Another SCOTUS case or: what pistol should I buy

[donheff]

Well, liberal that I am on the vast majority of topics, I still was pleased by the DC Circuit decision that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and am happy the Supreme Court agreed. As a resident of the District I will now be able to keep a gun in my house and even use it if necessary. I don't know that I will but if I do, what features should I look for?

By the way, the Court specifically endorsed an argument from the DC Circuit that I found most compelling: the wording of the amendment makes clear that a pre-existing right was being preserved. The amendment wasn't creating a new right.

[haha]

Originally Posted by donheff

Well, liberal that I am on the vast majority of topics, I still was pleased by the DC Circuit decision that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and am happy the Supreme Court agreed. As a resident of the District I will now be able to keep a gun in my house and even use it if necessary. I don't know that I will but if I do, what features should I look for?

By the way, the Court specifically endorsed an argument from the DC Circuit that I found most compelling: the wording of the amendment makes clear that a pre-existing right was being preserved. The amendment wasn't creating a new right.

I guess even liberals choose life, especially when it is their own or a family member's.

The only feature that you need is that it be a Glock. Since you aren't going to be walking around with it on your person, get one large enough for your hand and small enough for your wife's.

Go to a range to see how you like it before buying. Good calibers are .40 and 9mm- the .40 being more powerful by a fair amount.

Another easy choice is a Ruger revolver with say a 3" barrel and in cal .357. With this one I would go stainless. If you can overcome the slightly more complex drill with the semi-auto, go Glock. You get more shots, less noise and easier control.

And vote Republican- don't forget that those justices were brought to you by Republican presidents.

Ha

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by donheff

I don't know that I will but if I do, what features should I look for?

Simple, reliable, easy to shoot, fits your hand, large enough caliber to cause some real damage, and something that you can be proficient with. My personal choice is a Glock model 27 or 23 (I own both).

Originally Posted by donheff

By the way, the Court specifically endorsed an argument from the DC Circuit that I found most compelling: the wording of the amendment makes clear that a pre-existing right was being preserved. The amendment wasn't creating a new right.

Absolutely.

After I started looking at my family's genealogy I had a lot of forgotten history brought to life for me. My ancestors fought in at least five "wars" here in America before the Revolution. The way I understand it, all males belonged to the local militia and it was the military force.

From reading some of the stories about my ancestors, who admittedly were on the frontier of this country from the 1600's (when it was in New York) to the 1800's (extending from western Virginia and Kentucky to California) having a gun handy and knowing how to use it was just part of everyday life.

[Westernskies]

I knew if I stuck around long enough I would see a post like this!

If you want something foolproof, get a double-action revolver, in 38 or 357 magnum. Just squeeze the trigger, no worries about whether a round is chambered, the magazine is engaged, or the safety is on. Almost impossible to jam. Plenty of knockdown power for close quarters. They make them in small frames for those folks with smaller hands. Reasonably priced. Available in stainless or blued finish. A nice hefty chunk of steel- might be good to have in your hand if you miss with the first six shots....

I know, the Glock has more capacity, but the operation of a wheelgun is a lot easier for a novice to master, IMHO. Six shots should be sufficient deterrent for a home invasion scenario. I think that just the sound of a pump shotgun might be the best deterrent- can't imagine anything worse if I was a burglar...) I'd recommend a 12 gauge Remington or Mossberg with an 18" rifled barrel.

However you go, keep it away from any kids, but within reach. Mine hangs out of sight behind my bed, in an old holster screwed to the back of the headboard. Easy to reach in an emergency.

Hopefully you will never need it- much like the airbag in your car- it stays out of sight until you absolutely need it, and just gives you that added measure of security.

[Gumby]

I actually read the Supreme Court opinion (District of Columbia v. Heller) today -- all 94 pages of it. (here is a link http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) Justice Scalia produced a very erudite survey of the history of the Second Amendment, and managed to call Justice Stevens a moron (in so many words) at least half a dozen times. I also learned that a single word sentence is acceptable -- "Grotesque."

I agree with Justice Scalia that the 2nd Amendment right is an individual right rather than a collective right limited to the militia. However, if one accepts his premise that the origin of the right was a fear that the monarch would disarm the population to foist tyranny upon them through the coercion of a standing army, then a necessary corollary is that the "arms" the amendment permits must include those necessary to actually fight the army, including RPG's, howitzers and the like. Scalia evades the issue of precisely what limitations are permitted, deciding only that the DC ban on handguns is not. I will be very interested to see how this plays out in the courts.

P.S. -- based on my limited experience in the military, I would choose a model 1911 .45 cal ACP (Colt's). It absolutely will stop the most drug-addled intruder, even if you only hit a limb. A 9mm round may not.

[ls99]

Originally Posted by Gumby

I actually read the Supreme Court opinion (District of Columbia v. Heller) today -- all 94 pages of it. (here is a link http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) Justice Scalia produced a very erudite survey of the history of the Second Amendment, and managed to call Justice Stevens a moron (in so many words) at least half a dozen times. I also learned that a single word sentence is acceptable -- "Grotesque."

