CDZ The Big City and Small Towns

[320 Years of History]

Sorry for just pasting an abstract, but it says what I think needs to be said in order to introduce the theme of this thread, so I'm just being lazy and pasting it. Read the whole paper. It offers a novel idea that may open a door to actually addressing at least some of the challenges to resolving the problem of folks dying involuntarily from gunshot(s).

Second Amendment doctrine is largely becoming a line-drawing exercise, as courts try to determine which “Arms” are constitutionally protected, which “people” are permitted to keep and bear them, and in which ways those arms and people can be regulated. But the developing legal regime has yet to account for one potentially significant set of lines: the city limits themselves. In rural areas, gun crime and gun control are relatively rare, and gun culture is strong. In cities, by contrast, rates of violent gun crime are comparatively high, and opportunities for recreational gun use are scarce. And from colonial Boston to nineteenth-century Tombstone to contemporary New York City, guns have consistently been regulated more heavily in cities—a degree of geographic variation that is hard to find with regard to any other constitutional right. This Article argues that Second Amendment doctrine and state preemption laws can and should incorporate these longstanding and sensible differences between urban and rural gun use and regulation. Doing so would present new possibilities for the stalled debate on gun control, protect rural gun culture while permitting cities to address urban gun violence, and preserve the longstanding American tradition of firearm localism.
​

The paper from which that abstract is take is titled "Firearms Localism."

 

[2aguy]

Sorry for just pasting an abstract, but it says what I think needs to be said in order to introduce the theme of this thread, so I'm just being lazy and pasting it. Read the whole paper. It offers a novel idea that may open a door to actually addressing at least some of the challenges to resolving the problem of folks dying involuntarily from gunshot(s).

Second Amendment doctrine is largely becoming a line-drawing exercise, as courts try to determine which “Arms” are constitutionally protected, which “people” are permitted to keep and bear them, and in which ways those arms and people can be regulated. But the developing legal regime has yet to account for one potentially significant set of lines: the city limits themselves. In rural areas, gun crime and gun control are relatively rare, and gun culture is strong. In cities, by contrast, rates of violent gun crime are comparatively high, and opportunities for recreational gun use are scarce. And from colonial Boston to nineteenth-century Tombstone to contemporary New York City, guns have consistently been regulated more heavily in cities—a degree of geographic variation that is hard to find with regard to any other constitutional right. This Article argues that Second Amendment doctrine and state preemption laws can and should incorporate these longstanding and sensible differences between urban and rural gun use and regulation. Doing so would present new possibilities for the stalled debate on gun control, protect rural gun culture while permitting cities to address urban gun violence, and preserve the longstanding American tradition of firearm localism.
​

The paper from which that abstract is take is titled "Firearms Localism."

Sorry......we already have the strict gun control this paper pushes in the 2nd paragraph..........there is incredible gun control in the major cities..........

The actual key that you guys fail to understand....you have to take gun criminals and lock them up for a long time. This keeps violent people off the streets, and keeps them from murdering other people. It also discourages gun carrying by criminals and reduces opportunity murder with guns.

Japan has done this........the criminals in Japan, like Criminals in Europe, easily got guns when they wanted or needed them. The thing that has kept gun use low in Japan is that the criminal bosses want to make money, more than they want their lower level criminal underlings to settle scores over insults on facebook. However, when they have gone to war in the past....2006 was the last one, which lasted 7 years, they would get guns, and grenades and murder each other despite all of the gun laws Japan has.

They were ramping up for another war last year....what stopped it? Japan has adopted a new sentencing policy.....they now put 30 year sentences on gun crime......from actual use to merely catching a convicted criminal in possession of a gun...that has pretty much ended Yakuza criminals from even looking at a gun....

this paper....right from the start......is silly...

1) Civil Rights do not stop at the city limits

2) the situation the paper wants to create.....already exists...and the gun murder rates already show that the strict gun control placed on law abiding citizens does nothing to lower the gun murder rate.......

This Article argues that future Second Amendment cases can and should incorporate the longstanding and sensible differences regarding guns and gun control in rural and urban areas, giving more protection to gun rights in rural areas and more leeway to gun regulation in cities.

 

[2aguy]

From the paper.....

