DC Handgun Ban Overturned

[Christopher Robin]

Thank you - for that reason, I can understand wanting them. I have zero idea of what Black Talons are.



I have no idea what I mean! That's how little I know about guns, & DFi (who does) is at work & wasn't here for me to ask! Maybe I'm just thinking of things like ak47's & stuff like that. I seriously don't know if that's a legal weapon or not.

I guess I meant why would someone own a gun that has no "antique" value, or would be impractical for hunting (ie-"shred" the animal rather than making a clean kill that allows the meat to be used) or for competitive purposes. I mean there are guns that are just designed to shoot as many bullets as possible, right? Or am I just reading too much bad fiction?

You're welcome.

Black Talons are abnned already, but they were made in such a way as to open up into a kind of claw on impact and 'shred' the target, much like an eagle claw.

AK-47 can be full auto or semi-auto. Full auto is banned, semi-auto isn't. There is also a thing about when they were imported too. Prior to a date, OK. After a date, not OK. No logic why. Semi-autos are fun to target shoot with, but expensive on ammo. And, again, the shoot as many rounds as possible refers to automatic, banned without a Federal license. Semi-automatics are just one pull, one bullet, much like many hunting shotguns, and pistols. Seems the 'look' of the weapon is what makes people think they are evil (or more evil, YMMV). So, as to your last question, yes, too much bad fiction, most of it from the anti-gunners.

 

[MassJester]

True enough -- and a pleasure to read.

 

[sha_lyn]

The current gun debate leaves no room for me as you either want to ban guns on the far left or you want to make Browning .50 caliber fully auto machine guns, and RPG's (rocket propelled gernades) legal like the NRA does. What we need is a comprimise that meets somewhere in the middle.

(that was the only thumbs up I saw LOL)


I actually would like to see a solution to the gun show loophole. Perhaps have a computerized background check/check-in to get into the show, allowing exceptions for those with state or federal permits.

I'm iffy on 3 day waiting periods. I prefer instant background checks.

 

[dolcezena]

So, as to your last question, yes, too much bad fiction, most of it from the anti-gunners.

Had a sneaking suspicion that was the case!

brerrabbit, I'm sorry if my poor understanding is annoying - I realize that can be the case in many topics. I admit, I'm asking stuff that has nothing to do with the OP, but I'm taking an opportunity to try to understand guns & gun owners.

My DFi has always referred to me as "long-haired, sandal wearing, vegetarian, book reading, pinko commie hippie," just as I've referred to him as my "knee-jerk reactionary, redneck, capitalist conservative." (Yes, his is funnier), but I've learned to accept things about his beliefs & vice versa. Four years ago, I couldn't imagine having guns in my home - now I'm interested in his collection. Although still wouldn't own one myself! I apologize if you weren't referring specifically to me, but cursing the ignorance of people who don't understand about types of guns isn't the way to get them to be pro-gun. Explaining what they can be used for, or why different types have different values may.

This whole thread has been interesting to me on a lot of fronts, and I would like to add one more thing. Being pro-gun control does NOT make me anti-gun.

 

[Chicago526]

Going back a few pages (I came late to the party!) a poster from England was asking about what happens if a person shoots an intruder, does the home owner get into trouble.

I beleive the answer depends on the state (and maybe even county) you are in, the circumstances of the shooting, and if the gun is owned legally. I took a law class in college about 10 years ago, and unless the law has changed, in Illinois, you can only shoot an intruder if your life (or someone elses) is in danger. Basicly, how it was explained to me is, that if the intruder has a gun, you can shoot him, if he has another weapon other than a gun, he has to try and attack you before you can shoot him. If he is unarmed, you can't shoot him, period.

If you do shoot someone who either didn't have a gun or didn't pose a threat, you can (and usually are) prosecuted (weather you are convicted or not is another matter...). If you shoot someone that was a threat, but your gun is illegally owned, you usually get charged just for that, not the shooting itself.

Again, it's been a while since I took that class, but that was my understanding of Illinois law as of about 10 years ago. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, I won't mind a bit!

 

[LuvDuke]

This Washington D.C. ban goes back to 1976. This was not a new law. The district court overturned longstanding law. How come I don't see anyone complaining about "activist judges"?

Hmmmm ..........................

And on that contentious note, I'm off to my great-neice's graduation.

Her pre-K graduation, that is. She's even got a little pink cap and gown.

Whatta world we live in.

 

[basas]

Going back a few pages (I came late to the party!) a poster from England was asking about what happens if a person shoots an intruder, does the home owner get into trouble.

