We can has gunz!
Jun. 26th, 2008 02:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wendyzskiThe Supreme Court has confirmed that you do have the right to own firearms for "lawful purposes", such as home defense or hunting.
Most of you know that I grew up in a hunting family (although I personally preferred bowhunting), and I am a huge proponent of responsible gun ownership. This means keeping track of your guns, obtaining them properly, learning to use them safely, and caring for them properly and responsibly. I was sitting on the garage roof scaring raccons away from the trashcans with a BB rifle at age 10 and took my first deer (by bow) at age 12.
I have also been through a basic set of firearms training. I was in a show that required me to use a prop pistol, and I (and the actor I was to be shooting at, who is also a firearms instructor) felt that I ought to take proper training so that I couldn't get into any sloppy habits because it was "just" blanks. Several famous now-dead actors could attest to that little fact.
I have made a personal decision not to own a handgun at this time, and I have to say that the fact that the cities of Chicago and Evanston have handgun bans very similar to the one in DC that was the basis for today's ruling had little to nothing to do with this decision. I have always felt these laws to be both unconstitutional and ineffective in their stated purpose of reducing gun crime. My reasons are that I simply do not feel that any risks I face on a daily basis are hugely outweighed by the responsility of gun ownership. If I lived in a higher risk environment, I might feel differently.
When I took his course he also covered the legal aspects we would be facing. "Yes, carrying a gun is illegal, so if you choose to do so here are the penalties you would face if you are arrested". My fellow trainee was a medical student at UIC and had to keep odd hours in an unsafe neighborhood, and he helped her find a weapon that was a good balance between concealability and accuracy/stopping power. She felt that the risk to her personal safety was much greater than any legal risk she might face over the issue.
But I am very pleased by the decision that the Court reached today. Once the inevitable challenge and defeat of Chicago's ordinance goes through, I don't feel that I will be any less "safe". These laws have always had little to no effect on crime stats. If you want to own a gun, you can find a way to get one. I can think of several.
I was originally against registration - simply because of my personal beliefs about personal privacy, but I have slowly come to feel that it is a restriction I could live with. And I believe that to get a concealed carry permit you should have to submit to both a background check AND skills certification. It's kind of like a car - you can do anything you want with it on your property, but if you want to take it out in public you need to get a license to demonstrate that you can do so safely. To continue the analogy, a registration would be like a VIN - to help track the provenance and ownership of the weapon.
It is always risky to try and second-guess the people that wrote the US Constitution - they were the product of their times, and some things that they took for granted (only men can vote, and black people aren't people) we now find abhorrent. But I think the principal of self-determination that is reflected by the second amendment is a key point of what they stood for, and what they wanted for their descendants.
Most of you know that I grew up in a hunting family (although I personally preferred bowhunting), and I am a huge proponent of responsible gun ownership. This means keeping track of your guns, obtaining them properly, learning to use them safely, and caring for them properly and responsibly. I was sitting on the garage roof scaring raccons away from the trashcans with a BB rifle at age 10 and took my first deer (by bow) at age 12.
I have also been through a basic set of firearms training. I was in a show that required me to use a prop pistol, and I (and the actor I was to be shooting at, who is also a firearms instructor) felt that I ought to take proper training so that I couldn't get into any sloppy habits because it was "just" blanks. Several famous now-dead actors could attest to that little fact.
I have made a personal decision not to own a handgun at this time, and I have to say that the fact that the cities of Chicago and Evanston have handgun bans very similar to the one in DC that was the basis for today's ruling had little to nothing to do with this decision. I have always felt these laws to be both unconstitutional and ineffective in their stated purpose of reducing gun crime. My reasons are that I simply do not feel that any risks I face on a daily basis are hugely outweighed by the responsility of gun ownership. If I lived in a higher risk environment, I might feel differently.
When I took his course he also covered the legal aspects we would be facing. "Yes, carrying a gun is illegal, so if you choose to do so here are the penalties you would face if you are arrested". My fellow trainee was a medical student at UIC and had to keep odd hours in an unsafe neighborhood, and he helped her find a weapon that was a good balance between concealability and accuracy/stopping power. She felt that the risk to her personal safety was much greater than any legal risk she might face over the issue.
But I am very pleased by the decision that the Court reached today. Once the inevitable challenge and defeat of Chicago's ordinance goes through, I don't feel that I will be any less "safe". These laws have always had little to no effect on crime stats. If you want to own a gun, you can find a way to get one. I can think of several.
I was originally against registration - simply because of my personal beliefs about personal privacy, but I have slowly come to feel that it is a restriction I could live with. And I believe that to get a concealed carry permit you should have to submit to both a background check AND skills certification. It's kind of like a car - you can do anything you want with it on your property, but if you want to take it out in public you need to get a license to demonstrate that you can do so safely. To continue the analogy, a registration would be like a VIN - to help track the provenance and ownership of the weapon.
It is always risky to try and second-guess the people that wrote the US Constitution - they were the product of their times, and some things that they took for granted (only men can vote, and black people aren't people) we now find abhorrent. But I think the principal of self-determination that is reflected by the second amendment is a key point of what they stood for, and what they wanted for their descendants.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 08:42 pm (UTC)note that this leaves open the path for saying background checks are needed, licensing, etc.
frankly? most criminals did not obtain their guns legally, so why restrict the ones who follow the laws?
now mind you, i do feel we need more licensing. it should be like a drivers license
"pass a safety test, get your eyes checked, and answer the simple questions about gun safety.. now lets get you out on a range with a "learners permit" and see if you can hit the target"
no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 08:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 09:04 pm (UTC)So you keep track of them so that if it's involved in a crime you can track down whose it is. And in order to take one out in public you need to prove that you know how to use it.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 10:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-27 04:58 am (UTC)