It would instead mean giving cities extra leeway with regard to matters like the regulation of assault weapons or concealed carrying.

The cities that currently ban assault rifles and limit concealed carry...right now...today...have the highest rates of gun murder.....Chicago, Baltimore, D.C.............this paper is clueless.......

Keeping in mind.........

Rifles with detachable magazines....over the last 34 years....murdered 157 people...including the 8 police officers murdered in the last month.......this is from Mother Jones with their list from 1982-2016...

157 people in 34 years.......


Knives....murdered 1,567 people ...in 2014 alone. And every single year, they murder over 1,500 people......

 

[2aguy]

This paper does not understand the 2nd Amendment.......and the fact that at the heart of it...the 2nd Amendment is a Civil Right.....what this paper is arguing is essentially that in rural areas blacks and whites get along better and in cities there is more tension.....so you should allow cities to enact whatever aspects of Jim Crow laws they need, while letting rural areas to have fewer Jim crow laws.....

That is essentially what this paper is arguing.....

And it is pushing gun control laws that don't stop gun crime...........even if it didn't attack the Rights of citizens based on their location.....

 

[yiostheoy]

The most current interpretation of the Federal 2nd Amendment is Heller.

Heller says sawed off shotguns are destructive devices not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Heller says everyone is entitled to keep a firearm in their home.

Heller says local government may regulate public carrying of firearms.

Heller says felons and the insane may not possess firearms.

Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor disagreed with Heller and Kagan probably would too.

And as we all know, Scalia who wrote the decision has died an untimely early death.

 

[2aguy]

One thing this paper does...is dispel the anti gun myth that the CDC is blocked from doing gun research.....

The primary target of such local regulation is gun-related crime. And though the empirics are messy and contested, gun crime is clearly an urban problem.95 A 2006-2007 study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that “[t]he 62 center cities of America’s 50 largest metro areas account for 15 percent of the population but 39 percent of gun-related murders.”96 A 2013 study found that 69% of gun crimes in Connecticut take place in three major cities, which contain just 11% of the state’s population.97

Apparently, the CDC is doing gun research.....

 

[Wilbur Right]

And it is pushing gun control laws that don't stop gun crime...........even if it didn't attack the Rights of citizens based on their location.....

Too bad you cant just come out and admit that you have no desire to see gun deaths decline ANYWHERE in anyway. Fear is a great sales tool isnt it.

Gun crimes keep you doing what you seem to have based your life on; defending the second amendment from imaginary attacks.

And how is it that you want to lock people up for.years and years yet never say how to pay for all those new prisons. A gun, ammo tax should do it.

 

[2aguy]

this is untrue...

Fortunately, these ideological differences are geographically concentrated, which opens an unexplored possibility for a truce: firearm localism, which would give urban areas more leeway to regulate firearms within city limits while preserving the ability of rural areas to maintain their strong gun culture

The anti gunners already complain about criminals in their cities traveling outside of the strict, ineffective gun control they have created to buy guns....so pretending that gun control activists would simply allow people outside the city to have access to rifles with detachable magazines is magical thinking on the part of the paper authors....

 

[yiostheoy]

Too bad you cant just come out and admit that you have no desire to see gun deaths decline ANYWHERE in anyway. Fear is a great sales tool isnt it.

Gun crimes keep you doing what you seem to have based your life on; defending the second amendment from imaginary attacks.

And how is it that you want to lock people up for.years and years yet never say how to pay for all those new prisons. A gun, ammo tax should do it.

Logic was apparently not your forte in college or since.

This is precisely why we need more philosophy training in high schools and colleges across the USA.

 

[2aguy]

And it is pushing gun control laws that don't stop gun crime...........even if it didn't attack the Rights of citizens based on their location.....

Too bad you cant just come out and admit that you have no desire to see gun deaths decline ANYWHERE in anyway. Fear is a great sales tool isnt it.

Gun crimes keep you doing what you seem to have based your life on; defending the second amendment from imaginary attacks.

And how is it that you want to lock people up for.years and years yet never say how to pay for all those new prisons. A gun, ammo tax should do it.

No.....you are wrong over and over again.....you guys want to control law abiding gun owners. Those, like me, who support the 2nd Amendment, actually want to lower gun murder rates....and you don't do that buy creating more gun laws that criminals ignore, mass shooters obey, and that only impact law abiding gun owners but do nothing to stop gun murder......

