The double standard between gun ownership regulations and what I do for a living

[titaniumsalute]

I don't usually talk much about myself to keep somewhat private. But I just read (another) article about the death of a lady in Colorado as an accidental shooting with an assault rifle. She and he husband were drinking with friends and passing around a loaded AK-47 rifle. It fired and shot her in the head. All it takes is a quick background check and boom...you can own a very very deadly weapon.

Now, what does that have to do with my career? I shoot professional fireworks displays for a living. Sounds like a cool job (which it is while I'm shooting the shows or designing them) but the regulations of what we do make our job next to impossible. I could have one small fireworks shell (two inches in diameter) and because it is classified a certain way by our government I could be charged with a felony if my vehicle wasn't properly documented, placarded, etc. If I shoot this 2 inch shell without a permit and an ATF license that is another felony. This little fireworks shell, if improperly used, would at worst do little damage.

I have four very in-depth background checks that have been conducted on me, lots of finger prints on file, annual "mental" checkups, etc. just so I can shooting friggin' fireworks. I also have to have serious hours of continuing education and training to retain my licenses. You get caught drinking on a fireworks site...felony charge immediately.

But any Joe Smoe can walk into a gun show and buy an extremely deadly weapon and own it legally. It really is a double standard.

[spanone]

1. k&r..

[Warpy]

2. That is true.

However, I'm old enough to have seen poorly regulated fireworks factories and shows run into some serious trouble, meaning massive explosions, extensive fires and large loss of life. Regulations were desperately needed.

Gun carnage, on the other hand, happens one death or maiming at a time. It's far less dramatic until you start to add all those one deaths up and get the appalling total that we have today. The fireworks industry also never managed the money and lobbying power of the NRA, another reason we haven't been able to get those things regulated.

It's totally nuts and I think few today would disagree with that unless they were hopelessly in love with guns.

Regulations are a pain in the ass. I certainly ran into a lot of them that made absolutely no sense when I was a nurse. However, most of them are there to keep us safer.

I wish more gunnies would realize that and abandon the NRA, pull their support.

[titaniumsalute]

9. I am not arguing for less regulations in my industry

There's too many "let's go blow shit up" types out there and companies that would cut corners to save a buck.

However, if you take the intense amount of regulation with one thing that is dangerous and compare it to another very dangerous activity, there's a ridiculous disconnect.

[KG]

3. 2A uber alles.

[madokie]

4. The reason I wish these kinds of weapons were illegal to own

is all it takes for them to get in the wrong hands is someone not securing one and a burglar steals it. There should be at the least certain criteria regulating how they are secured and if they aren't secured as per those regulations then charges filed on the owner

[lame54]

5. but she's without a head and you have all your fingers...

Regulations work

[titaniumsalute]

10. LOL...I'd argue that I am good enough to keep my fingers without regulation

But your point is valid. I'm not arguing for less regs in my industry but rather more regs on metal death machines.

[tridim]

6. That is the perfect definition of a double standard.

Professional fireworks and guns are both dangerous and put the general public at risk, but only the portable death machine is easily accessible by almost anyone.

[xtraxritical]

7. Just K&R.

[n2doc]

8. The founders decided to put in a poorly worded amendment on the right to own guns

but they didn't say anything about fireworks. Thus the difference. I do agree with your point, although a 2 inch shell could put a serious hurt on a person should it be fired at them and explode on or next to them. So there are good reasons for the fireworks regs. That said, down in South Carolina one can buy some pretty large (3-4 inch diameter, I think) mortar-style fireworks with no check and nothing more than proof that you are over 18.

[titaniumsalute]

11. Yes another double standard

Don't even get me started on the consumer fireworks industry. A consumer can buy to to a 3 inch shell...although slightly less explosive weight to the aerial stuff we use they are still incredibly dangerous. You can buy a device, walk out the door and travel with it in your car. If you do that with my stuff it is a felony.

Yes a 2 inch shell, if aimed at someone, could do damage. But i'd rather take a hit from a 2 inch shell then a .45 cal bullet.

[A HERETIC I AM]

12. Interesting and I have a question for you.....

FWIW, I hold a Transportation Workers Identification Card ("TWIC", which allows me onto port facilities) and a Commercial Drivers License with a Haz-Mat endorsement BOTH of which requires an FBI background check EACH TIME I renew. I am not required to undergo continued education programs, but I have a small understanding of the licensing you go through.


My question;

Is the explosive elements or powder used in your line of work capable of expansion at the same or similar rate as say....C-4?


You have my admiration. You work in an industry that is little understood by most and I know it can be particularly dangerous, but it's results are particularly beautiful.


