Posted on 10/05/2009 5:21:42 AM PDT by marktwain
It was an image that shocked the country.
Could a case headed for the Supreme Court overturn gun laws in Chicago?
A 16-year-old honor student in Chicago being beaten to death by teenagers. Derrion Albert, a high school sophomore was caught in a mob fight as he was walking to a bus stop. Despite not being part of either of the gangs, he was punched, kicked and struck by a board.
And just a week and a half after the fatal incident, as residents demand safer streets, Chicago faces a new battle -- this time over guns.
On Monday, the Supreme Court will begin its 2009-2010 term, and on the docket is the case of Chicago residents who are challenging the constitutionality of the city's hand gun laws, which ban residents within the city limits from having guns, even in their own homes.
Otis McDonald, who lives in the same neighborhood where Albert was killed, says his own life has been threatened by local thugs and he says his home has been broken into.
"When I'm at home, I can't even protect myself there. This house here has been broken into at least three times only a week ago," the retired maintenance engineer told ABC News. "It's the times that we live in, and long ago, when the guns were taken away from us in '82, '83, it wasn't so bad back then, but times have changed. ... Everybody is in danger now, in these days."
McDonald says having a handgun in his home would make him feel safer and secure. And he's asking the Supreme Court to let him get that gun, by overturning Chicago's quarter-century ban on handguns.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
16 year olds are not allowed to own handguns anywhere as far as I know. Of course many do anyhow..
I've heard the boards referred to as "railroad ties" by more than just a few media outlets... If THAT were true, the thugs would fall under the "Mongo" rule... "Don't shoot him, you'll only make him mad."
Mark
It's this: Crime and Gangs in Chicago is out of control. And thanks to Daley the good citizen is defenseless.(1) Add to that, a couple-few weeks back the Supt of the CPD said there are 100,000 Gang Members in Chicago. (Baghdad is safer)
I listen to the CPD Calls on a scanner. You can't believe the Home Burglaries that occur in broad daylight. In the middle of the afternoon on a weekend. Its like they wait for the person to go shopping. But if there's someone else still in that house, its now a Home Invasion and that person is up the creek.
(1) Long guns are legal but they registration process is so onerous that even an Alderman screwed up and he asked for a Registration Mulligan.
Whenever the SCOTUS takes up an issue of constitutional magnitude I get nervous; every case is a new opportunity to blow another hole in the Bill of Rights. Part of me says we should be glad about Heller and keep the Second Amendment away from this court.
Understandable - but how do you vindicate rights that you dare not assert in court? The plaintiff is an actual person who has a concrete issue. What else can he do?
So do hands. If she knows how to point and pull the trigger, she is already more lethal. One doesn't need to be a Navy SEAL to use a firearm to deadly effect.
The bottom line is that without the gun, she has little to no chance whatsoever. Five minutes of indoc on a simple firearm, and she has the upper hand on an unarmed monster.
Knowing the right time to take up a case with the right facts is the true genius of appellate practice. Every opportunity the court gets to affirm or expand the Heller decision also presents an opportunity to limit or totally emasculate it, then we all lose. Will Rogers noted that the US Supreme Court decisions ‘follow the headlines’, and that was a long time ago. The court can follow precedent, or ignore it. The integrity of our legal system is no better than the integrity of those we pay to wear the black robes, and that’s what scares me.
If you seriously believe that five minutes is all it takes to be proficient with a firearm in a stressful situation, you obviously know nothing about personal protection. Successfully deploying a firearm in self defense requires acute situational awareness, and a reflexive muscle memory.
In the time it takes Ms. :05 to realize she is in danger, she has 300# on top of her. Even if she sees it coming, one hesitation, one fumble, and she is worse off than before.
It ain't the movies.
It takes very little knowledge of firearms to shoot one. What it takes is the will to pull the trigger. Very, very few criminals have any real firearms training, yet they manage to kill people all the time. Is more skill better, obviously, but you greatly exagerate it as a requirement. Will, not skill, is the big decider in most self-defense situations.
Any armed cop can be shot if there is no warning, tons of training won't change that. So its no surprise that the same holds for everyone else.
Yea, I can take any woman off the street, give her five minutes of instruction with a shotgun and if she has the will to pull the trigger and enough warning to raise the gun, she will kill you before you can touch her. You sound like some SWAT wannabe.
It would be nice if you could leave the personal attacks out. They are the last resort of those who know they have a weak argument. You sound angry. Perhaps your quick emotional response is the reason why you have had to use a firearm three times.
You present two very different scenarios. Using a shotgun in a home defense situation is dramatically different from self defense outside the home. I am a proponent of having people arm themselves, but not everyone has the knowledge, skills and attitude required.
Peace.
I am a proponent of having people arm themselves, but not everyone has the knowledge, skills and attitude required.
You come off as very elitist in your thinking. Using a firearm is not rocket science, and being highly skilled is not required to be lethal. Certainly not required to be better off than bringing a 90 pound body to a fist or bat fight.
Attitude is king, not quick draw, or the ability to shoot a 2" group at 50 feet. Calm and deliberate is vital. Of course more training is better, but very little training can make a person a whole lot safer.
FYI, the first time I used a gun I was a teenager and saw a beating coming on when I asked a group of men to get off of our farm. They walked back for their guns.
The second and third was when I flipped houses in a bad part of town and had pairs of people walk in on me expecting an easy mark. As I'd never met any of the individuals I much doubt that my lack of cordiality played any part.
None of the above should be read to say that training isn't good, it is, and more is better.
I have just seen too many people that think they can use a firearm - add a little pressure and the results are almost comical.
I teach people that if they are shooting, they probably haven't done too good a job being aware and avoiding trouble in the first place.
Too many people get a firearm for self defense and neglect the training and I hate to see posts that reinforce that behavior.
Bottom line - we are on the same side. Let's focus our efforts where they can do some good, .
I concur, we are on the same side. There are many people who do not train enough including the police, and there are many people who do not ever cross over in their mental preparation.
People who do not come to grips with pulling the trigger before hand are far more likely to freeze or panic than others. Additionally, I'm not sure that timidity can be trained out of people. The military did extensive studies after WWII and determined that 10% of front line troops were doing 90% of the shooting, despite all of the training they had gone through. While conducting military training, one of major problems I had was with the reluctance to commit to action, even when the ROE clearly allowed it.
For this reason, I consider the talks I have with my wife about self-defense to be more valuable than range time. I want her to cross that bridge mentally many times, so that she hopefully won't hesitate if the time comes. I find this mental imaging and role playing very useful.
Fluidity with a weapon is a wonderful thing to add after that.
Obviously more training is better. Someone with only five minutes' training would likely be a dead duck against a determined adversary who had more, but most potential attackers are neither well-trained nor are they particularly determined. Even if the woman has only a 10% chance of scoring a disabling hit on the adversary and a 90% chance of ending up dead, most crooks won't be eager to settle for a 90% chance of surviving their attack when they can boost their survival odds to 100% by running away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.