You guys keep saying we don't want to stop gun murder, when in fact, you guys are the ones focusing on law abiding people who don't murder other people.....

We want effective gun control...that means locking up gun criminals......giving them long sentences to protect us from actual violent killers, and to discourage casual gun carrying by professional criminals and young criminals who are most likely to commit murder....

I have shown you an actual example of how this works...Japan...where they have stopped their actual killers from carrying guns and using guns....by imposing 30 year sentences...that stopped these criminals from using guns.....they were told this by the actual criminals in actual interviews with the media......

you are wrong

You complain about the cost of locking up violent killers...the cost of keeping them locked up is small compared to the carnage they are creating in our cities......

 

[2aguy]

And here they advocate Jim Crow in the Cities...with less Jim Crow in the suburbs..........

Rural residents should not have to weigh their desire to own hunting rifles against the possibility that urban youth will use handguns to shoot each other. And advocates of urban gun control should not have to denigrate the cultural salience of hunting in Montana when their goal is to limit cheap pistols in Manhattan. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, co-chairs of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, recently put it: “[W]e know that a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.”119

They already have extreme gun control in these major cities....it has not stopped gun crime in these cities........the focus on limiting law abiding gun owners misses the actual problem.......actual criminals who use guns to commit crimes....you don't stop them by making normal gun owners fill out more paperwork, pay higher fees, and wait longer to buy guns.......

You reduce gun murder...by arresting and locking up actual gun criminals.....

 

[2aguy]

The points made in this paper destroy the anti gun argument.......the anti gunners preach more guns mean more gun crime...every single word of this paper so far shows that this is not true....this paper points out that more guns are owned and less gun violence happens where these guns are owned....while in these cities they have fewer guns, and more gun control...and the gun murder rates are higher.........

 

[2aguy]

This points to more magical thinking by the authors......as if anti gunners would be happy to allow suburbs and rural areas to have AR-15s if they could simply ban them in cities....that is magical thinking right there....

the courts are far more likely to protect Southerners, Westerners, and Midwesterners in their right to acquire modern self-loading rifles if the courts can do so without thereby discarding the “assault weapons” laws of the secondary gun culture states, and thereby (as the judges might see it) bringing AR-15s to high-rise apartments in Manhattan.122

 

[2aguy]

And we are back to Jim Crow in the Cities....less Jim Crow in the suburbs and rural areas....

One way to accommodate those worldviews is through geographic variation in gun laws, allowing each culture to regulate itself.1

The Bill of Rights is not a geographic right...........your right to free speech does not end when you enter a city.........

 

[2aguy]

And you can see exactly where gun control laws originated....in the democrat slave south...to keep blacks from owning guns.....

Some rural areas might have stringent gun control—bans on concealed carrying originated in the comparatively rural South131

 

[2aguy]

Now ignorance of actual firearms come into play...

Such laws were enacted in growing population centers such as Boston,168 Philadelphia,169 and New York City,170 and governed private homes as well as public storage. Boston, for example, provided that “the depositing of loaded Arms in the Houses of the Town of Boston, is dangerous” and that no loaded firearms were allowed in any “Dwelling-House, Stable, Barn, Out-house, Store, Ware-house, Shop or other Building.”1

Why was this created.......because they used exposed, explosive powders in a time of limited ability to put out fires............that is why they had powder stores separate from living areas..........

And this.....again was because gun powder was highly flammable and they didn't want their pier burning down because some sailor lit his pipe near the hold of a ship....

Safe storage laws also applied to commercial enterprises handling gunpowder within cities. Cornell and DeDino note that “New York City required ships to unload gunpowder at a magazine within twenty-four hours of arrival in the harbor and before the ship ‘hawl[ed] along side of any wharf, pier or key within the city,’” while “Boston subjected any ‘Gun Powder . . . kept on board any ship or other vessel laying to, or grounded at any wharf within the port of Boston’ to confiscation.”173

The authors of this paper are seriously deficient in the area of actual thinking..........

it wasn't urban/rural differences...it was the fact that gun powder was not kept in metal casings...that it was kept in barrels and bags......easily ignited by sparks and flames....

