3.1. GUN VIOLENCE
The defendant, Rick Engstrum, has an earlier misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and has been charged with possessing a firearm in violation of a federal law that applies to anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." He has pleaded not guilty. (The prosecution arose when Engstrum broke up with his girlfriend, who subsequently told police that he had a gun in his bedroom. Engstrum voluntarily showed police the gun, which he inherited from his father; there's no evidence he has ever used the firearm, let alone threatened anyone with it.) Engstrum, reasonably, wanted to argue to the jury that the Second Amendment renders that law invalid, at least when applied to people who show no risk of future violence. (Remember, this is a Utah jury, which raises the odds that jurors are familiar with the right to keep and bear arms, and may even have heard of the concept of jury ification.) The Justice Department rejected this idea out of hand. By a 2-1 margin, a Tenth Circuit panel agreed, concluded that the Second Amendment didn't apply, and prohibited those jury instructions. "If the case proceeds to trial, the district court is directed not to instruct the jury on this Second Amendment defense, including not giving the proposed jury instruction," they wrote. The two judges who slapped down the Second Amendment defense were both Republican appointees. [1]
Second - No one takes away my guns except God, period, so what any court says has no meaning to me on the issue. Third - The right wingers said Obama is taking our guns away so once again their babbling is nothing but a pack of lies. Like This Reply to this comment by AK-47_Justice August 15, 2009 10:35 AM EDT The defendant, Rick Engstrum, has an earlier misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and has been charged with possessing a firearm in violation of a federal law that applies to anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." He has pleaded not guilty. [1]
Unfortunately, last year's U.S. v. Heller doesn't provide much in the way of guidance to the lower courts. The majority opinion did say, without elaborating, that "nothing in our opinion 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." That was enough for a federal district judge in Maine, in U.S. v. Booker, to rule that the domestic violence prohibition was constitutional. (Plus, a 2009 Supreme Court decision raised no objections to the domestic violence statute, but without evaluating it in terms of the Second Amendment.) [1]
In April, Department of Homeland Security officials warned in a report that right-wing extremists could use the declining U.S. economy and the election of the country's first Black president to increase membership. Recruiters have penetrated social networking sites such as YouTube and Facebook. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets,? warned Homeland Security officials. This makes rational and sensible debates hard in this country. Mr. Pennington, who heads communications for the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence headquartered in Washington, D.C., said, ?the rise of these militia groups is evident that law enforcement needs more funding for personnel to enforce gun laws that are already on the books. [2]
"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody." The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. A man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum. [3]
In early August, a protester came to a raucous Tennessee congressional forum packing heat. Days later, President Obama's healthcare event in New Hampshire was marred by a protester posing for cameras with a pistol and sign reading, "It is time to water the tree of liberty" -- a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote promising violence. This past week, 12 armed men -- including one with an assault rifle -- not only showed off their firearms at Obama's Arizona speech, but broadcast a YouTube video threatening to "forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority." [4]
I do belive, however, that gun-ownership by resposnible people poses no threat to anyone and that licensing (ownership) laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal element nor can we predict when a responsible gun owner might crack and use a gun in an irresponsible manner. I'm somewhat bothered by this article as it doesn't refer to what the defendent did to get a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. He may have simply grabbed is partner without her consent. As the article states, there is no evidence he has ever even fired the gun in question. [1] The Brady Campaign works to enforce sensible gun laws, regulations, and public policies. They linked up with the Million Mom March Network, launched nine-years-ago, to educate the public about gun violence through litigation, grassroots mobilization, and outreach to affected communities. [2]
I don't think it helps the gun rights cause for folks to be carrying weapons where the President is present, because it evokes the comments we have seen lately, describing gun-toting right-wing loons. In the states where these incidents have occured, it is a legal right to openly carry a weapon, when licensed, in public (as opposed to concealed here). And, I am sure, if we could get some kind of credible assurance that our right will be forever honored, such demonstrations would not be felt as necessary by some. And, as Pat says, there have been multiple incidents of violence agaist those opposed to this stupid plan. [5] We will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence. [6]
RANKED RECOMMENDED SOURCES
(6 source documents numbered in order of appearance in text)
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