Your word-smithing is better than mine. I agree with your comments. The skewering Justice Stevens in a legal document, Priceless.

Edit Add: I too read the entire opinion. Parts of it are hilarious.

[shiny]

Originally Posted by haha

And vote Republican-

Ha

Grotesque.

[Zipper]

How do you protect yourself from the likes of the Kentucky guy [MODERATOR EDIT] who shot his co-workers?

[donheff]

Thanks for the all the advice on the weaponry now made available to me. I had a 38 revolver (VA house) but, as all my fellow-travelers warned, it got stolen in a burglary. In fact, that and my son's .22 target rifle were the only things stolen. Don't know if I want one in DC but as I get older I do realize that I may appear to be an easy target when I take the dogs out in the alley late at night. A Glock in the garage would possibly ease my aging mind - but then as Alzheimer's sets in maybe not such a good idea.

I too read or, rather, skimmed the whole decision and found it interesting. I think Gumby identified the most troubling aspect - if the right (coming out of the English Bill of Rights) was premised on opposing the Government (monarch), handguns won't suffice. But Scalia devotes a lot of prose trying to show that opposition to the monarch was only part of the story - self defense and hunting were traditional reasons for bearing arms that were interfered with when the monarch took the arms away. He seems to be saying that even though the type of arms he says are protected may not suffice against the monarch, they do serve for self defense and that was an underlying purpose for the pre-existing right the amendment protects. Whatever, after this decision, I don't think the right will go away - or get extended to bazookas and rocket propelled grenades - without a new amendment.

Now, as to Ha's injunction to vote Rethuglican, shiny slected the proper Scalia quote: Grotesque!

[jclarksnakes]

For home defense I think a revolver is a good idea. With a revolver you do not have to remember whether it is loaded or if there is a round chambered which can be a problem with a semi-automatic. 357 Magnum is an excellent choice if you have experience with handguns and get regular firing practice. 38 caliber is IMO a better choice if you have limited shooting experience or do not get much shooting practice. On the other hand I do carry a semi automatic, a Kel-Tec P32. Most experts say a 32 is too small but I have taken care of plenty of gunshot hoodlums in the hospital and the one thing they all have in common is cowardice. Hit them with ANY size round and they will fold up. The advantage of the smaller handgun is that you can carry it at times that a larger weapon would have to be left at home or in the car. Make sure you know and inderstand all local laws pertaining to weapons, get plenty of training and regular practice and make sure your CC permit is up to date.
Jeff

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Gumby

I agree with Justice Scalia that the 2nd Amendment right is an individual right rather than a collective right limited to the militia. However, if one accepts his premise that the origin of the right was a fear that the monarch would disarm the population to foist tyranny upon them through the coercion of a standing army, then a necessary corollary is that the "arms" the amendment permits must include those necessary to actually fight the army, including RPG's, howitzers and the like. Scalia evades the issue of precisely what limitations are permitted, deciding only that the DC ban on handguns is not.

Justice Scalia did seem to evade that element of the issue and it has me thinking about the concept of the militia.

And I’m trying real hard not to sound like a whack-job kook, but reading the quotes he included in his opinion, I wonder if Scalia may not have done more harm than good here. Given the history of select militias being used to deprive groups of their rights, I wonder how and why America went from having a near universal militia to a select one.

I’m not advocating, nor envisioning, the Klan running around in surplus M-60 tanks, but the concept of the general militia seems to be a what the Founders were thinking we needed. Scalia does address that when he wrote;

It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

Judge Kozinski, a very interesting jurist I think, said it very well a few years back:

… the simple truth--born of experience--is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South...As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist… A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history--Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few--were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

…The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

When I think of how a modern universal militia might work, I think of Switzerland or Israel. They are both modern nations with nearly universal male conscription and reserve service, with military arms kept in the possession of the individual reservist.

I wonder what the Founders would say if they looked at us today, with a standing military force, a select militia, and city governments being forced to acknowledge an individual right that was at the very core of the Founders' beliefs.

[whitestick]

Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today’s decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I
have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the
United States. From the dissenting report.

This comment from Justice Stevens may very well be a major source of revenue for many lawyers to come. The many quotes that Justice Scalia references about the state laws regarding banning of open carry laws may open us to a period where the latest fashions will include a holster for your cell phone, your ipod, and your glock, to be worn on your hip. With Americans penchant for reducing and consolidating physical characteristics of accessories, we may even combine all three into one.
"No officier, I'm not committing suicide, I just needed to answer my phone"

Also, I wonder how the comment about permissible arms of the day, will affect the bans on commonly available assault rifles like the AK's and such.

[bayfritz]

If your talking about a firearm in your home to protect your family, I would recommend the good old fashion 12 gauge shotgun. Remington 870 or Mossberg 590 are two excellent choice that are easy to master and currently used by our armed forces. Neither are a bank busters ($275-350)and are very reliable. I would also recommend reduced recoil loads that allow quicker target acquistion on the second round (if needed, doubtful) and are easy on the shoulder. My wife, all of 5'-2" fires this with no problem and she's pretty good about the general mechanics. She hates firearms but understands the possible need.

