[Nuclear1]

http://us.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The justices struck down the ban in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he was disappointed in the ruling but will give the district's police department 21 days to implement a process for registering handguns. It still will be illegal to carry handguns outside the home, and all pistols must be registered with police.

Officials said a hot line would be set up to handle questions about the new regulations. [/quote[

[achtung]

In other (older) news, machine guns are now legal in Kansas.

Oh, and in b4 ****storm.

[karajorma]

Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun?

It has low accuracy so it's not target shooting. Its only legal usage seems to be for breaching or close confines SWAT-syle storming of buildings. Does that now count as a legitimate civilian usage?

[Mongoose]

Obliterating despised computer hardware?

Anyways, the really interesting thing about this case is that it's essentially the first time that the Supreme Court has made any sort of direct ruling on the application of the Second Amendment.  It's not every day you see a 220-year-old clause finally clarified.

[Nuke]

country boys use them to shoot at stop signs, an ancient and essential pass time for drunk 20 somethings.

[NGTM-1R]

Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun?

It has low accuracy so it's not target shooting. Its only legal usage seems to be for breaching or close confines SWAT-syle storming of buildings. Does that now count as a legitimate civilian usage?

Forgive me, but here's the obvious question: Relevance? What the hell are you talking about?

It says handguns.

[Ghostavo]

From the article Swantz posted

That's why he supports a new law signed by Governor Kathleen Sebelius allowing Kansans to legally own automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers beginning on July 1st. Kaw Valley Gun Club Owner Kevin Ketter is thrilled just thinking about the money he'll make renting out those new weapons.

[BengalTiger]

Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun?

During a home invasion you'd love to have a weapon strong enough to stop someone with a single load of 00 buckshot, but small enough to easily maneuver through rooms and doorways (and a barrel a few inches shorter is a few inches better for CQB). Also any firearm is a nice 'surrender or get pwned' signal for the burgler.

A sawd off would also be easier to keep in your car if you think a .357 Colt Python doesn't look scary enough to solve a road rage incident with a really agressive opposition (let's say drunk and armed with a nice long baseball bat)

But I'm also not an expert. Any police officers here?

[MP-Ryan]

Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun?

During a home invasion you'd love to have a weapon strong enough to stop someone with a single load of 00 buckshot, but small enough to easily maneuver through rooms and doorways (and a barrel a few inches shorter is a few inches better for CQB). Also any firearm is a nice 'surrender or get pwned' signal for the burgler.

A sawd off would also be easier to keep in your car if you think a .357 Colt Python doesn't look scary enough to solve a road rage incident with a really agressive opposition (let's say drunk and armed with a nice long baseball bat)

But I'm also not an expert. Any police officers here?

The fact that you think a firearm is a good way to resolve a road rage incident just scares the beejeezus out of me.  For the record, no kind of firearm is a suitable way to solve any sort of road rage incident.  The correct way is as follows:  (1) drive away and (2) call the police.  First off, there is no actual guarantee you're going to be able to get the weapon out of your car (and we're assuming here that you live in a jurisdiction in which that would be legal, which I would think is entirely moot to 90%+ of HLP anyway), and there is also no guarantee that they aren't going to be able to pull a firearm faster than you AND pull the trigger.  Which is especially stupid over something like road rage.  I've met lots of people who have handguns under their front seat in the States and without fail NONE of them could pull it out in any reasonable length of time (which is the time it takes for an adult to cross a distance of 25 feet to their window, or roughly 3 seconds from when said person starts running).

Onward...

The whole point in the ruling, kara, is to clarify that civilians may own firearms for personal defence outside of a militia role.  Essentially, it clarifies the individual's right to bear arms for personal use without opening the floodgates to all kinds of ridiculous weapons and attempts to strike down existing controls on firearms.

Handguns and sawed-off shotguns exist entirely for personal defense.  Granted, handguns can be used for target shooting too but there isn't much use for s short shotgun other than personal protection.  Not something I'd think people would tote around in a vehicle by any stretch, but certainly a weapon suitable for carrying in tight spaces such as houses and requiring very little in the way of aim in order to be effective.  It's not a recreational weapon.  Hunting with one would be damn near impossible.  To be fair, I suppose a sawed-off could be used for target shooting in a recreational setting if loaded with slugs instead of buckshot...

I'm not necessarily agreeing in principle with the ruling or the weapons use, just outlining possible ways in which they are.

[MP-Ryan]

The ruling in a nutshell (no pun intended )

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.
...
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.

[Unknown Target]

Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun?