2. Distrustful of Government, Upset About Race, Militias Rise Again in America - NAM
5. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
4. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
6. Is there a connection between healthcare reform and gun rights? | csmonitor.com
3. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
2. Distrustful of Government, Upset About Race, Militias Rise Again in America - NAM
5. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
4. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
6. Is there a connection between healthcare reform and gun rights? | csmonitor.com
3. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
How about requiring a license to own a firearm? Like a driver's license or pilot's license, it would not indicate that you own a car or plane, but that you are qualified to do so. You have had training in the safety, care, and use of a firearm and have passed a test on those issues. This will not prevent criminals from owning guns, but will ensure more responsible gun ownership for everyone else. Like This Reply to this comment by MikeSettles August 15, 2009 2:19 PM EDT The British began their slide in 1903 with the passing of a licensing law for "high capacity" revolvers ("You can kill six people without reloading!"). This at a time when violent crime there was all but non-existent. It took the do-gooders about 100 years, but legal gun ownership is all but gone now, the Bobbies must be armed, (unlike before), no one even has the right to self defenses, and violent crime rates are still climbing - oh, and the criminals are smuggling guns in from outside the country. [1] Or better yet, lobotomize them. /s Like This Reply to this comment by AOCGUY August 15, 2009 9:26 AM EDT While I'm all for requiring gun safety courses for individuals who wish to use guns, licensing individual firearms has more to do with collecting tax revenue than it does controlling who will own one. [1]
The idea that Repiglicans protect Second Amendment gun rights is ludicrious. Like This Reply to this comment by servantRdw August 15, 2009 8:18 AM EDT I'm thinking that all the posters on here are RETARDED, yes I said RETARDED. There is nothing in the second that's states you can't have a gun if you slap your momma or the wife, while both of these so called crimes have there own punishment. Some retard came up with the idea, hey lets take their guns away if we arrest them and they arrest all even if it's a heated debate between lovers, if the laws called, someone's going down to the pokey. Something all of the anti-gun nuts (and they ARE nuts, as in crazy) cannot grasp is that no gun law ever prevented a criminal from obtaining a firearm. [1]
This RED state bozo was found in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. He and the rest of you republican'ts can whine and cry all you want about the 2nd Amendment, but FEDERAL LAW is cut and dry on this issue, and he will never be able to legally own a firearm due to his previous law-breaking days! PERIOD! Like This Reply to this comment by alliberty August 17, 2009 11:57 AM EDT Wow blue state California has a higher murder rate then red state Utah. [1]
Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." He said the president's safety is not being jeopardized. "We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said. [2] Growing up in Alaska and spending time in Arizona, the open carry of firearms is a common occurence. These people are simply exercising their rights to do so. These guns did not magically fire or injure one single person at this events. Why is this? The were being carried by responsible citizens who well within the confines of the law. People that are have in inordinate fear of inanimate objects probably need to examine their own insecurities. [3]
MIke D. you just show your ignorance again (8:24 pm 8/21/2009 post). The news media are lying when they call a semi-automatic firearm, whether it is an AR-15, a Browning Auto Shotgun, an AK-S, or any other commonly-owned semiautomatic, whether a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, an "assault weapon". they have had the difference explained to them many times. they still want to, as the leader of the anti-gun movement in this country says, "Capitalize on the ignorance of most people who go by looks." (may not be an exact quote, but it comes pretty close). they think they know better than anyone else what is good for everyone else. they are inherently racist, because all gun control laws are racist in origin, intent and purpose. criminals will never obey laws, so the gun control laws are intended solely for the law-abiding citizens. Fran, sometimes I wish we were in the Old West, where everyone carried. it was far safer then than now. everyone knew what firearms were capable of. and that there were bad people who would use them at the drop of a hat. and the bad people would drop the hat. in the forty years between 1850 and 1890, when the U.S. Census Bureau declared that the frontier was closed, most reputable historians have found that there were fewer than 4000 recorded altercations between individuals in which firearms were used (gunfights, in other words). [3] Gun control advocates counter that the Constitution doesn't give anyone the inalienable right to wield automatic weapons that can kill scores of people in seconds. This is the stultified freedom-versus-safety quarrel that seemed to forever define gun politics -- that is, until anti-government activists started bringing firearms to public political meetings. [4] Those of us living in the Rocky Mountains are steeped in America's famous gun culture -- and we therefore know well the binary debates surrounding the Second Amendment. Firearm enthusiasts -- the vast majority of whom use weapons responsibly -- believe the Constitution protects their right to bear arms. [4]