Stay safe.

[titaniumsalute]

46. Thanks for the post

Some of my techs have the TWIC cards as we occasionally load barges at protected ports. We all have to have at least a class C CDL with Haz-Mat to transport the 1.3g display fireworks (basically the non consumer stuff.)

The most explosive element in fireworks is the black power lift charge and the black powder detonator that actually makes the shell explode and lights the stars. I don't know much about C-4 so I can't answer your question. I know they are very different elements in how they ignite and behave.

It's funny about the fireworks industry. The actually shell themselves haven't really changed much in over a thousand years. Yes we have figured out how to make some new, different colors and shapes. But the basic shells are pretty much made the same way as they always have been. The firing methods have obviously changed with computers. But the fireworks are still pretty much what they have been for centuries.

[TransitJohn]

13. True, but unfortunately, there isn't a right to fireworks in the Constitution

That's the prickly thing that makes this whole thing so complicated. It is very hard to Amend the Constitution, and I really don't think that we'll see the 2nd Amendment fixed in our lifetimes.

[BrotherIvan]

21. But it never says that guns should be cheap and easy access

That is an interpretation of what it says. There are so many ways to require gun safety that do not conflict with 2A.

This post is an excellent example of what should be required in order to own a weapon capable of killing things. Jeez, I have to register my dog every year and certify she's had her rabies shots for public safety. That's more than most states require for a gun. It is madnesss.

[CTyankee]

69. But there is that pesky clause about the "militia" preceding the assertion of that right.

As long as that is in the 2nd A it will be open again and again to interpretation. No other right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights has such a qualification. So I don't think it will require an amendment process. The most recent interpretation, the Heller decision, could be reversed by a future Supreme Court.

We just have to keep up with the rest of the civilized world. Recent polls suggest that most Americans WANT restrictions on guns.

[jberryhill]

77. The Constitution specifically refers to "the rocket's red glare" and "bombs bursting in air"

Just the way Jesus wrote it.

[Voice for Peace]

14. k&r, excellent OP

[sodom]

15. it wasnt an ak-47

If you read the article it just said it looked like an ak-47 type rifle. Most likely it was just a semi-automatic rifle not a fully automatic machine gun. Ownership and purchase of a fully automatic machine gun bring with it increased regulations and paperwork. I would expect that regulations that cover a business would be tighter than that which would cover personal use. You can't compare public demonstrations of fireworks to the private use of firearms. I don't know, but I would guess that public demonstrations of firearms carry with them tighter regulations than the private use of firearms. In many parts of the country fireworks down to sparklers are illegal due to a fire hazard and not due to the possibility of personal injury. ..I wonder what the ratio of fires caused by fireworks to guns would be. Your logic doesn't make much sense.

But you know I'm wrong because, blar blar blar guns are bad.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

20. It wasn't an AK-47? Another good story ruined by the facts?

[BainsBane]

34. That is focusing on the irrelevant

rather than the main point. It was an assault riffle that killed her. Her death and the insanity of lack of control over guns in this country is more important that which particular murder machine it was.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. An "assault" rifle?

If facts are important to you, you can't legitimately claim that it's an "assault" rifle under the AWB because the AWB has expired.

If facts are important to you, you can't otherwise legitimately claim that she made it into an "assault" rifle by having an intent to use it as such because you don't have any evidence of that.

All you have is emotional words.

[BainsBane]

37. again, distraction

which seems to always be the point. Yes, the NRA says family members of those killed by guns are "too emotional." Anyone who cares about the loss of life is "too emotional." The only people entitled to a voice are those who can watch thousands of people die and are concerned only with their own guns, so says the gun lobby.

The type of gun is not the point of the OP. Everyone else here knows that. It is unfortunate you do not.

[BainsBane]

38. Proof

The press reported it as an assault rifle. Anastasia Adair, Colorado Woman, Dies After Assault Rifle Accidentally Discharges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/anastasia-adair-dead-dies-assault-rifle_n_3293336.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Whatever euphemism you invent to justify gun proliferation is entirely your problem.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

62. If it's reported by the press, it must be true.

This would be funny, but some people actually believe that.

[Paladin]

72. Standard Gun Enthusiast deflection maneuver:

When there's yet another mass shooting, all you people care about is whether the media gets the description of the firearm 110% correct, immediately. If said initial description doesn't measure up to your exact standards, then the massacre doesn't matter, from your standpoint. This kind of shit got old some time ago, in case you didn't know it.....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. Standard Gun-Controller Maneuver - Instead of trying to adopt legislation that would work to

actually reduce unnecessary gun violence, over-reach and push for legislation that will not be passed, engage in name-calling, and seek to divide the Democratic Party between those who own firearms and those who don't.

