It just gets better and better for gun owners

[Seth]

Federal Interstate Handgun Sales Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
Posted on February 11, 2015 in Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

In another excellent victory for civil rights by attorney Alan Gura, United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor struck down the federal interstate handgun sales ban earlier today, finding it unconstitutional (both facially and as-applied) under the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

As the Court explained, “[t]o prevail on a facial challenge, Plaintiffs must show that either no set of circumstances exists under which the law would be valid or that the statute lacks any plainly legitimate sweep.” That high bar was met by the Plaintiffs’ legal team. The decision explained that “Defendants [United States Attorney General Eric Holder and BATFE director B. Todd Jones] fail[ed] to provide reasonably current figures to show the federal interstate handgun sale ban is narrowly tailored.”

Even though the Court found that strict scrutiny was the proper standard of review for the type of burden on Constitutionally-protected conduct imposed by the challenged laws (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922 (b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a)), it also noted that the law failed even the relatively-deferential intermediate scrutiny test.

The United States, the Court held, has been enforcing “a regime that is not substantially related to the Government’s stated goal” [of public safety]. Even under intermediate scrutiny, “there must be an indication that the regulation will alleviate the asserted harm to a material degree.” But “Defendants [] failed to carry their burden to show how the federal interstate handgun transfer ban alleviates, in a material way, the problem of prohibited persons obtaining handguns simply by crossing state lines and depriving states of notice that they have under the amended version of the 1968 Gun Control Act.” Accordingly, the laws were declared unconstitutional and enjoined from enforcement.

The lawsuit, captioned Fredric Russell Mance, Jr. et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. and B. Todd Jones, was backed by Citizens’ Commitee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, one of the Bellevue, WA-based civil rights groups led by Alan Gottlieb. CCRKBA was also a plaintiff in the case, which will likely be appealed by the government to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Mance trial court docket can be viewed here.

Mance v. Holder Judgment



Alan Gura, CCRKBA, Mance v. Holder

[Seth]

Here's a footnote of supreme importance:

Accordingly, the Court finds that operating a business that provides Second Amendment services is generally protected by the Second Amendment, and prohibitions on firearms sales are subject to similar scrutiny. Source: Case 4:14-cv-00539-O Document 40 Filed 02/11/15 Page 17 of 28 PageID 471

What this means is that every state, municipal and local ordinance that regulates gun sales must pass the strict scrutiny test! This would include zoning laws, and may invalidate the GCA and BATFE requirements that a FFL gun dealer have a "storefront" with regular hours, which is a regulation used to eliminate "kitchen table" gun dealers who engage in occasional, part-time gun sales from their homes.

This is HUGE.

[Ian]

Got a boner?

[Blind groper]

https://www.google.co.nz/search?redir_e ... B640%3B360

Here is a piece of news for those following Seth's gun arguments.

He lies!

Seth has been saying for some time now that more guns means less crime, and that the reduction in murder rate, explainable by baby boomers growing out of the violent age bracket, is due to more guns.

The truth is what I said some time back. That there may be more guns per gun nutter household, but there are fewer households with guns.

Well, the reference above shows that there has, in fact, been a steady decline in the percentage of Americans owning guns over the past 35 years. His argument was based on an untruth.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

https://www.google.co.nz/search?redir_e ... B640%3B360

Here is a piece of news for those following Seth's gun arguments.

He lies!

Seth has been saying for some time now that more guns means less crime, and that the reduction in murder rate, explainable by baby boomers growing out of the violent age bracket, is due to more guns.

The truth is what I said some time back. That there may be more guns per gun nutter household, but there are fewer households with guns.

Well, the reference above shows that there has, in fact, been a steady decline in the percentage of Americans owning guns over the past 35 years. His argument was based on an untruth.

Using violence policy center statistics for show truth of gun in America like using Pravda news reports for show success of communist rule in provide happiness and prosperity for citizen of Soviet Union...

[Seth]

Got a boner?

Oh yeah, baby! I'm looking forward to popping across the state line to buy a handgun sometime soon.

[Seth]

https://www.google.co.nz/search?redir_e ... B640%3B360

Here is a piece of news for those following Seth's gun arguments.

He lies!

Seth has been saying for some time now that more guns means less crime, and that the reduction in murder rate, explainable by baby boomers growing out of the violent age bracket, is due to more guns.

The truth is what I said some time back. That there may be more guns per gun nutter household, but there are fewer households with guns.

Well, the reference above shows that there has, in fact, been a steady decline in the percentage of Americans owning guns over the past 35 years. His argument was based on an untruth.

You lie. So does the VPC.

In any event, you're spouting red herring strawmen again.

Doesn't matter how many people own or don't own guns, the number of guns has gone up in the US. This is an undeniable fact that even you can't deny. And crime has gone down. This is another undeniable fact.

More guns, less crime.

Thus your thesis of "more guns, more crime" or even more specifically "more guns, more gun murders" is false. Your repetition and evasion is deliberate, knowing and pathological, which makes you a pathological liar.

[Blind groper]

Seth
Common sense tells us that, in fact, it is not the number of guns per se that determines the amount of gun crime. It is the number of people who possess a gun.

The graph I showed clearly indicates that the number of people owning guns has been in decline for 35 years in the USA.

It does not matter a damn how many actual guns there are, if the number of people with guns is getting less.

In tis case, it is a clear indication of fewer people with guns means fewer murders.

[Seth]

Seth
Common sense tells us that, in fact, it is not the number of guns per se that determines the amount of gun crime. It is the number of people who possess a gun.