It has low accuracy so it's not target shooting. Its only legal usage seems to be for breaching or close confines SWAT-syle storming of buildings. Does that now count as a legitimate civilian usage?

As many have said, the main reason for a sawed off shotgun is for home protection. Most proponents of weapons in the US don't go with the "it's for hunting" or "it's for target shooting" approach, generally most of these legal guns are really used for home protection.

The whole argument is moot anyway - legal guns with proper ownership laws don't usually kill innocent people. Look at Canada - IIRC they have more guns per person than the US, yet they have way less gun-related murder incidents. Proper gun control laws and gun awareness programs help reduce the risk. It would help if the media didn't go crazy about violence too, then people would feel safer (and rightfully so).

[BengalTiger]

The fact that you think a firearm is a good way to resolve a road rage incident just scares the beejeezus out of me.  For the record, no kind of firearm is a suitable way to solve any sort of road rage incident.  The correct way is as follows:  (1) drive away and (2) call the police.  First off, there is no actual guarantee you're going to be able to get the weapon out of your car (and we're assuming here that you live in a jurisdiction in which that would be legal, which I would think is entirely moot to 90%+ of HLP anyway), and there is also no guarantee that they aren't going to be able to pull a firearm faster than you AND pull the trigger.  Which is especially stupid over something like road rage.  I've met lots of people who have handguns under their front seat in the States and without fail NONE of them could pull it out in any reasonable length of time (which is the time it takes for an adult to cross a distance of 25 feet to their window, or roughly 3 seconds from when said person starts running).

Good point about keeping guns in places hard to reach. It eleminates the whole sens of having them. Same thing with proper training being necessary to have a gun, much like driving cars.

But:
1. There isn't always a way to drive off. You could be in a traffic jam, you could be blocked off and limited to reverse (which isn't the fastest gear, or the easiest one to drive safely at full throttle), you could have your car turned off by a crash sensor cutting the fuel to the engine if you collide with the agressor's car, and there's a few more such situations where you have to face the guy.

2. You don't need to kill anyone (hell, you musn't unless you're taking fire or the guy's charging with a knife even after you aim the gun at him and tell him to freeze), simply showing him the business end of a gun should be more than enough to get him calmed down. Then you can hold him at gunpoint till the nearest patrol car arrives. What I find scary is that when I write "gun" someone's instantly pulling it's trigger.

Oh and @Unknown Target- the Swiss require firearms in every house IIRC. Look at their murder rates.

[Uchuujinsan]

Not in every house, only people who serve in the military have their guns at home.
Well, thats NEARLY every house though :>

However, they also have a military education, iirc dont keep ammunition and weapon together and youth have no access to those weapons.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland the ammunition is even sealed away.
Murdering someone with this ammo is quite pointless, as you know you will be caught.

I agree that the gun law isnt the only reason for gun based murders, or lethal gun accidents at home, which are afaik also quite common. But it is also one reason.

[karajorma]

Oh and @Unknown Target- the Swiss require firearms in every house IIRC. Look at their murder rates.

Agreed. Look at their murder rates for non-firearm homicides. Oh guess what, that's lower than the American average. Same goes for Canada too.

Now I know that might seem to those who dabble with logic as if the Swiss and Canadians have less firearm murders because the Swiss and Canadians are less inclined to commit murders but that's just foolishness.

[Grizzly]

The justices struck down the ban in a 5-4 decision

Why don't they just say: The Independent guy took the decision to... After all, the republicians always vote against democratic decisions, and vice versa...

[Mongoose]

The Court doesn't follow "party" lines so much as its justices tend to have conservative/liberal leanings of interpreting the Constitution.  And even then, there have been many cases in recent history when one or two of the justices have "swapped sides" on a particular case.  The dynamics of the Court are funny like that, and there's been a hell of a lot written about them.

[BengalTiger]

Why don't they just say: The Independent guy took the decision to... After all, the republicians always vote against democratic decisions, and vice versa...

Isn't voting against the other party the whole sens of being in the opposite one? 

[NGTM-1R]

I find it difficult to believe there's any practical application for a sawed-off at all, personally, because their accuracy is marginal at best and their recoil disgusting; depending on how "sawed off" they are, like both stock and barrel in an effort to make the world's most powerful (dumbest) pistol, you could break your wrist pretty easily.

[vyper]

A sawn-off shotgun exists for one reason: concealment.

[Flipside]

I just wonder why people aren't happy with leaving intruders incapacitated, rather than reducing them to chunky giblets.