Of course, firearms for hunting are little match against American made, belt-feed machine guns. Read closely the judges and who appointed them in this case you will be very surprised -- the republicans (a Bush 41 and a Bush 43 appointee) where in the majority striking down the defense the democrat was in favor of a full hearing backward to everything you allege. The Justice Department rejected this idea out of hand. By a 2-1 margin, a Tenth Circuit panel agreed, concluded that the Second Amendment didn't apply, and prohibited those jury instructions. "If the case proceeds to trial, the district court is directed not to instruct the jury on this Second Amendment defense, including not giving the proposed jury instruction," they wrote. The two judges who slapped down the Second Amendment defense were both Republican appointees. [1]
Unanswered are questions about carrying firearms in public, gun sales on government property, firearm registration, guns in government housing, handgun restrictions that aren't exactly the same as the District of Columbia's, zoning and gun stores, and so on. [1] Under the law, a concealed weapon includes firearms, tear gas guns, electronic devices, and knives and billy clubs. [5]
Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality." [2]
Acorn thugs and bullies and others not only blustered and intimidated people who were rightly concerned whether everyone voting in the November 2008 election was legally allowed to vote in that election, in each precinct on election day, they conducted an extensive, nationwide campaign against such actions in the weeks leading up to the election, claiming that it was intimidation against "people of color" to ensure that only those who were legal residents of the precinct in which they were voting were allowed to vote. There is no such thing as a "reasonable" gun control law. All gun control laws are, at their roots, racist, because they are intended to keep firearms from the hands of any group to whom the authors of such laws feel superior, because of their race, "moral superiority", intellectual superiority, or other self-perceived cant. Until they armed themselves and showed up, en masse, to vote and stayed, en masse to ensure that all votes were counted. The sitting sheriff was unseated. and was later prosecuted and convicted for criminal acts he had performed while sheriff. [3]
Semi-automatic handguns require people to pull back on the bolt and pull the trigger, but the bolt sometimes can be too heavy for weaker gun owners, Groom said. "It's a simple thing, and it's not going to jam on you," Groom said of the revolver. "It's going to work." Officials in law enforcement say they are not concerned about the rising number. Maj. David Humphreys of the Panama City Beach Police Department said his agency supports the "constitutional right to bear arms." He described gun ownership as a privilege, not unlike driving a vehicle. [5] Contrary to McCullagh's opinionated reportage, lower courts have read the law, which is not being "hostile" to anybody. That McCullagh should put it as, "hostile to gun owners' rights" places his POV close alongside the K Street lobby industry. [1]
Paul Kelly was a George H. W. Bush appointee, and Harris Hartz was a George W. Bush appointee. More interesting is the dissent, written by Clinton appointee Michael Murphy. (An aside: Murphy spent much of his life in Wyoming and Utah, while his colleagues spent most of their careers in New Mexico.) Murphy wrote: This court has not yet passed on the constitutionality of (the federal law dealing with domestic violence) in light of District of Columbia v. Heller. That opinion?s recognition of an individual right to bear arms for the defense of self, family, and property, raises substantial questions about how (the law) may be constitutionally applied. This case presents novel constitutional questions, and I would prefer further briefing before deciding them. I express no opinion on whether the district court's approach is correct, but I cannot conclude the government has met its heavy burden of showing that the district court, in light of virtually no guidance from this court or the Supreme Court, is so far afield that the government is clearly entitled to relief. [1]
"Anyone seriously committed to the Second Amendment and gun rights getting serious constitutional respect should be seriously disturbed by how willing and eager lower courts have been to accept federal prosecutors arguments that Heller is of no consequence for an array of broad and severe federal gun possession crimes," Berman wrote. The bottom line? Forget the rhetoric on both sides after last year's Heller decision. At least, there seems to be few state or federal gun-related laws -- except, perhaps for a complete handgun ban -- that U.S. courts are willing to strike down as unconstitutional. [1]
"Feelings are very tense, and we were just trying to make sure that things were safe." One man at the meeting disclosed that he had a firearm and complied with a request to put it in his vehicle, she said. Other lawmakers said they intended to take no precautions in future town hall meetings or to ask the advice of local law enforcement. C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said the congresswoman will "balance rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment and providing her constituents with a safe forum to share their views." [2]
The staff of some, including Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), have taken precautions to guard against guns being brought into gatherings. "We asked everyone with firearms to check them with the sheriff before we began the meeting," said Marilyn Dillihay, Cohen's chief of staff, describing an Aug. 8 town hall debate in Memphis. [2]
