A powerful pro-gun lobby group in the United States has filed legal challenges to handgun bans in San Francisco and Chicago.
The lawsuits come a day after the US Supreme Court ruled that a ban on the private possession of handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) says it wants similar bans in other states and cities overturned as well.
San Francisco's mayor says he plans to fight the NRA challenge.
The NRA lawsuit in San Francisco challenges the city's handgun ban in public housing; while in Chicago it challenges a ruling that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.
"In Washington DC, or in any state, whether you live in the housing projects or a high end suburb, you have the right to defend yourself and your family at home," said Chris Cox, from the NRA.
"These laws all deny that right."
Self-defence
The NRA is joined in the San Francisco suit by a gay man living in a government-owned housing development who says he needs a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city would "vigorously fight the NRA" and said the ban was good for public safety.
"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing? I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority," Mr Newsom said.
The Supreme Court's ruling says that the constitution "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home".
The ruling enshrines for the first time the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life.
"The Supreme Court's decision was very encouraging, but it is just a start," NRA lawyer C D Michel said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7478832.stm
Damn it, this is exactly what I was afraid would happen. I don't get this ruling at all. Prohibiting a class or category of guns in not a violation of the Second Amendment. Otherwise, the court should have ruled that the assault weapons ban and the ban on sawed off shotguns was a violation. I am starting to think that I know stray dogs that would make better decisions that Justice Asinine Scalia. Anyway, the point being, I am a gun owner, and I support the right of American's to own guns. But I also support significant constraints on these rights. For example, why is it that one must have a license to drive a car but not to shoot a gun? People that are wishy-washy on gun control seem to be misinformed about the laxity of current gun laws. I like to encourage all of my students to visit a gun show someday just for the cultural experience. I like to go myself, but it is always a little frightening (the scary conspiracy theory militia folk are an added bonus). Most people are shocked to learn how fucking easy it is to get a gun--last year I purchased a ticket to a gun show walked right up to a table and paid 100 dollars cash for a surplus military rifle--no id check, no signature, no questions asked. I also bought 50 rounds of ammunition at the next table. I am glad I am able to purchase the weapon, I love target practice. But I would also feel way more secure if I had had to show some official idea, maybe prove that I had taken a safety class, or had my info logged into some database.
Lastly, for those on the blog who disapprove of the court's recent ruling on executing child rapists because it overturned a state law approved by voters, how does this sit with you? If a state or municipality votes to ban some weapons or all weapons why should the court get to overturn it? (For the record I don't agree with that logic. People vote for all manner of retarded and vile things, and it is only the rule of law that prevents democracy from turning abysmally foul).
2 comments:
I think the ruling was dead on this time around. I think owning a gun in your own home for the purpose of defending your property and your family is a fundamental right. When the city, country, or state governments can afford to post an armed guard at my door, then we can talk. Otherwise, my government has no business telling me that I can't protect my own. And inside the home, there's no reason to prohibit a handgun over a shotgun or a hunting rifle.
Carrying that gun out of the home and into the public is another matter entirely, as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem what so ever with laws that prohibit carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, in public.
Now, I do happen to agree with Reed that gun shows are just appalling in their lack of security and background checks. Why even have laws that control who can legally have access to firearms if you're going to allow gunshows to sell weapons to folks without so much as a background check? It's ridiculous.
So, in summation: I agree with the ruling. People should have the right to purchase and own a handgun in the home. Laws that just completely ban them outright are unconstitutional. But I don't have a problem with laws requiring that I have a license permitting me to do so.
For the most part I am with Beck on this, which is not necessarily in discord with Reed either. Though not having actually read the wording of the decision, I cannot completely say the ruling is "dead on" (odd choice of words there Beck ;-) ). I am not sure where this leaves the other cases. We will have to wait and see and trust that someone somewhere has the mind to eventually put an end to assault weapons and the like. This is honestly an issue I am somewhat ignorant about. I support the right to bear small arms, but why would someone in this country need an AK-47 clone?
Post a Comment