Keeping the Second Amendment

[Andreus]

the person who started this thread was looking for some good discussion, which is what happened, and the complexity of the issue has been grappled with which has been noted by the thread starter with some thanks for the great discussion

please PM the thread starter who is curious about your comments

it would seem opinteroph finds some of our input not quite up to snuff

thanks for the kind words, Jack

 

[Centexfarmer]

the person who started this thread was looking for some good discussion, which is what happened, and the complexity of the issue has been grappled with which has been noted by the thread starter with some thanks for the great discussion

please PM the thread starter who is curious about your comments

Well, I for one feel like this has been one of the better threads here on CE&P in awhile.

There have been some really fantastic points and observations made.

I could probably continue with some points and observations that opinterph, made! Which was an excellent post BTW ! I really liked how you analysed the the entire thread. I also like that no one got into a I'm right/your wrong, approach.

If he feels so inclined, the only other pursuit that I would make in the continuation of this thread is this point that he brought up:

According to FindLaw:


Quote:
In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.” The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Therefore, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms, and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made. At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

Is this the direct correlation by SCOTUS that allows for, what is perceived, as infringement?

I'm under the impression that it is United States v. Miller that opened to the door to the legislation of fire arms. IWO, it became the precedent.

Is that correct?

Anybody?

 

[Kulindahr]

Taken from the Unites States Code:

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

Thanks for posting that!

It looks updated a tiny bit from the version I saw -- nice to know the new twist.
I notice females aren't QUITE as discriminated against in the current rules.

I wonder where in there the militia organizations like the Minutemen fall -- they weren't "organized" according to that, but they were far from being "disorganized".

 

[frankfrank]

^ AS KULINDAHR SAID!!!

Thank you ajacobs for the post before it as well - it's very instructive seeing how a cross section of founding fathers (and illustrious people not that long afterward) interpreted the likely intention of the Second Amendment. I'm sure these quotes have been coalesced somewhere before, but this is the first time I've seen many of them.

 

[Kulindahr]

There were a couple of them new to me, too. I'm going to have to remember where these are posted -- our Pink Pistols Chapter is discussing making some promotional literature, and we want some good quotes.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's a very good point. Even removing the Second Amendment would not eliminate the right to keep and bear arms; it would only give license to persecute people for a right that is already theirs. The "Bill of Rights" doesn't grant rights, it protects them.

 

[opinterph]

Is [United States v. Miller] the direct correlation by SCOTUS that allows for, what is perceived, as infringement?

I'm under the impression that it is United States v. Miller that opened the door to the legislation of firearms. [In other words], it became the precedent.

Is that correct?

Anybody?

United States v. Miller is the only extensive modern discussion of the Second Amendment by SCOTUS.

I do not know if the ruling is used by Congress to “allow for infringement.” Likewise, I do not know if it is appropriate to consider it a precedent; however, I did notice it was cited in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980) to support the conclusion: “These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.”

See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8 ), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that § 1202(a)(1), § 922(g), and § 922(a)(6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

Reading through some the early opinions of the Court, it seems plausible to consider that the Court’s view of this issue may be “evolving.” (cases listed below)

The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act [a federal gun control law] violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to “administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” . . .

The Second Amendment . . . appears to contain an express limitation on the government’s authority. That Amendment provides: “[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.” This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to “keep and bear arms,” a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government’s regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment’s protections. As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms “has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.”

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense.” The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the “right to keep and bear arms” is, as the Amendment’s text suggests, a personal right. [Citing various books and articles.] Other scholars, however, argue that the Second Amendment does not secure a personal right to keep or to bear arms. [Citing various other articles.] Although somewhat overlooked in our jurisprudence, the Amendment has certainly engendered considerable academic, as well as public, debate.

Justice Thomas
Concurring Opinion
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938-939 (1997)

U.S. Supreme Court cases that refer to the right to keep and bear arms and also quote the militia clause:

1. Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820).
2. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 650 (1929).
3. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
4. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149-51 (1972) (Justice Douglas's dissent).
5. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980).
6. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938-939 (1997) (Justice Thomas's concurrence).



