gun stores are on nearly every street in the south and poor black communities.

    your guest essentially blames all black people in marginalized disenfranchised white dominated communities–who i walking into schools, senatorial speeches, and movie theatres–middle class white people. jerk.

  • Menelvagor

    you have no second amendment rights . As a police officer you should serve the people and stop crushing protests, and monitoring people, while criminalizing anyone who monitors police with cameras. as a police officer you protect fascists and the rich and persecute the poor. You are a monster.

  • Menelvagor

    your gun nut callers are indoctrinated with crap. everything they say is nonsense.

  • Menelvagor

    what are you so afraid of? the only people to fear the gun nuts

  • Menelvagor

    the arms race is such a republican idea–see where it got us in iraq. the same thing that brought 911. blame republicans and gun nuts

  • Menelvagor

    name one time a gun was used to prevent crime–BS

  • Menelvagor

    when you ointed the gun at him becuse you are cazy and th eguy ran away how do you know he wanted yo hurt you–maybe he wanted sell magazines or bum a cigarette or campaign for obama–or ask for help. he had the worng skin color so you pointed a gun at him. who is the terrorist? cough cough–gun nut

  • Menelvagor

    gang member dont go into theaters and massacre people or pre-schools–crazy white middle class gun nuts registered with guns do

  • Menelvagor

    they keep using innner-city as a code for black. hmm. do blacks often go into schools and massacre innocent children? thought not. sit down and shut gun nut

  • Menelvagor

    its interesting how the gun debate has swiftly turn to one of rural and urban–black and white. nonsense. ban guns

  • Menelvagor

    the NRA used to be discreet about its racism and KKK heritage–now it is just coming out and saying it–

    • AceGirlsHusband

      On the contrary, the NRA was instrumental in arming freed blacks in their early years. Your slap-shot at the organization is not only without merit, it is a mean-spirited lie.

  • Hilliard Joshua Meeks

    You can’t fix people with politics. I believe in gun ownership. Mag load out does nothing for a proficient gunman and how do you regulate locks on firearms. Seems like a silly law that won’t fix the situation, which in itself is not broken. People fear way too much nowadays. Its like being condemned to being guilty before committing an actual crime.

  • MazaKuteOyate

    Leftwich throws around junk polls while accusing Michel of using junk science – she is one of those lawyers who makes up her own work and gives lawyers a bad name.

    • James Ullrey

      Leftwich is a lawyer and therefore under qualified to have opinions on what is or is not junk science.

      Leftwich also several times cited figures on the order of 3 million guns being kept out of the hands of criminals due to the Brady background checks. According to John Lott Jr those 3 million instances are virtually all false positives. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/06/problem-with-brady-background-checks.html

  • Dave Nathanson

    Guns and even bullets are very illegal in Mexico. How is that working out for them? Is the gun ban working to reduce crime there? No, it isn’t.

  • bonnietoo

    For those who think firearms should not be regulated, I have a serious question. Do you think that individuals should be able to possess bombs in their homes? Nuclear weapons? Chemical weapons? If not, why not? Where is the line? I really want to know.

  • Ron

    An armed society is a polite society.

  • Rob Morse

    Thank you, Chuck Michel and Larry Barsetti. Well said.

  • Bradley Thompson

    It’s interesting to see so many comments from people on this thread who have no idea how violence operates — the sheer physics of it. I imagine this is why we’re having a such a hard time understanding one another on the national scale. For example, the comment of “why do you need a high capacity magazine” does not actually sound like a request for information… even though there are very solid reasons that police choose them for defensive purposes, and those same reasons hold true for anyone facing a violent attacker. This is because they have studied the physics of violence and realize what fear and adrenaline do to marksmanship and the ability to reload, the nature of the possible threats people may encounter and the trade-offs between effectiveness and portability. Or that all nine of the Supreme Court justices agreed in the Heller decision that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, though they split on the situations for which that right is guaranteed. When the interviewee calls the research quoted by Mr. Michel “junk science,” she’s ignoring the source of perhaps fourteen independent studies that all indicate a trend, and that a lot of the information in those studies comes from the FBI, which has been keeping track of violence for decades. It has to do with human nature, I suppose, in that we first come to a conclusion and then seek out reasons to support it. I’m also appalled by those who assume that gun rights supporters are willing to pay a price in innocent lives to be able to play with their hardware. In a lot of cases, they are just as committed and appalled by the loss of life to any form of violence, but firmly believe that restricting firearms will cause more loss of life, and that in their way, anti-gun rights supporters are contributing to more and deadlier massacres. So for all of us, I have a question: When is it all right to lie about this issue?

  • Another Mike

    Apparently Ms. Leftwich skipped the law school class which discussed the Takings Clause. There’s a reason that laws up to now have avoided depriving gun owners of the use of their property.

  • Mark Mathews

    The mayor and julie are the types of folks who will be NOWHERE IN SIGHT, when future crime victims, made so by criminals who give NO REGARDS to current laws, ask them why they took their right to self defense away. This NRA Patron member is proud that MY NRA has bought this law suit.

  • Please, god help us!

    My god, this forum has truly illustrated what has become of our education system in the last 30 years or so. Horrid grammar, punctuation, spelling and organized debate. We must now be the laughing stock of countries like Finland, Switzerland and Norway. Does anyone understand the use of compound adjectives, adverbial clauses and phrases, coordinating conjunctions, introductory expressions, interjections and maybe a preparatory phrase? No wonder wages are so low. Everyone has become an ignorant caricature of a thinking, rational American citizen who has actually strived to learn. I’m embarrassed and sickened by the evidence displayed be the majority of these posts. Countries like the above mentioned has immense gun cultures but low gun violence because they know how to express themselves coherently and are thinking, rational people, devoid of entitlement mentality and lazy ignorance.

    • AceGirlsHusband

      “Countries like the above-mentioned HAVE immense gun cultures…” And I agree with your observations.

  • dgold94544

    Sunnyvale’s gun control laws only pretend to address the problem of gun violence. The root causes of violence, such as economic and social injustice, drugs, and mental health issues, continue to get ignored. These silly laws may make some voters feel good, but in the end these laws are useless….except for Mayor Spitaleri who gains some recognition and funding from the Bloomberg crowd. Wouldn’t it make more sense to address the real problems first rather than chipping away at the liberties of good honest citizens? Even if you hate guns, you have to admit we owe it to our fellow citizens to address the real problems honestly.We should start there first.

  • Michael Lee

    I keep seeing the “well-regulated militia” argument. However, the militia is mentioned in the prefatory clause, which has no effect on the operative clause, but explains one of the intended uses of it. In any event, the prefatory clause cannot override the operative clause.

    If we were to rewrite the Second Amendment in minimalist language today, it would be worded thusly: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The entire first half does not actually ennumerate a right.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor