http://news.bbc.co.uk/…

The Oasis guitarist said it was a “pity scumbags are taking over our streets”, and claimed video games were partly to blame for violence.

He said: “In my day, status was trying to be somebody, do you know what I mean, not trying to kill somebody?”

The star said knife crime was a problem across the UK, not just in London.

The 41-year-old added: “I was up in Liverpool for a week a couple of weeks ago and even on the news there it’s every single night.

“I don’t even know what Cameron or Gordon Brown are going to do about it. I was watching a documentary on Panorama and another one about kids carrying knives and violence.

“One of the lads, a little lad, made a telling comment.

“The guy said, ‘Do you not think there’s anything better for you in life?’

“And he said, ‘Yeah, there probably is but I’ve never known anything else’.”

Gallagher also revealed that he and partner Sarah McDonald were worried about their children growing up and said they talked about knife crime in bed at night.

“People say it’s through violent video games and I guess that’s got something to do with it.

“If kids are sitting up all night smoking super skunk [cannabis] and they come so desensitised to crime because they’re playing these video games, it’s really, really scary.”

Eighteen teenagers have been murdered in London so far this year.

In response, the capital’s Metropolitan police force have set up a task force of 75 officers, dedicated to fighting knife crime.

My theory? The warfare/welfare state is sucking the responsibility and drive out of these kids and they have nothing to strive for. That is what is leading to the increase in knife crime. That and the ban on guns probably doesn’t help as it makes it easier likely to get a knife to commit your violent crime then a gun. At least for the lower end crime. I’m not claiming guns aren’t still relatively easy to get. In any case… if videogames and pot made kids want to stab people… the USA would have several million of them running around.

District of Columbia v. Heller PDF

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Not unlimited? Given that all rights from speech to press to bearing arms and due process and troop housing are derived from property rights they are absolute and unlimited. You can’t yell fire in a theater not because your speech can be limited but that the theater owner’s right to his property and his ability to decide how it’s used. These concepts of limitable rights is created because of “public” property.

http://www.cnn.com/…

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.’s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.
The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city’s ban violated the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” by preventing individuals — as opposed to state militias — from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose “reasonable” weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The judgment is not yet on the SCOTUS’s website.

It’s another 5-4 ruling. I don’t like these splits. The ruling doesn’t have the power as it would otherwise. In the short term the legal result is the same but in the long run I think it gives more room to question it in the future.

As you can see in the graph below the handgun ban made no apparent or calculable difference in the number of homicides in DC:

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign just said on CNN that “we disagree with the courts interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Given the history, at least going back to the 1939 ruling, we feel it refers to a ‘well-regulated Militia.’” So he admits that the meaning was different.

Now he just said if you just look at the debates from the amendment’s time that you’d see his interpretation was correct.

Really?

• “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
  –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
• “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
  – Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
• “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
  –Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette
• “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
  – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution
• “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
  – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
• ” … to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
  – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
• ” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
  – Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
• “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
  – Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention

Just a few. Obviously it was a topic of discussion at the time. If the Congress had the ability to raise an army and control militias why then would they have to put in the 2nd Amendment less they felt the Congress couldn’t be trusted?

Over at Yahoo we find a quotes from the justices:

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

What part of “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” does he not understand? “The people” and “shall not be infringed” seem pretty clear to me. The amendment would be pointless unless it was for the people. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution says of the powers of Congress: To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States, respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

So, again, why the 2nd Amendment? They can arm them but not disarm them?

I just got back from the Free State Project’s 2008 Porcfest. It was extremely enjoyable. Rich Goldman did a wonderful job setting things up and I have to also thank Jason Osborne of Sakal/CAI for sponsoring the fest and providing the Fun tent. Free Talk Live broadcast live Thursday, Friday and Saturday. There was a lot of open carrying going on, a lot of Ron Paul signs and a lot of good people having a great time. The vendors included the likes of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party, the Republican Liberty Caucus,  Anarchy in Your Head, and BureauCrash.com. I picked up the Real Rebels t-shirt and bosco got the FREEDOM: My Anti-Government tee.

I strongly suggest anyone who enjoys camping and supports freedom to consider attending next year’s Porcfest. If you can’t wait I also recommend FSP’s Liberty Forum in January. bosco, xyz, etc. feel free to add your opinions of the weekend.

I guess filling out bile’s Firearm Reference Form for the second time inspired me call over to Nutley’s Police Department to inquire about my own ID. It’s been about nine months (Sep 19, my birthday) since I dropped off the paperwork and got fingerprinted. In those nine months I’ve seen bile, bosco, and ramuh get their ID’s and make their purchases. Ridiculous, I know. I suppose I could put a little blame on myself for not being overly persistent or aggressive, but I had little faith in my abilities to make anyone in the police department move any faster than they were currently going.

My experience throughout this process was that police officers and detectives have notably different attitudes about firearm possession. The police officers in my town always sounded “put-off” with any phone call I made–this includes my inquires about when I would be able to come down to process my fingerprints. They changed the times and dates on a weekly basis–to which I found out later were incorrect, thanks many to the detectives (who rolled their eyes when I explained how I was misled). The detectives were more than happy to answer any questions, go over my paperwork for accuracy, and fingerprint me twice (during the first round of printing, the computer froze and my prints were lost). They’re also very open about airing out their disgust of the system. They’ve critiqued the FBI’s ability to review prints in a timely basis and how the NJ Freeholder’s dragged their feet when they should have been verifying my mental background check. I was told that I should receive a phone call relatively soon:

I asked him what the phone call was for. He said, “Um, well, so you can pick up your ID; the nature of this conversation.” He sounded like he was holding back a laugh to avoid embarrassing me.

Being a stickler for following procedure, I had to ask, “But you guys never sent out the reference letters. Aren’t you planning on doing that?”

This time he laughed, “No.”

A little confused and interested, I explained what the procedure was (to my knowledge) and asked him why they weren’t going to bother with the references.

He replied, “We aren’t issuing the reference letters because it’s your Second Amendment right to own a firearm. Plain and simple.” He said that so clearly, as if his intention was to ensure that I never confused that right with anything else anyone would or could have said to me to skew it. For a moment I was speechless, due to half-expecting some run-around, asinine reply. Attempting to regain some ground in the conversation I stammered, “Well, yea. Exactly!” I could have just as easily said, “well duh,” and it would have been the same effect.

Still surprised, I continued the conversation further, “You know, in Fort Lee, they wouldn’t take that for an answer when I filled out the reference letter for my boyfriend. They called me up, told me they didn’t really want my opinion on gun control, and asked me to fill out another form if I was seriously interested about being a reference.”

He laughed, “Well, let’s be reasonable. If I am your worst enemy, are you really going to make me your reference? References don’t mean anything.”

We talked a little about gun politics and how if a criminal wants a gun, they’re going to get it through illegal means anyway, and how all these references and background checks really don’t do much.

It was a pretty refreshing conversation, I’m not going to lie.

It’s totally possible that my file has been sitting on their counter for months, and the only reason I have a pick-up date is because I called in today. Since the detectives have consistently kept positive, down-to-earth attitudes towards me, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt this time and shelf my cynicism… at least until next Wednesday.