U.S. Supreme Court cases that refer to the right to keep and bear arms without even mentioning the militia clause:

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857).
2. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876).
3. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886).
4. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 286-87 (1892).
5. Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894).
6. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 635 (1896) (Justice Field's dissent).
7. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897).
8. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900).
9. Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100, 123-24 (1904).
10. Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 528 (1905).
11. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98 (1908 ).
12. Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 78 (1947) (Justice Black's dissent).
13. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950).
14. Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 378 n.5 (1958 ).
15. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 49 & n.10 (1961).
16. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990).
17. Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992), quoting [18] Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961) (Justice Harlan's dissent); the same quote appears in [19] Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 502 (1977) (plurality opinion); [20] Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 306-07 (1994) (Justice Stevens's dissent); and [21] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 169 (1973) (Justice Stewart's concurrence).
22. Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143(1998 ) (Justice Ginsburg's dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Souter).

 

[Kulindahr]

I'd like to point out that the notion that this is somehow a "collective" right is a conjecture never seen until recent times. I recall references that seem "collective" on first reading, but after examination the collectivity is seen to be because this is a right held by all and in its ultimate form is exercised en masse, s well as that crew-serviced arms, such as cannons, were/are held collectively, not by individuals.

 

[Kurn]

EXCUSE MEEEE LABELEERS!!!
I am one of those liberals and I am as liberal about the 2nd Amendment as I am about the 1st.

Government may not "infringe" upon the right to bear arms.
So can your neighbor enrich his own uranium and make a bomb??
That would be unhealthy for the neighborhood which brings up the main area for "constitutional infringement," that of Public Health.
It is no comfort knowing that if a neighbor is somehow careless and kills a loved-one accidentally that he will be severely punished.

Being brief, I suggest that, to avoid cluttering the Constitution with Amendments, that We, the People enact an Amendment relating to Health and Welfare which would include a clause that addressed domestic/municipal arms-regulation.

 

[Kurn]

Again, I think that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is partly to serve as a counter-plot to tyranny. Seriously, guys.
Actually what the "militia" clause suggests is the expectation that You will bear arms in order to defend your community. The militia clause is dependent upon the un-infringed right to bear arms.

And I do not trust a government of right-wing nutcases enough to weaken that right at the present time. Nor is the aftermath of the Bush mal-administration a good time to forget your own personal security.
I care about you guys!

 

[herewego]

No one wants the Right wing nutcases knocking on your door and performing public witch trials, and they will. You better believe I will be locked and loaded!

 

[JayHew]

As posted in another thread:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

Good reads and concludes: individual right to keep and bear arms.

The argument of neighbors having nukes, tanks, howtzers is disingenuous.

 

[Andreus]

source....coallition against gun violence


What The Second Amendment Really Says[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]



"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."--The Second Amendment "The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest piece of fraud, I repeat the word, 'fraud', on the American public. The distortion of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights by the gun lobby is glaring, as they focus their argument on the last half of the amendment, while ignoring the first half, on which it was based".--Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (1991)

Is There A Constitutional Right To Own A Gun?


*According to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other opponents of rational firearms control measures, the Second Amendment guarantees the absolute right of every American to privately possess firearms without restriction. Although this interpretation is accepted as fact by many Americans, it has absolutely no basis in law. To the contrary, nearly 100 years of uncontradicted legal precedent make clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in connection with service to an organized state militia.

In support of its interpretation, the gun lobby focuses exclusively on the words of the second half of the Second Amendment - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - omitting all reference to the first phrase - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - even though that language clearly links the right to bear arms to a "well regulated Militia". Based on this distortion of the constitutional text, the gun lobby insists that the Second Amendment is a barrier to virtually all proposed firearms regulations.


The gun lobby has led many Americans to believe that rational gun control regulations are unconstitutional, significantly undermining efforts at the federal and state level to address the national epidemic of gun violence. However, the Second Amendment is not a barrier to laws regulating the private use, sale or ownership of firearms, whether enacted by federal, state or local governments.

