Gun ownership

In response to Mary Sanchez’s column (4/22, Opinion, “Easy access to guns, but no respect for life”), William Shapiro (4/26, Letters) suggests taking away guns as a way to reduce the “carnage.” That is perhaps one of the least thought out, most impractical ideas I’ve heard. Remember how well Prohibition went over? You turn a nation into criminals automatically. Not wise.

Many people, including me, are legal firearm owners (many of us veterans) and cause no problem to society. As an Iraq war veteran I have stood up and fought for what I believed in before. What makes you think I won’t do it again?

Kyle Schweiger
Olathe

Do proponents of gun ownership really feel they are protected simply by owning a gun? It seems to me that to be really protected one would need to have the gun accessible at all times.

Maybe we’ll eventually have to return to the Wild West and carry guns in holsters. It could make for a booming gun holster business. They could be designed for men and women and come in various colors and designs. They would have to be worn at all times in all places.

Then it would come down to who is the quickest on the draw.

Mary Lou Akright
Leawood

Comments

[CRD]

I asked him for facts to back up his contention. Per usual, he failed to deliver.

Also per usual, you fail to add much of anything. :-)

[GCYL]

“that was a permissible inference from the thrust of your (as usual, largely unsupported) sweeping generalization.” – CRD

If this were true one would expect a quick and easy rebuttal with specific, opposing, information. As usual CRD offers none. He frowns on generalizations with his unsupported assumptions.

“Keep up the mediocre work!” – CRD

In deed.

[CRD]

I don't think so -- that was a permissible inference from the thrust of your (as usual, largely unsupported) sweeping generalization. Keep up the mediocre work!

[Engineer]

CRD
Thank you for your heartfelt and sincere apology. I believe it has the full creditability of your usual statements. How about an additional apology for your mistaken statement that I implied "that individual right trumps any attempt to regulate ownership".

[CRD]

"I have made my statements and offered my proof."

My apologies. You made such a sweeping statement that I could not but assume that you had in fact exhaustively researched the issue, and I was hoping that you could share some of the information with us.

Obviously I was wrong to make that assumption.

[Engineer]

CRD
In Parker, as quoted, the Court said "Supreme Court precedent". This obviously refers to cases other than Parker. And no statement was ever made "that an individual right trumps any attempt to regulate ownership". As a matter of fact the discussion with GCYL, in which we both anticipated that the lower courts would be upheld, was concerning our thoughts on how the decision would be limited.

[Engineer]

CRD
I have made my statements and offered my proof. I could go into my books and find other quotations but I am not going to take the trouble. If you have some proof for your doubts present it and I will consider it.

[CRD]

That's one case. But you imply that it's been adjudicated time and time again, and that an individual right trumps any attempt to regulate ownership.

Please expand.

[Engineer]

CRD
In Parker the Appeals Court said "The phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in the light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual". Based on thus the United States Court of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit also thinks as I do that, when adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the phrase "the right of the people" has been found to mean an individual right.

[CRD]

"The phrase has always been so held."

In which federal cases? Please provide us with the cases to back up your claim so we can discuss further.

Thanks.

[Engineer]

CRD
The phrase has always been so held. Believe it or not. If you don't agree, perhaps you could cite a decision in which it was not found to grant an individual right. I could go through my books looking for the material on which I am basing my statement, but it's just not worth the trouble.

[Engineer]

GCYU
I do think the Court will uphold the lower courts. However I do expect a more or less limited ruling. I will be surprised if they do not uphold but I will also be surprised if the decision is not very carefully crafted.

[CRD]

"Every time the phrase "the right of the people" has been adjudicated it has been found to affirm an individual right."

You say "every time" -- but how many times has it been adjudicated and upheld on appeal? Once? Five times? Twenty?

Can you give us some cases to back up your claim? Thanks.

[GCYL]

“I think that forceful, logical and well reasoned briefs do have some influence on the Court.”