[Paladin]

84. I'm a Democratic gun owner, and I believe in gun control. Deal with it.

And spare me the whining about dividing the party---you and your pro-gun activist associates are the ones seeking to divide Democrats in every way, shape and fashion you can devise, here at DU. Me? I'm a party man when it comes to gun policy; I stand on the other side of the abyss from you and sub-humans like Wayne LaPierre, and it feels great.....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. Stop whinning. Stop insulting other DUers. Do that and you might contribute to making changes.

[Paladin]

86. That recent "What's A Sniper Rifle?" thread of yours.....

....speaks volumes about the insulting sort of things you want to "contribute," here. You're not fooling anybody but yourself, and you're unworthy of any more of my time.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

87. That thread illustrated how non-thinking people can be influenced by adjectives. "Sniper" rifle.

"Assault" rifle. "Cop-killer" bullets.

We were all given brains larger than those given to lemmings. More people should use them.

You may fool some people. But you're not fooling everyone.

[sodom]

89. what is a party man?

Does being a party man mean your ideology shifts with the talking points?

I can remember when obamacare was the republican healthcare plan, now democrats line up to support it. The rapidly shifting political platforms of political parties gives me pause before aligning myself with any political group. But as you say you're a party man when it comes to gun policy.

Many liberals are gun owners, support 2nd amendment rights, and do not look favorably on democrats who use gun control as a wedge issue. Its not pro-gun activists using recent events to railroad policy, its anti-gun activists causing this widening divide.

You're being ridiculous, you call a man subhuman and make reference to being on the other end of the abyss. Youre not on the other side of the abyss, you're at its bottom.

[Paladin]

92. You're the one trying to drive the wedge issue, here.

And you're doing a piss-poor job of it. The fact that you're getting indignant over a critical comment aimed at Wayne LaPierre tells me all I need to know about you. Enjoy your stay at DU.

[Kolesar]

53. That's right-and all of us DUers are "easy targets"

[Lordquinton]

22. More likely we know you're wrong because:

"I don't know, but"

Also, what's the difference between an "AK-47 type rifle," and "Just a semi-automatic rifle" last I checked that's what an AK-47 is.

[sodom]

23. no

Ak-47 is a fully automatic machine gun
Are you saying that its not reasonable to assume that when conducting a public demonstration of a firearm using live ammunition their is probably increased regulations and restrictions? Lol

[Lordquinton]

24. Depends on how it's been modified

You can make any semi automatic rifle into a fully automatic, and vice-versa, I know you guys love to play the semantics game and it's so easy to get away with it because, technically, you're never wrong.

[sodom]

25. avtomat kalashnikova

Ak-47 is a specific model firearm...its not a label for a category or type of rifle, its a specific model. No semi-automatic ak-47 was ever made. Given the knowledge and skill you could mod any gun to fire any number of ways. Given the knowledge and skill one could forge a machine gun from ore they dug out of the earth. The fact remains, an ak-47 is not a semi-automatic rifle.

[Lordquinton]

26. Yet we all still know what they mean

Or maybe you could be less selective and realize that the media always gets things wrong, and that calling every assault rifle an AK is far better than calling every dog bite a Pit Bull attack.

Also, when your argument boils down to "lol they are so dumb, they don't even know the difference between an AK-47 and an M-16" when you don't even know what they were talking about to begin with. Maybe they actually were handling an AK-47 that had been modified, but, like you said "Maybe I'm wrong"

[beevul]

27. The odds of that...

The odds that - "they actually were handling an AK-47 that had been modified" - are not in your favor. Fast forward to 9:30 in this video (if you don't want to watch the whole thing) and see what actual law enforcement has to say about how often they run into these "conversions:

[Aviation Pro]

40. Uh, no...

...a $200 transfer fee, a ton of waiting for the background check and the issuance of the tax stamp is all you need as a citizen to own the full auto version of the AK-47. Oh, and don't forget to start an LLC so you can transfer it to your heirs.

[beevul]

41. Thats true for legal automatic weapons.

Thats true for legal automatic weapons. That is, weapons manufactured before 1986, however...

In the case of an actual, real, Kalashnikov, theres also the 20 plus thousand dollar price tag.

What I believe was being discussed however, was an ak "lookalike" which is a semi automatic design, being converted to fire fully automatic.

The $200 transfer fee, ton of waiting for the background check and the issuance of the tax stamp, do not apply in that circumstance.