Historical Context

When analyzing the Second Amendment, it is useful to understand the historical context in which it was written. Prior to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, each of the states operated independently under the Articles of Confederation. Each state had its own "militia" composed of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers to protect against external threats and internal insurrection. Individuals serving in the militia were required to supply their own equipment, including horses and guns, for militia use.

The U.S. Constitution, as originally drafted, established a permanent army of professional soldiers controlled by the federal government. When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, the continued existence of the state-run militia was in question. Many colonial leaders, With the memory of British tyranny fresh in their minds, mistrusted centralization of power. Although they saw the continuation of the state militia as an effective counterpoint to the power of the standing army, these leaders were concerned that the federal government had excessive control over the militia.


In The Federalist #46, James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, defines the militia as a military force "conducted by {state} governments". This state-run militia, he argued, would counterbalance the power of the federal army. Thus, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that every state would have the ability to maintain its own militia. It was not, as the gun lobby argues, intended to establish an unlimited, private right of gun ownership or possession. If the drafters of the Bill of Rights had intended to guarantee such an individual right, they could (and would) have done so.


What the Second Amendment does is define limitations of the federal government's right to restrict--as opposed to a state's right to maintain--a "well regulated militia". Its purpose is to give the states responsibility and guarantee their right to train, maintain and to "keep and bear arms" for militias composed of state residents available to be called upon should there be a threat to security.


The modern militia was officially created by the National Guard Act of 1902, in which all state militias were formalized under the authority of the National Guard. Gun rights advocates argue that since the militia included most able-bodied men, the militia is now everyone. However, because laws regulating firearms do not interfere with the modern militia, no gun control law has ever been overturned by the federal courts on Second Amendment grounds.

Judicial Interpretation

Legal history demonstrates that the Second Amendment is not a barrier to reasonable gun control laws. Six Supreme Court and forty lower court decisions have reaffirmed that there is no right of an individual to own a gun, and that it is a collective right of the militia, not the individual. The Supreme Court rarely speaks in this area and when it does, it begins with the idea that the Second Amendment protects a state's right to keep arms for the militia. Historically, the legal and judicial view has been that the Second Amendment only guarantees a state's right to be armed, with no explicit reference to the individual.

Major Legal Decisions On Gun Laws

U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876, The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms.

U.S. v. Miller-1939, A defining U.S. Supreme Court case. Miller stated that restrictions on a sawed-off shot gun violated a person's Second Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court considered a Second Amendment challenge to the prosecution of two individuals who transported a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act. The court held that the "obvious purpose" of the amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Because there was no evidence that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun had any "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," the court found that the Second Amendment had not been violated. Subsequent cases have held that the modern equivalent of the "militia" is the National Guard. Miller has never been undermined.


Eckert v. City of Philadelphia-1973, 6th Circuit Court, "it must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the U.S. Constitution."


Lewis v. U.S.-1980, states that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relation to preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.


Quilici V. Village of Morton Grove-1982, In a nationally-watched case, a town in Illinois banned handguns. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment restricts federal authority in this area, not that of state and local governments, "We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment" and "The right is for the militia, not the right to keep handguns". The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Quilici.


U.S. v. Hale - 1992, The Eighth Circuit read Miller (above) as protecting only those weapons which are actively being used by a militia member for a legitimate, militia-related purpose. A weapon is not constitutionally protected simply because it is "susceptible to military use". Indeed, as observed by the court, it would be difficult to find a lethal weapon which does not have a "potential military use". Instead, a plaintiff must prove that "his or her possession of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia". Membership in an unorganized militia, or a private, nongovernmental military organization, is not enough to satisfy the "reasonable relationship" test.

The Legal And Legislative Future For Gun Control

Eleven U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have analyzed the Second Amendment with this narrow view. Additionally, while the courts have chosen to apply many other provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, they have explicitly declined to do so with the Second Amendment. The Court is not going to expand any individual rights, so any personal right to bear arms would have to be balanced against the needs of the community. Therefore, the Second Amendment is not an obstacle to rational gun control laws, it does not preclude federal, state or local regulation of the sale, use or ownership of guns for private purposes.