It might be tempting to dismiss these laws as products of the distinct and unrepresentative cultural values of “coastal states and cities.”180

 

[2aguy]

This passage shows they did not look past the imposition of the gun control laws of the old west and what actually happened..........criminals in the western towns only obeyed gun control laws when they wanted to....and ignored them when they wanted to ignore them...

But the urban/rural divide appears to have been even morepronounced out West. As noted in the Introduction, even the towns most associated with gun violence—Dodge City and Tombstone, for example—required people to leave their weapons at the city limits when arriving in town.181 Indeed, many frontier towns passed “blanket ordinances against the carrying of arms by anyone,” and the “carrying of dangerous weapons of any type, concealed or otherwise, by persons other than law enforcement officers” was generally forbidden.182 Pointing to these prohibitions,183 historian Garry Wills concludes that “[t]he West was not settled by the gun but by gun-control laws.”184


Here you go...read up on the actual Tombstone situation and how the criminals actually ignored the gun control laws....killing and wounding the Earps....

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of many people who ignored Tombstone gun control....and he was a good guy....

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe

-----

Boyle later testified he noticed Ike was armed and covered his gun for him. Boyle later said that Ike told him, "'As soon as the Earps and Doc Holliday showed themselves on the street, the ball would open—that they would have to fight'...

------

Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.

--------

Tom McLaury's concealed weapon[edit]

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw arevolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants

----------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.

By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190

--------

Virgil testified afterward that he thought he saw all four men, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, buying cartridges.[79] Wyatt said that he saw Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury in Spangenberger's gun and hardware store on 4th Street filling theirgun belts with cartridges


Hmmmmmmmm...doesn't seem like the Tombstone gun control laws worked so far...

Virgil initially avoided a confrontation with the newly arrived Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton, who had not yet deposited their weapons at a hotel or stable as the law required.

------------

At about 2:30 pm he saw Ike, Frank, Tom, and Billy gathered off Fremont street. Behan attempted to persuade Frank McLaury to give up his weapons, but Frank insisted that he would only give up his guns after City Marshal Virgil Earp and his brothers were disarmed.[81]

-----------

Citizens reported to Virgil on the Cowboys' movements that Ike and Tom had left their livery stable and returned to town while armed, in violation of the city ordinance.


Gun control only works for those who will obey the laws...law abiding citizens....so any gun control will completely fail at disarm

 

[yiostheoy]

And here they advocate Jim Crow in the Cities...with less Jim Crow in the suburbs..........

Rural residents should not have to weigh their desire to own hunting rifles against the possibility that urban youth will use handguns to shoot each other. And advocates of urban gun control should not have to denigrate the cultural salience of hunting in Montana when their goal is to limit cheap pistols in Manhattan. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, co-chairs of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, recently put it: “[W]e know that a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.”119

They already have extreme gun control in these major cities....it has not stopped gun crime in these cities........the focus on limiting law abiding gun owners misses the actual problem.......actual criminals who use guns to commit crimes....you don't stop them by making normal gun owners fill out more paperwork, pay higher fees, and wait longer to buy guns.......

You reduce gun murder...by arresting and locking up actual gun criminals.....

Jim Crow -- that sounds pretty good right about now with all these BLM protests and riots.

I forgot who Jim Crow was.

We studied him in school though.

I remember he was a Negro. Now long after he is dead he is as famous as Ole Abe Lincoln.

 

[2aguy]

And we are back to Jim Crow being good in the cities....

Whatever the root causes of urban gun violence, gun control is more likely to be constitutional in cities than in rural areas, since the problems it addresses are especially prevalent in the former.

 

[2aguy]

And more magical thinking.......jim crow laws were state level laws...and there was no end to them without a Constitutional Amendment......

That tragic history includes efforts to render African-Americans defenseless by denying them the right to keep and bear arms.253 How, in light of that risk, can there be any allure in firearm localism?

Part of the answer lies in the comparative ease with which local decisions that “fly in the face” of national or state norms can be reversed. From the perspective of the Federal Constitution, cities are creatures of state law, and their decisions can generally be overturned at the state level.254 Indeed, state preemption laws do exactly this (though, as I argue below,255 they go too far in doing so). Moreover, as David Barron notes, “there is little risk that a city will remain a scofflaw for long.