Goalpost shifting again I see.

The graph I showed clearly indicates that the number of people owning guns has been in decline for 35 years in the USA.

Even if true, which it's not, it doesn't matter. More guns, less crime.

It does not matter a damn how many actual guns there are, if the number of people with guns is getting less.

Goalpost shifting.

In tis case, it is a clear indication of fewer people with guns means fewer murders.

Huge goalpost shift. It's now not even in the same city.

Fact: More guns, less crime. You lose.

[Collector1337]

https://www.google.co.nz/search?redir_e ... B640%3B360

Here is a piece of news for those following Seth's gun arguments.

He lies!

Seth has been saying for some time now that more guns means less crime, and that the reduction in murder rate, explainable by baby boomers growing out of the violent age bracket, is due to more guns.

The truth is what I said some time back. That there may be more guns per gun nutter household, but there are fewer households with guns.

Well, the reference above shows that there has, in fact, been a steady decline in the percentage of Americans owning guns over the past 35 years. His argument was based on an untruth.

There is a flaw in the stats, namely in the gathering of the data for the statistics, regarding the "less households with guns, but more guns in households which already have guns."

There is a problem with this. In order to collect the data they actually have to ask people, anonymously or not, if they own guns.

You have to take into consideration people who are surveyed, or whatever the data collection method is, are asked if they own guns, but answer "no" knowing full well they do own guns.

So, how many people do you think own guns, but never admit to owning guns, and therefore cannot be added to the statistics?

[Blind groper]

To Collector

It is always going to be difficult determining exactly how many guns and how many gun owners there are in the USA, because the gun lobby has prevented anything like a national gun registry being set up. The gun lobby is, of course, driven by the gun makers, and their motive is clear.

If there is clear cut data on gun ownership, then we will know exactly how many guns are in each state and in each city. That knowledge, coupled with the same data for how many murders occur in each location, would nail down beyond any shred of a doubt that more guns means more murders.

This is something the gun makers cannot tolerate, since it would lead to laws that would reduce gun availability, and hence cost them $$$$. They are such assholes that they prefer to see more people killed than reduce their income.

However, the University of Chicago has been running what they call their General Social Survey on an annual basis, and they have been doing this since the 1970's. Included in this survey is national gun ownership. The data I posted on gun ownership comes from this survey.

Any survey, of course, is something we can exercise a little skepticism about, since they all have a degree of error built in. However, the University of Chicago is a reputable body, and should be doing this very competently. The pattern of change in gun ownership is consistent, and there is no reason to assume it is incorrect.

I do not believe for a moment that this data will change Seth's attitude. He has already called the reputable researchers of Harvard, and Boston University hoplophobes and liars, and it is predictable that he will call the researchers of the University of Chicago the same thing. Seth appears to fall back on accusations of lying when he has no rational response to something he does not like.

[Hermit]

There is a flaw in the stats, namely in the gathering of the data for the statistics, regarding the "less households with guns, but more guns in households which already have guns."

There is a problem with this. In order to collect the data they actually have to ask people, anonymously or not, if they own guns.

You have to take into consideration people who are surveyed, or whatever the data collection method is, are asked if they own guns, but answer "no" knowing full well they do own guns.

So, how many people do you think own guns, but never admit to owning guns, and therefore cannot be added to the statistics?

So, more gun owners now lie about owning guns than did a few years ago? You know that how?

[Collector1337]

To Collector

It is always going to be difficult determining exactly how many guns and how many gun owners there are in the USA, because the gun lobby has prevented anything like a national gun registry being set up.

Good. I want it this way.

University of Chicago

Chicago is one of the most anti-gun places in the country. It would be hard to believe anything to come out of there about guns.

[Seth]

https://www.google.co.nz/search?redir_e ... B640%3B360

Here is a piece of news for those following Seth's gun arguments.

He lies!

Seth has been saying for some time now that more guns means less crime, and that the reduction in murder rate, explainable by baby boomers growing out of the violent age bracket, is due to more guns.

The truth is what I said some time back. That there may be more guns per gun nutter household, but there are fewer households with guns.

Well, the reference above shows that there has, in fact, been a steady decline in the percentage of Americans owning guns over the past 35 years. His argument was based on an untruth.

There is a flaw in the stats, namely in the gathering of the data for the statistics, regarding the "less households with guns, but more guns in households which already have guns."

There is a problem with this. In order to collect the data they actually have to ask people, anonymously or not, if they own guns.

You have to take into consideration people who are surveyed, or whatever the data collection method is, are asked if they own guns, but answer "no" knowing full well they do own guns.

So, how many people do you think own guns, but never admit to owning guns, and therefore cannot be added to the statistics?

I know for sure that you can add at least six to that number, because I know at least six people who own guns who would NEVER tell somebody who asked if they had guns whether they did or not, including me. That's just plain tactical stupidity.

[Collector1337]

There is a flaw in the stats, namely in the gathering of the data for the statistics, regarding the "less households with guns, but more guns in households which already have guns."

There is a problem with this. In order to collect the data they actually have to ask people, anonymously or not, if they own guns.

You have to take into consideration people who are surveyed, or whatever the data collection method is, are asked if they own guns, but answer "no" knowing full well they do own guns.

So, how many people do you think own guns, but never admit to owning guns, and therefore cannot be added to the statistics?

So, more gun owners now lie about owning guns than did a few years ago? You know that how?

I never said that. But, there are certainly people who have firearms, who never disclose that they do. I'm not saying that number of unknown individuals is going up or down, but that it exists.