I beleive the answer depends on the state (and maybe even county) you are in, the circumstances of the shooting, and if the gun is owned legally. I took a law class in college about 10 years ago, and unless the law has changed, in Illinois, you can only shoot an intruder if your life (or someone elses) is in danger. Basicly, how it was explained to me is, that if the intruder has a gun, you can shoot him, if he has another weapon other than a gun, he has to try and attack you before you can shoot him. If he is unarmed, you can't shoot him, period.

If you do shoot someone who either didn't have a gun or didn't pose a threat, you can (and usually are) prosecuted (weather you are convicted or not is another matter...). If you shoot someone that was a threat, but your gun is illegally owned, you usually get charged just for that, not the shooting itself.

Again, it's been a while since I took that class, but that was my understanding of Illinois law as of about 10 years ago. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, I won't mind a bit!

Illinois has some of the strictest gun control in the nation, do they not? I'd be interested to find out some of the different laws (regarding this issue) in different states. I know they're trying/have made it easier to shoot anytime you ‘feel’ threatened in a number of states

 

[dcentity2000]

Here in the UK we have very tough firearm laws. Basically, you can't have one. If you do, it has to be locked away in a secure location eg. your local range. I think you're allowed shotguns, which has always miffed me.

You know what? We haven't self-destructed with these laws. Everything seems to work fine. On the other hand, I don't think they've had a hugely positive impact on gun crime - it's sorta stayed the same.

And yes, woe betide you if you shoot and kill a burglar. Your only real defence is self-defence and that's not the easiest thing to prove.

For a case study, I recommend the case of the farmer Tony Martin, someone who shot some intruders with a shotgun. He got done for it.



Rich::

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Florida is one of the states that has relaxed the law with regard to intruders in your home, vehicle, etc.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

From what I know, there has not been an increase of people shooting others under this statute. Some people believed that there would be mass killings and that hasn't happened.

 

[basas]

Florida is one of the states that has relaxed the law with regard to intruders in your home, vehicle, etc.

From what I know, there has not been an increase of people shooting others under this statute. Some people believed that there would be mass killings and that hasn't happened.

I remember it well. When some of these laws were first reported, anti-gun activists were warning of 'wild west style' shootouts that would supposedly become daily occurrences. In reality, law-abiding home owners are now better able to protect themselves and their families without waiting and not knowing whether an intruder is armed/dangerous/is going to shoot first, etc.

In Georgia, I know the state is reviewing where you can keep a gun in your car. Right now it’s restricted to the passenger seat, the glove compartment, the dash, and I think one or two other places. New regulations would permit gun-owners to hide their guns under their seat or in other places that would allow the driver to quickly draw his gun if needed. In many ways, it makes a lot of sense. Those who are going to commit a crime aren’t going to listen to where to store their guns. Those who want to follow the law will be better able to protect themselves against criminals. Win-win in my opinion.

 

[Charade]

This Washington D.C. ban goes back to 1976. This was not a new law. The district court overturned longstanding law. How come I don't see anyone complaining about "activist judges"?

Hmmmm ..........................

That was asked, and answered on about page 2!! Get with the program!!

 

[MassJester]

That was asked, and answered on about page 2!! Get with the program!!

In fairness, "answered" might be a stretch.

 

[reeeoga]

I don't get the point here with regard to crime. Isn't an assault weapon more suited to most criminal activity? They're usually not talking about long-range accuracy, right?

I don't know about criminal activity. I have found Assault Rifles to be the same size and weight as the equivalent "Normal" rifle. The only difference is the cosmetic features. Assault Rifles have things attached that some people don't like for some reason.

Things that make an assault rifle an assault rifle:

Muzzle break / Flash suppressor.
Pistol Grip
Foldable stoke.
detachable magazine.

the Muzzle break is usefull for longrange compition shooting during time trials.
The Pistol Grip lets you (Me) better control over the gun.
I don't have experience with a foldable stoke.
Detachable magazine is also helpfull for timed trials in comps. They are also what makes a semi-auto pistol usefull.

 

[reeeoga]

I remember it well. When some of these laws were first reported, anti-gun activists were warning of 'wild west style' shootouts that would supposedly become daily occurrences. In reality, law-abiding home owners are now better able to protect themselves and their families without waiting and not knowing whether an intruder is armed/dangerous/is going to shoot first, etc.