For the NRA, firearms equal freedom, and they want to change the subject from death, injury and statistics. There is a good chance, however, that the cost of violence is winning more converts than the "constitutional right" to "keep and bear arms"--especially when that right, as it affects gun ownership, is illusory.

This article is a brief synopsis, plus edited excerpts, from an analysis of the Second Amendment prepared by the Legal Community Against Violence which was organized after the July 1, 1993 massacre at 101 California Street in San Francisco. This organization, a Community Fund of the San Francisco Foundation, may be reached at (415) 433-3550, fax (415) 433-3557.

 

[Andreus]

I know this comes from the brady campaing have they forgot the 1997 ruling that overturned part of the brady bill.

I could go on, like I said, I know both sides bend the facts but the brady campaign put out the biggest misrepresentations of facts I have scene on either side of either issue.

actually that second posting that you just quoted is not from the brady site.

WHAT?

what will you do now...lol

someone else in america believes that guns need to be controlled?

Oh my

bazookas and nukes and bombs

oh my

 

[Andreus]

source.... violence policy center

........

Firearms Violence - General


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

1. 
   [*]Deaths: Final Data for 1997, Donna L. Hoyert, PhD; Kenneth D. Kochanek, MA; et al, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47, No. 19, June 30, 1999.
   This publication is an annual report. It includes charts providing the total numbers of firearm deaths, as well as death rates from homicide, suicide, unintentional, and undetermined shootings broken out by age, race, and sex. For comparison purposes, the study provides charts on the 10 leading causes of death.
   This publication is free. Call the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at (301) 436-8500 or write to the NCHS at 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782-2003. Ask to be placed on the NCHS mailing list. The NCHS web site is located at www.cdc.gov/nchs.
   Key Facts: In 1997 more than 32,000 Americans were killed with firearms—
   
   • 17,566 in firearm suicides,
   • 13,522 in firearm homicides,
   • 981 in unintentional firearm deaths,
   • 367 in firearm deaths of undetermined intent.
   
   [*]Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States, 1962-1994, Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
   This report reviews the descriptive epidemiology of firearm-related mortality in the United States from 1962 to 1994. The patterns of overall firearm deaths—homicide, suicide, and unintentional death—are examined by race, sex, and age group.
   This publication is free. Contact the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) at: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, MS-K60, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Atlanta, GA 30341-3724. It may also be ordered on the Internet at www.cdc.gov/ncipc/ncipchm.htm.
   Key Facts: During the 33-year period covered—
   
   • The total number of firearm deaths increased by 130% from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994.
   • Suicide and homicide account for almost all gun deaths—e.g., 94% in 1994.
   • The rates for unintentional deaths from firearms have generally declined throughout the study period.
   
   [*]Characteristics of Firearms Involved in Fatalities, Stephen W. Hargarten, MD, MPH; Trudy A. Karlson, PhD; et al, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), Vol. 275, No. 1, January 3, 1996, pp. 42-45.
   This study documents the types of firearms used in firearm fatalities between 1990 and 1994 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
   Key Facts: Between 1990 and 1994 in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, researchers found that handguns accounted for—
   
   • 89% of firearm homicides,
   • 71% of firearm suicides.
   
   [*]The Association Between the Purchase of a Handgun and Homicide or Suicide, Peter Cummings, MD, MPH; Thomas D. Koepsell, MD, MPH; et al, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, No. 6, June 1997, pp. 974-978.
   This case-control study involving members of a Washington state HMO examines whether purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer is associated with the risk of homicide or suicide.
   Key Facts:
   • 
     [*]Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase.
     [*]These increased risks persisted for more than five years after the purchase.
   
   
   [*]Deaths Resulting from Firearm- and Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries—United States, 1968-1991, MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report), Vol. 43, No. 3, January 28, 1994, pp. 37-42.
   This article compares changes over time between motor vehicle-related deaths and firearm-related deaths.
   Key Facts:
   • 
     [*]From 1968 to 1991, motor vehicle-related deaths declined by 21%, while firearm-related deaths increased by 60%.
     [*]It is estimated that by the year 2003, firearm-related deaths will surpass deaths from motor vehicle-related injuries. In 1991 this was already the case in seven states (California, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Texas, Virginia) and in the District of Columbia.
   