Either way, however, the odds of it being a real Kalashnikov are very low, because such things are exceedingly rare and expensive in America, and odds of it being an "ak look alike" that had been converted to fully automatic fire, are exceedingly rare as well. Detective jimmy Trahin says as much in the video.

[Lordquinton]

64. The odds of that gun going off and killing the woman

were not in their favor, yet it happened. But all this is beside the point, or maybe makes it, that any talk about guns gets so swiftly derailed into either semantics, or "They're going to take them all away, slippery slope!" that no real discussion can occur.

[MH1]

30. How does the point of the story change if you substitute "just a semiautomatic rifle"

for "AK-47"?

The fact might be important in the sense of what it took the "responsible gun owners" in the story to obtain it, but I don't see how the gist of the story changes.

Anyway, it's a good thing it was "just a semiautomatic rifle". I am sure that makes the person less dead and their loved ones will grieve less.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. Do you mean the point that someone is dead?

...or the point that someone was incredibly negligent leaving it loaded?
...or the point that someone maybe allowed/encouraged untrained people to handle a loaded firearm?
...or the point that several people were apparently so careless as to handle a firearm without following basic safety measures and ensuring that it was unloaded and safe as their first action when handling it?
...or the point that another equally careless person repeated that carelessness and caused an accidental discharge?
.
.
.
...and other careless and stupid actions.

No none of those points would be changed at all. An accurate characterization of the entire event without including apparent inaccurate soundbites would serve to lend a bit of credibility to the other details of the story.

Sad abuses of constitutional rights.

[MH1]

55. Exactly. But since most people don't recognize the important distinctions

between an AK-47 and "just" a semiautomatic rifle, particularly in a case like this, would there really be any credibility problem for those readers? (My assertion here is true, right? Most people don't really know the difference?)

For people who do know the distinctions, if those distinctions don't change the story significantly - in other words those distinctions are important in some contexts, but not this one - aren't the factual errors (unnoticeable by most people) basically just a distraction? Kind of like pointing out a misspelled word?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. important distinctions

It seems commendable that the writer included details such as the that the group had been drinking and that the firearm had a light trigger pull. These are details that give a reader useful insight into the situation.

From the Denver Post:
Toldness described the rifle as an assault weapon, an AK-47 or similar style rifle. He said the clip, which holds 20 to 30 rounds, was about half full.

"She had just purchased it recently ... and decided to show it off," Toldness said.

From HuffPo:
Witnesses told ABC Denver affiliate KMGH that Anastasia Adair, 22, was passing an AK-47-style assault rifle to her husband, Dana "Shane" Adair, when the gun went off.

The term "assault rifle" has specific meaning and is not used in the report from the Denver Post which quotes the police. Choosing to quote a "witness" over a police account is distracting and in some instances will only further confuse average people. That won't help either side in future attempts at legislation.

The Denver post seems to have related a statement from the police. Huffington quoted "witnesses". I wouldn't characterize the HP accounting as irresponsible but I think that it's fair to recognize that most people don't know the differences between an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle". But IMHO, it seems that when reporting serious incidents, it is the responsibility of the publisher to do something to educate readers rather than just to further spread ignorance and confusion.

As an example, in stories about the President traveling, his aircraft is usually referred to as Air Force One. Most people know this term. Most people recognize the plane as being based on the Boeing 747. This aircraft is heavily modified from the 747 it is based on. It is known technically to the Air Force as a VC-25. Using that designation in a news story about the President rather than using "Air Force One" would be confusing. I'd prefer accuracy in reporting that fosters understanding rather than specious grasps for readership or whatever editorial mistakes were behind this confusion.

Using the term "AK-47-style" is a good idea in lieu of a picture of the actual rifle. It would be accurate to refer this rifle as being functionally similar to an AR-15. In this time where the country is stalled in making any progress regarding firearm safety, real facts that help readers understand incidents in the news are part of responsible journalism. It does seem rather obvious that progress, without the participation and support of firearm owners and enthusiasts, will be very difficult.

An AK-47 is visually useful term since this rifle is the most popular actual assault rifle in the world. Mozambique still has an AK-47 on their flag. Using the term "clip" rather than "magazine" is certainly acceptable, IMHO, since an average reader will be less likely to be confused by "clip" than by "magazine".

The Denver Post reported that the woman killed was on the stairs when she slipped or stumbled. This is a useful detail which does further emphasize the need for gun safety since most gun owners may not generally engage in drinking while passing around a firearm, I would guess that very few folks haven't at some point tripped or missed a step on the stairs. I can see the possibilities for this accident happening even without the alcohol due to the firearm being loaded and carried on the stairs.