The police can't be everywhere to protect you from street predators or any predator for that matter, especially if you are an alien, the target or object of violence from ignorant nativists. To ensure safety, this person may arm himself for self-defense or even for other actions that warrants using a firearm to fire first before being fired at. [6] If gun is not allowed and you become a victim of violence, the city and the police are liable; also to include the anti-gun lobby. [6]
The anti gun lobby seems willing to ban all guns, which is clearly unconstitutional. [1]
The gun lobby loves to cite paranoid and improbable warnings of boots in the night, especially recently, despite the fact that Obama has never said anything about rounding up guns and gun owners. Has anybody ever bothered to define "arms"? The Consitution was written in a time when they were referring to a musket with a short accurate range and a firing rate of perhaps two rounds per minute if you were good. A friend of mine once defined arms as anything he can hold in his hand. By that standard a SAM launcher is a "gun". [1] In the 24-page report, titled ?The Second Wave: Return of the Militias,? the SPLC warns that at least 50 new militias have been discovered in the last few months and that today ?the Patriot movement may not have the White-hot fury that it did in the 1990s. All it's lacking is a spark and it's only a matter of time before you see threats and violence,? the report said. It was released Aug. 12. [7]
News reports have shown people bringing loaded handguns to town hall debates over health care, even to President Obama's town hall in New Hampshire on Aug. 11. [7]
Many people were startled to see a man bring an AR-15 assault rifle to the vicinity of a presidential town hall on healthcare in Phoenix on Monday. His intent, he told reporters, was to show his willingness to ???forcefully resist??? an overreaching government. He broke no laws, police say, and he was not a threat to the president. It turns out there???s an actual connection between gun rights and healthcare reform, at least according to one gun lobby. [6]
Only a couple of months ago, a neighbor was raided and police confiscated three handguns. There is no evidence to even suggest that this individual is a criminal (other than illegal possession of firearms) but he was able to obtain not one, but at least three, weapons. [1] Contrast that with NYC, which has averaged more than 2000 gunfights every year since 1900, and, where, BTW, it is effectively illegal for the average citizen to carry a firearm. or Washington DC, which passed an unconstitutional ban on ownership of firearms in about 1973. and led the world in homicides in firearms for the next 30 plus years. (but the states of Virginia and Maryland, which border Washington DC, and have less gun control, have far fewer murders with firearms than DC. [3]
Bestselling author David Sirota's latest book is "The Uprising." He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota. Two town halls turn into near-riots The mayhem that's accompanied meetings with members of Congress recently ratchets up another notch August 7, 2009 By Alex Koppelman Who was that gun-toting anti-Obama protester? On the Web, William Kostric backs Birthers, secessionists and shooting cops who bust drug dealers in their homes August 12, 2009 By Joan Walsh Glenn Beck's legions head to the town halls The world's a scary place, Fox News host reminds his fans. [4] Luc - If Sheehan had shown up at a Bush town hall meeting the secret service would have acted no differently. Agents of the USSS put politics aside while they have the suit on and care only for protecting the safety of the principal. [3]
Not among professional journalists. K Street might be a good career option for McCullagh, now that his checkered career at reporting the news has received one more check. It is far easier to give McCullagh high marks for his articles on cyberwarfare and web security. Perhaps, that venue does not place such demands upon his sense of objectivity. [1] If an ignorant redneck shows himself to have violent tendencies, that should be enough. Maybe he didn't own a handgun at the time. Maybe he hasn't been emboldened by enough Budweiser to use the handgun yet, but will soon if we don't intervene. [1]
Let's at least face the sad fact that President's lives are always at high risk and take appropriate safeguards. [3] C & G sports guns for just about any user, including large rifles and petite handguns. Groom said he often recommends revolvers for new gun owners. [5] Go figure. Go outside, we're having summer this week. They don't even know the history of firearms in America. [1] Better they just beat them around the head and shoulders with their fist than blow their heads off with a firearm. [1]
RANKED RECOMMENDED SOURCES
(7 source documents numbered in order of appearance in text)
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
3. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
2. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
4. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
5. Local dealers see spike in gun ownership - The News Herald
6. Is there a connection between healthcare reform and gun rights? | csmonitor.com
7. Distrustful of Government, Upset About Race, Militias Rise Again in America - NAM
1. Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
3. OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News
2. W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events - CBS News
4. What it means to wear a gun in public | Salon
5. Local dealers see spike in gun ownership - The News Herald
6. Is there a connection between healthcare reform and gun rights? | csmonitor.com
7. Distrustful of Government, Upset About Race, Militias Rise Again in America - NAM