   [*]Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH and Donald T. Reay, MD, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 314, No. 24, June 12, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.
   In this early and much-cited study, the authors examined firearm-related deaths in the home during a six-year period (1978 to 1983) in King County, Washington.
   Key Fact:
   • 
     [*]For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.
   
   [*]Who Dies? A Look at Firearms Death and Injury in America, Susan Glick, MHS, Violence Policy Center, Washington, DC, February 1999, 36 pages.
   This report provides user-friendly access to the most pertinent statistics on gun violence in America for the press, policymakers, and the general public. Who Dies? gives a demographic breakdown of the latest trends in firearm-related injuries and deaths in the U.S., as well as the economic toll of treating gunshot victims. Sources include the National Center for Health Statistics, the FBI, and the CDC.
   This publication is $5.00, including shipping and handling. Call the Violence Policy Center at (202) 822-8200 or write to the VPC at 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. Follow this link to view Who Dies?.

[/FONT]


Firearms and Crime



Guns Used in Crime: Firearms, Crime, and Criminal Justice, Marianne W. Zawitz, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC, July 1995.
This study compiles data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, the FBI's National Crime Information Center, and other sources on firearm use in crime and firearm theft. A list of the 10 guns most frequently traced to criminal use by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 1994 is included.

This publication is free. Call the National Criminal Justice Reference Services (NCJRS) at 1-800-732-3277. Ask to be placed on the NCJRS mailing list to receive information about their publications.

Key Facts:


The National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that in 1993 there were 4.4 million victims of violent crime in America.
Of these victims, 1.3 million (29%) faced an offender with a firearm.


Cop Killers: Assault Weapon Attacks On America's Police, Kristen Rand, Violence Policy Center, Washington, DC, September 1995, 55 pages.
The result of a five-month survey of newspaper reports, this study describes the threats that assault weapons pose to America's police. In doing so, the report refutes claims made during the 1995 Congressional hearings for the repeal of the federal assault weapons ban. Copies of the original news clips are included in the study.

This publication is $10.00, including shipping and handling. Call the Violence Policy Center at (202) 822-8200 or write to the VPC at 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036.

Key Fact:


Over a five-month period in 1995, police found themselves facing assault weapons in at least 20 incidents that resulted in eight police killed and nine injured.



Criminal Activity and Assault-Type Handguns: A Study of Young Adults, Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH; Mona A. Wright, MPH; et al, Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 32, No. 1, July 1998, pp. 44-50.
This study tries to determine whether individuals who buy an assault-type handgun are more likely to engage in criminal activity than those purchasing other firearms. It analyzes a population under the age of 25 who legally purchased handguns in California in 1988.

Key Fact:


Among those who had previously been charged with violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault), purchasers of assault-type handguns were three times as likely to be charged with a new offense involving firearms or violence as were purchasers of other handguns.



Gun Shows in America: Tupperware® Parties for Criminals, Kristen Rand, Violence Policy Center, Washington, DC, July 1996, 74 pages.
This much-cited study examines the explosive growth of gun shows since the 1986 passage of the federal Firearms Owners' Protection Act (the "McClure-Volkmer" bill). This law made two significant changes in the regulation of gun shows: 1) holders of Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) could now sell weapons at gun shows in their own state and, 2) unlicensed individuals could sell at gun shows from their "private collections."

The study features a survey of law enforcement personnel and gun show promoters regarding the mushrooming of gun shows and resultant law enforcement problems. Gun shows contribute to the flow of firearms to criminals and have become recruitment centers for militias and other extremist groups. The study concludes with a set of recommendations for local, state, and federal actions to reduce the threat to public safety posed by gun shows.

This publication is $15.00, including shipping and handling. Call the Violence Policy Center at (202) 822-8200 or write to the VPC at 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. A copy of the VPC publications list will be included upon request. Follow this link to view the study's executive summary.