If you want to discount the impact of this on the knowledgeable readers, then sure call it a distraction. On the other hand, I can't honestly say using accurate terms like "AK-47 or similar style rifle" as the Denver Post did, distracting or confusing to anyone.

IMHO, the report by the DP is accurate and helpful to the average reader that wants to understand the events. The HuffPo article, not so much.

[NBachers]

31. So death by an AK-47 is different from death by "mistaken for an AK-47 but not really blar blarblar"

[sodom]

95. no

The use of ak-47 is for dramatic effect. It is meant to invoke an emotional response. Its use is intended to alter the perception of what happen in order to advance a political agenda.

I think we should base policy on facts not emotion. It swings both ways. You should be mindful of that, the next time you complain about the patriot act or limits to your freedoms placed into policy through the war on terror.

Just because people are killed/die/murdered/ect... doesn't mean we should accept an intentional manipulation of reality as fact...

[titaniumsalute]

47. A very typical right wing re-direct

This is the problem with arguing with a right winger. The point of my post has nothing to do with the actual gun used...but a slightly larger point regarding regulations and the double standard of regulating two different very dangerous items in this country.

I don't care if it was a .22 caliber, my point still remains the same.

[aikoaiko]

16. You're regulated because you do it for a living.

In many states there are allowances for homemade fireworks of some kind without regulation, is that not true?

This is not a case of double standard as it different standards between commercial and noncommercial activities.

[titaniumsalute]

48. That is a rather grey area

There are some allowances for "hobbiests" and "enthusiasts." But they are still regulated. You still have to store the explosives in some sort of ATF approved storage facility (that's national, not state.)

In most states, counties, local munis...you MUST have a permit to fire any kinds of fireworks. In order to get a permit you must show proof of insurance, ATF licensing, etc.

[loyalsister]

65. MO has very loose regulations for consumer sale fireworks

It drives me crazy I hear them all yr. round because students shoot them whenever the teams win. Summer is the worst, though. This is inside city limits. The cops can't do anything unless they catch them in the act. Last year it really bothered me because of the drought.

[titaniumsalute]

66. Yes last year was SO dangerous in the midwest

I have two boys. I DO NOT let them play with fireworks. Yes, I did when I was a young boy but I fully understand the danger in fireworks AND what they can do.

When they hit 18 they can help daddy set up the big boys.

[loyalsister]

74. I played with them as a kid too

Now, it just seems like burning money. Last summer there were fires in the grass along the highway from people throwing cigarettes out. It doesn't take much to get one started.

[rickyhall]

17. The First 2 Rules

My dad taught me 2 rules about guns when I 5.
1: Don't point guns at people
2: Don't show loaded guns to people

What is hard about that? Any idiot should know these things. It's like Don't drop your pants in public. What's the problem?

[randr]

18. Score one for Darwin

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. It is a false equivalency to equate (1 a) the common law right of self-defense and (b) the 2nd Amend

right to own a firearm in the home for self-defense (Heller) with (2) a desire to blow things up for recreational purposes.

[Tumbulu]

28. Oh good grief - that is an strange understanding of the 2nd amendment

"Well regulated" is pretty clear AND there as is the "militia" part. It says nothing about solitary fools owning and using firearms and if my wish could come true all firearms would be destroyed.

Fat chance of that wish coming true, but one needs to have high hopes sometimes!

Anyway, they all need to be far more regulated than they are now and the OP's point is very valid.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. There is not a single judge in the entire country that would accept your "well regulated"

and "militia" position. You can't find even one. Not one. And you can't find a single serious member of the bar that would agree with you.

The reason for that the issue was already decided in the Heller decision. As held by the Court,

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.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

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.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

[Tumbulu]

44. Within a decade it will be seen very differently

You will see.

And if the courts do not see it differently, the people will.

Firearm ownership for individuals not trained, licensed and heavily scrutinized and insured is over.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

61. Will there be a change in the judicial attitude? At Elena Kagan's hearing, e.g., she supported the

Heller decision.

Can you find even a single judicial nominee who disagrees with the Heller ruling? Even one?

[CTyankee]

70. To me, it doesn't matter what Kagan says she thinks. I agree with you. There is a little

girl or boy in the U.S. (or maybe somewhere else, destined for the U.S.) growing up now who will know of Aurora, Newtown, VA Tech and other mass shootings and the ones that will surely come as long a gun violence is rationalized by the current interpretation of the Supreme Court (just look at slavery). And that kid will be a future Supreme Court Justice. Our thinking is shaped by the events of our times. 19th century history will be history and looked at as just that. We are in gridlock at present with our judicial establishment but there will be a new establishment coming up. They will surely feel differently and a new day of interpretation of the 2nd A is coming. It is only a matter of time.