Agree because the Court would never ask for them in the first place. However, our problem here is the massive amount of current gun laws on our books. I can’t see any well reasoned brief having sufficient influence (in one direction or the other) on the Court as to how they should consider changing those laws.

“But who knows, the Court has done this. Look at Roe vs. Wade.” – Engineer

On a 6-3 split I would anticipate more compromising between personal right and current gun laws in a greater effort to obtain swing votes. Based on numbers alone a 6-3 split for a personal right holds more “authority”. However, if I saw a 5-4 split I could assume that there is a hard and fast majority opinion for personal rights with little thought for compromise between personal rights and our current gun laws. In which case, you’re right, all bets are off.

[Engineer]

CRD
Every time the phrase "the right of the people" has been adjudicated it has been found to affirm an individual right. You are correct that in the case of the 2nd Amendment this has not been done. But in the case the Court is now considering that was the decision of the lower courts. There is not much point in arguing the matter at the present as we should have the Court's opinion on it in a few months.

[GCYL]

“I'm a tad rusty on the issue” – CRD

Of intentionally missing stating the post? No, you’re doing fine.

“how many Supreme Court opinions to date have affirmed that the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right” - CRD

Engineer was clear, he hopes the Supreme Court comes out in favor of those who believe that the 2nd Amendment recognizes and individual right to own guns. The issue being discussed is if this does happen how extensive will the damage be our current gun laws that assume no such right exists. Care to join this discussion?

I think we could find the Kansas Board of Regents efforts at a state wide gun free campuses being tossed while Oklahoma’s restrictive law of specialized training/ex-military CC on campuses being up held.

[CRD]

"I am hoping for a reaffirmation of the fact that the 2nd Amendment does recognize an individual right"

I'm a tad rusty on the issue -- it's not one I keep up on that much -- how many Supreme Court opinions to date have affirmed that the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right, and which ones were they?

[letters editor]

I've received an offensive content complaint. While the language used, so far, doesn't break any Star style rules, it wouldn't be a bad idea to tone down the language and personal attacks. They DON'T add anything to the conversation.

Thanks,
Trudy Hurley
Administrative Assistant
Editorial Page
The Kansas City Star
816-234-4885
thurley@kcstar.com

[Engineer]

GCYL
I think that forceful, logical and well reasoned briefs do have some influence on the Court. I am hoping for a reaffirmation of the fact that the 2nd Amendment does recognize an individual right, I believe that otherwise the decision will be a limited one holding that the DC law is too restrictive. In general I agree that they will be careful not to invalidate all gun control laws. But who knows, the Court has done this. Look at Roe vs. Wade.

[GCYL]

“The prospect for a definitive decision has been greatly weakened, IMO, by the very weak submittal made by the Dept. of Justice.” – Engineer

I’m not certain that the Dept. of Justice had any real impact on the judges. If there is a majority for striking down the D.C. law they would need swing votes. I can’t see them getting swing votes with a “trash and burn” ruling on our current gun control laws.

[GCYL]

“I won't mind one bit.” - solomon

People are just politely staring at you. Take the hint and move on. Go check out the bean dip but please, please, don’t cause another scene by getting caught double dipping.

[Engineer]

GCYL
You raise an interesting point. The prospect for a definitive decision has been greatly weakened, IMO, by the very weak submittal made by the Dept. of Justice. I anticipate a rather ambiguous decision nullifying the DC law itself as too restrictive but leaving room for the continued existence of most "gun control" laws.

[Engineer]

We should all remember that the only one responsible fro the protection of you and your family is you. The police are a reactive and not a proactive agency. They have no legal duty or obligation to protect you. Their job is to arrest the one who killed/harmed you or yours.

[solomon]

GCYL,

If you would prefer my not commenting to you at all thats fine. I don't think I've ever attacked your posts, except in response for you judging mine. Please observe that and don't bray when I voice my opinion. I won't mind one bit.

[GCYL]

“Which laws are in place to which you refer have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?”

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court comes down on that. I can’t see them voiding a lot of current gun control laws that are currently on our books. But anything can happen in a 5-4 split.