Prior Misdemeanor Convictions as a Risk Factor for Later Violent and Firearm-Related Criminal Activity Among Authorized Purchasers of Handguns, Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH; Christiana M. Drake, PhD; et al, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), Vol. 280, No. 24, December 23, 1998, pp. 2083-2087.
This study tracked a group of persons over a 15-year period, who had legally purchased handguns in California in 1977, to see if those with prior misdemeanor convictions were more likely to be charged with new crimes than those with no criminal history.

Key Fact:


Handgun purchasers with at least one prior misdemeanor conviction were more than seven times as likely to be charged with a new offense after handgun purchase as those with no prior criminal history.



Weapons of Choice: Previous Criminal History, Later Criminal Activity, and Firearm Preference among Legally Authorized Young Adult Purchasers of Handguns; Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH; Carrie A. Parham, MS; et al, The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, Vol. 44, No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 155-160.
This study analyzed authorized purchasers of handguns in California in 1988 between the ages of 21 years to 25 years old to determine the association between criminal activity and preference for a particular class of handgun—in this case "Saturday Night Specials" or "junk guns."

Key Fact:


Handgun purchasers without a criminal history who bought small, low-quality handguns were nearly twice as likely to be charged with new crimes involving firearms or violence than were purchasers of other handguns.



One Shot, One Kill: Civilian Sales of Military Sniper Rifles, Tom Diaz, Violence Policy Center, May 1999, 69 pages.
This report exposes the fact that the 50 caliber sniper rifle, a military weapon capable of striking a target a mile away, is sold in gun stores just as any other rifle. The report also explores how the gun industry markets sniper rifles and the bizarre subculture of sniper enthusiasts.

This publication is $12.00, including shipping and handling. Call the Violence Policy Center at (202) 822-8200 or write to the VPC at 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. Follow this link to view the study's executive summary.

 

[Centexfarmer]

actually that second posting that you just quoted is not from the brady site.

WHAT?

what will you do now...lol

someone else in america believes that guns need to be controlled?

Oh my

bazookas and nukes and bombs

oh my

I honestly don't think that the debate in this thread has anything to do with "gun control."

On one side you hear, 'My definition of Gun Control means being able to hit your target.

While the other side says, 'The Second Amendment was all about controlling guns, and that only the militia should have them.'

I'm pretty sure that reality is somewhere in the middle. I just don't think that we've found it yet.

Though, I can't help but think that we've came damn close so far!

I'm just not willing to hand the debate over to Political Action Committees (PAC's); National Rifle Association, or the Coalition Against Gun Violence, or organization like the Violence Policy Center.

All of those organizations have "a horse" in the debate, and each of them make valid arguments.

I'm sure that if I were forced to choose which of the three mentioned above that I could rally behind, that I could make a choice.

However, I don't feel that they're completely on topic.

I think that the debate should be about how SCOTUS, and the law defines "militia."

U.S. -vs- Miller 1939, seems to be about the only ruling that even allows for "infringment."

So, is your argument then, for the abolishment of the Second Amendment?

 

[Andreus]

very easy way to discount very constructed and documented arguements you may disagree with

 

[Andreus]

I didn't say it was from the brady site, it is from them though, I don't care what site it was reprinted on.

no

it's not

if you have proof I will gladly hear it so that i can complain to the original site about their plegiarism.

 

[Kulindahr]

ajacobs did a masterful job of demonstrating why the Brady Campaign and all their associates such as the Violence Policy Center and the Coalition Against Gun Violence, cannot be trusted. Their position is based on lies, with which they attempt to befuddle Americans who ought to know better. They twist plain English, butcher grammar, quote out of context, and put forth studies set up to prove their conclusions made beforehand.
Nothing from any of those organizations counts as documentation, because of their pattern of lies.

 

[Andreus]

ajacobs did a masterful job of demonstrating why the Brady Campaign and all their associates such as the Violence Policy Center and the Coalition Against Gun Violence, cannot be trusted. Their position is based on lies, with which they attempt to befuddle Americans who ought to know better. They twist plain English, butcher grammar, quote out of context, and put forth studies set up to prove their conclusions made beforehand.
Nothing from any of those organizations counts as documentation, because of their pattern of lies.

i'm sure he appreciates your unexpected endorsement of the gun companies' positions

saner minds seem to disagree