[Tumbulu]

91. So true

It will just take more time. I predict a decade or less, hope it is not longer.

[hack89]

35. That "strange understanding" is the law of the land

the 2A is an individual right.

[Tumbulu]

43. Not for much longer

it is over this ridiculous interpretation. Which is what it is- a very odd interpretation of clear writing.

[hack89]

57. Before you start your happy dance, think about how long Roe v Wade has been law

despite no mention of abortion in the Constitution and a conservative supreme court that opposes abortion.

The supreme court does not change their mind on a dime. They have a lot of respect for precedence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. As ridiculous as...

...you may find the SCOTUS interpretation, there is support for it from the writings of the founders. Even Justice Stevens and the other Justices who dissented in Heller, agreed with the interpretation that the RKBA is an individual right.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. As mentioned above at #61, Justice Elena Kagan supports the Heller decision.

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. ""Well regulated" is pretty clear AND there as is the "militia" part."

There's also this part: "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Maybe some reading comprehension, as well as history knowledge, would benefit you. You see, people had guns here well BEFORE the Revoluntionary War. People depended on them to put food on the table, or they bought/bartered for meat from someone else who depended on a gun to put food on their tables *and* to make money to buy other goods. Gun usage was, literally, a way of life. Guns were a TOOL.. a tool that kept many families fed, and alive.

While we were a British Colony, we didn't have a standing army. We had no official way of defending ourselves against other invaders of "our" shores. Meanwhile, "we" were also busy decimating the Native Tribes that were already here, long before "us". They were fighting to defend and keep what they considered THEIR land, homes, families and way of life. The Colonists wrote home and spoke of battles with the "Savages" and "Primative Peoples" in this new land. (does that sound familiar? Like the U.S. invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and calling the people who are fighting us off "insurgants" and "enemy combatants"??)

Let's fast-forward 120-130+ years from the time Columbus "discovered" America to the time we were ready to declare our independence, go to war, and become a sovereign nation. We had built up an army (well regulated militia), we fought.. and we WON! We were on our way, along with our Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It was a work in progress, and was changed and amended several times, which included the 2nd Amendment that says:

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 Founding Fathers spoke many times about tyranny and tyrants, and the need to be able to fight them off and keep them from ever taking hold of this Country. So, again, we have this:

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 "well regulated militia" was our new Standing Army... which was necessary to keep us free and secure as a new Nation. Now think back to the Founding Fathers, and their concerns about tyrants. Realizing the power one held as President, with a whole Army at his command, they gave We, the PEOPLE, the right to keep and bear arms, not only to be able to continue to provide for our families, but to also be able to stand up against a tyrant, if the need ever arose. Fortunately, that need has never arose... but I can think of one time when it came close.. When Prescott Bush conspired with a 500,000 troops strong army to stage a military coup and turn us into a Fascist State, but it was quashed when General Smedley Butler blew the whistle and stopped it from happening.

This is my interpretation and opinion of the 2nd Amendment. Anyone is free to agree or disagree, but that's your right and your opinion... I've been wrong before, and have openly admitted so right here on DU, but this is one that I hold as a *conviction*, and won't change my mind about. The 2nd Amendment is about the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.... and NO, this doesn't mean I think individuals should be able to have their own Apache or Blackhawk chopper, surface to air missiles, nuclear bombs or tanks. Well, lemme think about the tank thing, I'm a veteran driver in traffic in both Miami, Fl and Atlanta, Ga LOL!

Ghost

[titaniumsalute]

49. I want to store 3" heavy salutes in my house for home protection

So Under the constitution I should be able to do that. Fireworks can easily be "arms", are they not made with black powder...the same as firing musket?

No one is saying you cant have a gun...you just need to prove your'e not a complete idiot, nutcase, dangerous person to do it. Just like we do with the industry I am discussing.

[rl6214]

75. Can a FFL dealer store his inventory at his home?

No, not if his home is not his place of business.

Are fireworks "arms"?

No, I think they fall under ordinance.

[titaniumsalute]

80. You mean ordnance I assume?

Ordnance is usually referred to military terms like cannons, weaponry, etc. Display fireworks are not considered ordnance. Display fireworks are categorized by "display fireworks 1.3g" in the NFPA-1123 Federal Regulations and by the ATF.


But you bring up a point that I have always struggled with regarding the 2nd Amendment. When the Fathers were writing the second amendment they had a fairly good idea of what "arms" were at that present time. They, of course, had no idea what arms would be like today. How could anyone even comprehend what we have today regarding "arms?"