You don't have to be exact with shot placement, and stopping power is above reproach.

I have a few handguns, but I own 2 short shotguns (upstairs and downstairs) for this exact reason and would be my first choice if needed.

[donheff]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

When I think of how a modern universal militia might work, I think of Switzerland or Israel. They are both modern nations with nearly universal male conscription and reserve service, with military arms kept in the possession of the individual reservist.

I wonder what the Founders would say if they looked at us today, with a standing military force, a select militia, and city governments being forced to acknowledge an individual right that was at the very core of the Founders' beliefs.

I suppose a differently constituted majority could have reached a different conclusion based on this reasoning. The "right" the founders enshrined has in effect been turned on its head and is thus out of date in today's society. Instead of a bulwark against the tyranny of government the amendment now only ensures the citizens the right to slaughter each other despite the best efforts of local governments to stop the blood letting. But that argument seems to be water under the bridge. I doubt that a future court will overturn this decision based on the out of date reasoning. Scalia made self defense too central a cornerstone of the decision and that remains a very timely reason.

[bayfritz]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

When I think of how a modern universal militia might work, I think of Switzerland or Israel. They are both modern nations with nearly universal male conscription and reserve service, with military arms kept in the possession of the individual reservist.

I believe women are required to serve as well. I have done several detachments to Israel during my active duty stint and it is very different to see young people at McDonalds and at the local Mall carrying M-16's. Quite a culture shock.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by Gumby

However, if one accepts his premise that the origin of the right was a fear that the monarch would disarm the population to foist tyranny upon them through the coercion of a standing army, then a necessary corollary is that the "arms" the amendment permits must include those necessary to actually fight the army, including RPG's, howitzers and the like. Scalia evades the issue of precisely what limitations are permitted, deciding only that the DC ban on handguns is not. I will be very interested to see how this plays out in the courts.

Not sure I agree with the premise that potential coercion of a "standing army" or "organized militia" was the raison-detre for the Second Amendment, as I think Scalia appears to suggest that the basic right to self-defense (including armed defense against tyrants) is the core-component for Second Amendment. Scalia does say that "dangerous and unusual weapons" weapons that have nothing to do with self-defense, as the Court previously held in Miller v United States, can be regulated. It remains to be seen, as Scalia himself said, whether the M-16 or AK-47 rifle can be appropriately banned. Thus, there might be some weapons effective in fighting a standing army, a select militia or terrorists that nonetheless could be banned as "dangerous and unususal weapons" -- a point Scalia appears to concede with a certain dose of irony. In reading the opinion, I think it is safe to say that grenades, RPGs and the like can be banned much the way the short-barreled shot gun was banned in Miller.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by donheff

I suppose a differently constituted majority could have reached a different conclusion based on this reasoning. The "right" the founders enshrined has in effect been turned on its head and is thus out of date in today's society. Instead of a bulwark against the tyranny of government the amendment now only ensures the citizens the right to slaughter each other despite the best efforts of local governments to stop the blood letting. But that argument seems to be water under the bridge. I doubt that a future court will overturn this decision based on the out of date reasoning. Scalia made self defense too central a cornerstone of the decision and that remains a very timely reason.

Rights don't go out of date. How we exercise those rights may change and the court is supposed to maintain the right while figuring out how it works with modern technology and other things that change with the times. I still agree with Kozinski, people who allow their government to disarm them are at risk.

I suspect you are correct that Scalia may have over-emphasized the personal self-defense aspect.

Again, let me say I'm not in favor of any of us running around driving an M-1, or having a Stinger in the closet, but I do think the Founders had the right idea. National defense should be a mutually shared responsibility and experience, and a population capable of defending itself from tyranny will remain free. It would seem a modern version of the militia might be the way to go. Plus, while that aspect might appeal to the "conservatives", I think it would also appeal to the "liberals" as well because if the great majority of the citizens were in the military I bet that there would be serious national reflection before there was a consensus to go to war.

Originally Posted by bayfritz

I believe women are required to serve as well. I have done several detachments to Israel during my active duty stint and it is very different to see young people at McDonalds and at the local Mall carrying M-16's. Quite a culture shock.

I think both genders are conscripted for initial service, but I think only males are required to stay in the reserves until almost 50 (that's being lowered to the 40's I think).

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Not sure I agree with the premise that potential coercion of a "standing army" or "organized militia" was the raison-detre for the Second Amendment, as I think Scalia appears to suggest that the basic right to self-defense (including armed defense against tyrants) is the core-component for Second Amendment.

Scalia barely mentions a quote from one of the Federalist Papers that discussed the issue at length. I'm not sure if he was trying to minimize it or just figured almost everybody reading the opinion would immediately recognize what he was talking about.

Anyway, the FP exchange discussed at length the need for an armed populace in the form of the existing militia, the desire not to have a standing army, and how the Constitution would hamper a standing army from being used against the populace, and in any event the militia would be able to kick the army's butt because the militia was a larger force that was almost equally equipped and trained.