Page 51 lines 4 - 25.Where did you find that in the oral argument?Bryer's need to base a SCOTUS decision on crime statistics as opposed to the written law only reinforces my lack of faith in him and continued belief that he does not understand his job is as a justice on the SCOTUS and not as a legislator.
WildcuriousAlaska TM
Assume -- and this is favorable to you but not as favorable as you'd like -- assume that we are going to decide whether something is proportionate or apply an intermediate standard in light of the purpose. All right.
Now, focus on the handgun ban. As I read these 80 briefs -- and they were very good, I mean really good and informative on both sides -- and I'm trying to boil down the statistics where there is disagreement, and roughly what I get -- and don't quarrel with this too much; it's very rough -- that 80,000 to 100,000 people every year in the United States are either killed or wounded in gun-related homicides or crimes or accidents or suicides, but suicide is more questionable. That's why I say 80,000 to 100,000.
In the District, I guess the number is somewhere around 200 to 300 dead; and maybe, if it's similar, 1,500 to 2,000 people wounded. All right.
Now, in light of that, why isn't a ban on handguns, while allowing the use of rifles and muskets, a reasonable or a proportionate response on behalf of the District of Columbia?
USAFNoDak said:Now-a-days, we allow concealed carry, not because we want to promote criminal activity, but because we want to give the good people the same element of surprise that the criminals used to enjoy.
Yellowfin said:Those who are made anxious by the presence of an openly carried sidearm need to be exposed to such as often as possible to educate away their fears. Validating them isn't constructive.
As at least 2 of the Justices seem all too willing to do. Fact is our government is constrained by our Constitution as amended, not the English Bill of Rights.The English Bill of Rights was relevant to the discussion because it helped explain what the drafters believed to be rights in English law. The most fundamental conclusion is that it was a right. The fact that it created exceptions, however, is used to explain that the framers believed the right to bear arms could be legislatively restricted. This could be used to rationalize current restrictions.