People had access to muzzle loaders, cannons, etc. when the second amendment was written. Does that mean I should access to a 105mm Howitzer? Probably not.

The second amendment is so subjective...yet we seem to treat it as either all black or white regarding guns. But it really isn't that easy.

[rl6214]

82. "Display fireworks are not considered ordnance"

Yet some are called mortars and I'm sure most if not all are probably shipped with an "ORD" label on them. They are also not "arms".

Muzzle loaders were considered personal arms of their times much like today's most popular sporting rifle today, the AR15. They owned them, they took them home with them. Cannons, not quite the same. You didn't find the common colonial with a cannon so equating it to a howitzer isn't anywhere near the same.

[titaniumsalute]

88. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about

A display fireworks shell is labeled as 1.3g which means...display fireworks. They are shipped that way. They are stored that way. The show up on the firing sites that way. They are not considered ordnance, they are not labeled as ordnance, they have no ORD anywhere in the description.

Yes, the tubes that fireworks are launched from are called mortar tubes. But the ATF, nor the DOT classify he fireworks shells as 1.3g display fireworks.

So a high powered rifle with a scope is the same as a muzzle loader? Huh. Could you buy a muzzle loader at Wal-Mart in 1800 along with 10 boxes of ammo?

[rl6214]

90. That's NOT what I said

"They have no ORD anywhere in the description". I said in shipping them they are probably labeled ORD.

You clearly have no concept of matching technology from the 1700s to the technology of today. You shouldn't be using a computer and cruising the web, you should be only using a quill and ink.

[titaniumsalute]

93. THEY DON'T LABEL THEM ORD FOR SHIPPING.

I ship the fucking these everyday. NO WHERE DOES IT SAY ORD ANYWHERE.

Yup, you got me. I have no idea of the history of technology from 300 years ago. Ain't you clever.

[marble falls]

32. Yeah, double standard, fireworks are harmless....

Deadly fireworks explosion in Mexico casts shadow on religious celebration

http://www.euronews.com/2013/03/16/deadly-fireworks-explosion-in-mexico-casts-shadow-on-religious-celebration/

Deadly fireworks explosion and bridge collapse in China

http://photos.denverpost.com/2013/02/01/photos-deadly-fireworks-explosion-and-bridge-collapse-in-china/

Five killed in deadly fireworks explosion at Hawaii storage unit

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/killed-deadly-fireworks-explosion-hawaii-storage-unit-article-1.111928#ixzz2Th80wEJB

Deadly fireworks explosion in India

http://photos.mercurynews.com/2012/09/06/photos-deadly-fireworks-explosion-in-india/

Deadly Thai Fireworks Explosion

http://on.aol.com/video/deadly-thai-fireworks-explosion-517254217

Bodies Found in Texas Fireworks Explosion

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10535934/bodies-found-in-texas-fireworks-explosion?utm_source=related_content_box&utm_medium=related_content&utm_campaign=10498882

Police probe deadly fireworks blast at Michigan resort

http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/27/fireworks.blast/index.html?_s=PM:US

....two explosions in a fireworks warehouse detonated on estimated 100 tonnes of explosives. The blast was felt up to 30 kilometers away. Within minutes the surrounding residential quarter was devasted. Some 400 apartments were reduced to cinders, another 1000 were damaged. The resulting fires are also said to have caused the release of hazardous asbestos. After the explosion 22 people (4 firefighters) were found dead, 947 were injured, many of them seriously.

http://www.stop-fireworks.org/accidents_enschede.htm

A lot of people don't think somuch about your harmless fireworks:
http://www.stop-fireworks.org/

[titaniumsalute]

50. What kind of an fucking ridiculous post is this?

Who said fireworks are harmless? Who said they don't need to be regulated. You seriously wasted some significant time with this post. Should I respond by posting 10,000 posts of gun incidents from the past year??

[marble falls]

56. Comparing fireworks to guns is false equivalency....

Whats with the hostility, you're the guy confusing apples with oranges.

Just for the record: you think all the death and mayhem I posted relating to fireworks is "insignificant"? Any guess how many children are injured and killed by fireworks every year? How many millions of dollars are lost in property by fires? "Insignificant"? "Shameful," says I.

And so you know, I want a central federal registration of all guns capable of firing including wall hangers, background checks every time a firearm is transferred owner to owner with gun shows included, mandatory firearms safety training through the individual state hunting and game responsible departments, no concealed carry. No internet sales. All semi auto and auto rifles transactions to made through a federally licensed dealer. I had to do that in the old days and its not much bother unless you're in a hurry to shoot someone.