In Georgia, I know the state is reviewing where you can keep a gun in your car. Right now it’s restricted to the passenger seat, the glove compartment, the dash, and I think one or two other places. New regulations would permit gun-owners to hide their guns under their seat or in other places that would allow the driver to quickly draw his gun if needed. In many ways, it makes a lot of sense. Those who are going to commit a crime aren’t going to listen to where to store their guns. Those who want to follow the law will be better able to protect themselves against criminals. Win-win in my opinion.

La. a few years ago extended the Castle doctorine to include your car. What this means is that if you are in your car it is an extension of you house and all self-defense laws pertain. This was in response to Car-jacking in New Orleans. It also means that you can keep a loaded gun in your car if you can keep one legally in your home.

 

[reeeoga]

Thank you - for that reason, I can understand wanting them. I have zero idea of what Black Talons are.



I have no idea what I mean! That's how little I know about guns, & DFi (who does) is at work & wasn't here for me to ask! Maybe I'm just thinking of things like ak47's & stuff like that. I seriously don't know if that's a legal weapon or not.

I guess I meant why would someone own a gun that has no "antique" value, or would be impractical for hunting (ie-"shred" the animal rather than making a clean kill that allows the meat to be used) or for competitive purposes. I mean there are guns that are just designed to shoot as many bullets as possible, right? Or am I just reading too much bad fiction?

I want to collect WW2 Allied weapons. Some of them are full- auto (pull the trigger and it shoots all the bullets). Others are RPG's and similar. That is my reasoning for wanting a full auto, but I don't want to spend the $200 per year per license needed to own that type of weapon. I also do not want to give up my privacy: if you have a full-auto license, the FBI can come into your home whenever they want and look around. They do not need a reason, they can just come in.

As far as bad Fiction: try switching to bad Sci-Fiction

EDit: please replace FBI with BATFE

 

[MassJester]

I want to collect WW2 Allied weapons. Some of them are full- auto (pull the trigger and it shoots all the bullets). Others are RPG's and similar. That is my reasoning for wanting a full auto, but I don't want to spend the $200 per year per license needed to own that type of weapon. I also do not want to give up my privacy: if you have a full-auto license, the FBI can come into your home whenever they want and look around. They do not need a reason, they can just come in.

As far as bad Fiction: try switching to bad Sci-Fiction

EDit: please replace FBI with BATFE

I can certainly understand the desire to collect, but where do you draw the line? Should someone be able to collect land mines from around the world? Acquire a collection of surface-to-air missles to mount in the dining room? Should we allow a limited collection of Russian thermo-nuclear devices over the family room fireplace?

 

[reeeoga]

I can certainly understand the desire to collect, but where do you draw the line? Should someone be able to collect land mines from around the world? Acquire a collection of surface-to-air missles to mount in the dining room? Should we allow a limited collection of Russian thermo-nuclear devices over the family room fireplace?

As long as they are not a danger to anyone why not? There is a guy in England that collects trains: not toy trains, the actual trains. What makes that any different than gun collecting. There are people who collect Tanks, Stamps, Baseball Bats. I even saw a report of a man that collects Actresses underwear. I don't see the difference in any of them.

What I want is more control and punishment of criminals and those who use guns illegally. Use a gun to commit a crime, do an extra 10 years. If someone gets hurt, do an extra 15 years. If someone gets killed, do an extra 30 years. No parol.

 

[MassJester]

As long as they are not a danger to anyone why not? There is a guy in England that collects trains: not toy trains, the actual trains. What makes that any different than gun collecting. There are people who collect Tanks, Stamps, Baseball Bats. I even saw a report of a man that collects Actresses underwear. I don't see the difference in any of them.

What I want is more control and punishment of criminals and those who use guns illegally. Use a gun to commit a crime, do an extra 10 years. If someone gets hurt, do an extra 15 years. If someone gets killed, do an extra 30 years. No parol.

Well, I'm not sure what sort of neighborhood damage some actresses underwear can do, but a shoulder launched missile can really mess up the playground.

As far as mandatory sentences go--we've got more people behind bars than ever before, and in many states, not any room for any new criminals (people like prisions, they just don't want to pay for them or have them in their town). As we lock more and more people up, I'm not sure folks are getting any safer.

 

[LuvDuke]

That was asked, and answered on about page 2!! Get with the program!!

The question may've been asked, but it sure as hell wasn't answered. The fact is the 2nd amendment is open to interpretation unlike the 14th amendment which is crystal clear.

*Edited To Add*

It was the 4th page.

 

[LuvDuke]

In fairness, "answered" might be a stretch.

No joke.