And the whole time I'd be remembering that fewer people are killed assault rifles than hammers but hand guns kill thousands, that gun crimes have been failing as all crime about 40% over the last 20 years, that firearms are the third largest cause of death for children - after motor vehicles and poisoning........

I was in WalMart (unwillingly) and I saw a .22LRdone up an M-16. What the hell. We can't control the people, we gotta control the guns.







But that Tucson, Aurora and Sandy Hook have changed everything. If we can't stop the shooters, we'd better control guns. Appealing to the emotions and confusing issue with irrelevant personal anecdote about a profession having nothing to do firearms much past 'black powder' does nothing to further stopping gun death and only gives one more goofy side step away from the real issue with gun nutter teabillies.

[titaniumsalute]

67. Did I say accidents by fireworks are insignificant? Of course not. Quit changing the subject.

YOU are comparing apples to oranges. I'm discussing professional fireworks, not consumer fireworks. I (we) do not have anything to do with consumer fireworks. Frankly I think they should all be banned. They are very dangerous to people and property.

The issue is taking one dangerous item, regulating it very heavily, but not doing the same thing to another very dangerous item. The Second Amendment says you have a right to bear arms. Fine. It doesn't say you have a right to bear arms with absolutely no restrictions. So, why not restrict who owns a gun or what types to own?

Land mines are "arms", as are pressure cooker bombs, RPGs, etc. Those items are regulated by the government. Just as my fireworks shells, TNT, blasting caps and other dangerous items.

Yes a firework shell is not a gun. I'll give you that. So from a physical appearance, construction of each device, etc. they are different. But both have the capacity to be very dangerous or, if used properly, not as dangerous. Both are completely regulated very differently and that makes no sense.

[RoccoR5955]

33. They would tell you

That criminals can get these shells, because they will not obey the law, so it only hurts law abiding citizens' ability to get them.

Not that I'm advocating it, but when I hear some of these arguments, I ask them, "Well if I have the right to bear arms, where's my shoulder mounted, laser-guided nuclear missile? After all, it's a form of arms."

[Nanjing to Seoul]

39. And yet, here in China, I can but class A fireworks and mortars on the street and blow them up

within pissing distance of parked cars, using someone's lit cigarette as the light after I've spent two hours drinking beer and baijiu, but I cannot own a firearm here in China. And no one has died or been hurt by fireworks.

Yet in the States, fireworks are heavily regulated and anyone with a pulse can pretty much but something that one squeeze can kill. Makes your wonder, doesn't it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. True, and when something goes wrong during a show

(Last year in San Diego) ATF was all over.

For the record, it sounded like an artillery barrage.

I am sure you heard of it. Thankfully none got hurt

It is a double standard.

[MrModerate]

45. To me this doesn't mean that your industry is overregulated . . .

But that gun ownership is tragically underregulated.

Which I think is your point.

[titaniumsalute]

51. Exactly my point...which some took the other way

My industry (for the most part) isn't over regulated. There are instances of Federal, State and Local regulations makign us pay three times the fees, licensing, etc. which sucks.

[DanTex]

54. Great post.

A very good comparison and vivid demonstration of how underregulated guns are. Imagine how many lives would be saved if we took the dangers of guns as seriously as fireworks.

[Tikki]

58. First of all...Thank you for what you do. It is an amazing form of entertainment.

You are a professional and highly skilled. I am positive you wouldn't
be hanging around your back yard, drunk and handling bits of your works.


You make a strong case for a professional license stature for gun ownership...
and tough regulations and stiff, stiff fines and punishment for breaking laws.


Tikki

[titaniumsalute]

68. Thank you Tikki...

When I'm not working I'm not much interested in shooting any fireworks in the backyard, front yard, side yard...as for the craft beer...I do that in all three yards. LOL.

[rl6214]

73. What was it the boston bombers used to make their bombs again?

[patrice]

79. Fail. Just because people abuse something that is regulated, that doesn't mean it shouldn't

be regulated.

[rl6214]

81. Never said they shouldn't be regulated

Just as I've never said guns should not be regulated.

Fail on your part for trying to put words in my mouth.

[jberryhill]

76. "annual "mental" checkups, etc. just so I can shooting friggin' fireworks"

"Yep, he's still crazy. Renew his license."

[jberryhill]

78. If you carry a firearm in a professional capacity, there are additional regulations

I can go up to Phantom Fireworks in PA and buy stuff you couldn't carry around without your license, though.

[Laelth]

94. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth