Quoted Text

No longer a need for people to bear arms  
First published: Sunday, July 22, 2007

Regarding the July 12 editorial on guns, investigations and usage:
  
The Second Amendment 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 Constitution does not say people should have shotguns, rifles or handguns for any purpose other than to maintain the security of a free state.

Since that amendment, enacted 216 years ago, we have formed states, cities, towns and villages that are empowered to keep the peace and to bear arms for that purpose.

People do not need guns. Guns are used to kill or maim animals and humans.

Giving legal authorities the ability to investigate, arrest and punish those who illegally sell firearms is only one of many steps that should be enacted and enforced -- notwithstanding the pitiful pleas of the National Rifle Association.

RAYMOND S. BLANCHARD Albany

Quoted Text

The Second Amendment 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 Constitution does not say people should have shotguns, rifles or handguns for any purpose other than to maintain the security of a free state.

Quoted Text

Since that amendment, enacted 216 years ago, we have formed states, cities, towns and villages that are empowered to keep the peace and to bear arms for that purpose.

Quoted Text

Access to data on legal gun ownership is a threat to privacy rights  
First published: Sunday, July 29, 2007

Sunday, July 15, the Times Union published a second editorial criticizing the recent bipartisan actions by Congress to deny access to federal gun sales and ownership data to local elected officials and police departments, unless the data is requested during the prosecution of a specific crime committed with a specific gun. The editorial asked, "Really now, what sensible person would resist legislation that would give local governments and police agencies access to data tracking gun sales?"
  
I can't claim to be the most sensible person around (witness my quixotic efforts to influence the Times Union editorial board on matters like this), but I care very much about this issue.

Our constitutional, individual right to defend ourselves, our families and our homes from unlawful assault, and to personally own firearms for the purpose of this defense, is fundamental to the civic responsibilities of the citizens of this nation. It seems obvious to me that whether I own a gun, what gun I own, how I obtained it, or any other data pertaining to this particular piece of my property is my own private business and certainly not that of our local politicians.

Unfortunately, New York state requires me to be licensed to possess a handgun, and thus local governments and law enforcement agencies already have access to most of that data for that particular firearm. Many other states do not require such disclosure, at least without cause. Thus the concern of so many congressmen and women to represent their constituents in good faith in this policy area.

So there are serious issues of privacy, constitutional rights, and civic responsibilities involved here. I ask you to respect those concerns of mine, even as I respect our mutual right to free speech, which I know is a matter dear to your own heart.

W. STEARNS CASWELL
Delmar

Quoted Text

Guns are not what makes society violent  
First published: Thursday, August 2, 2007

I read with some interest Raymond Blanchard's July 22 letter, "No longer a need for people to bear arms." The argument that the Second Amendment is 216 years old and is obsolete because we have states, towns, etc., empowered with law enforcement who can use firearms to protect us is simply naive and ill-conceived. The Second Amendment is no more made obsolete by modern society than is the First Amendment, which is also 216 years old. Now that we have radio, TV, Internet and massive network conglomerates supplying us with professionally crafted free speech, would anyone suggest the First Amendment is obsolete?
As far as the law enforcement entities of states, towns, etc., protecting us: I submit for consideration the case of home invasion that recently took place in Chesire, Conn. The details are too horrible to relate, but three are dead and one injured in this incident. As is the norm, law enforcement was not there to intervene, only to react after the fact. Could a firearm in the home possibly have helped this unfortunate family defend itself against this horrific assault? Mr. Blanchard would deny them such opportunity for defense. I find that appalling.

  
Violence is something we can all agree to detest. Sadly, violence and guns are often equated. But the truth is that guns are simply tools and, like most tools, can be used properly or improperly. Most of the arguments regarding guns in our society are, in my opinion, based on the frustration we have with violence and crime, which seems so prevalent. But the reality is that the causes of violence are complex. To try to simply blame guns is to create a convenient smoke screen that misdirects the energy we should be using to try to find true solutions to violence in our society.

I direct those readers with an interest in this subject to the well-articulated "Pistol Regulation: Its Principles and History," written in 1930 by Karl T. Frederick. It appeared in the American Journal of Police Science in 1931 but its content is just as relevant today as it was then. The article can be found on the Internet at: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/ Frederick1.html.

DREW HOLCOMB Pittstown

Quoted from Shadow

The only trouble with the ones in the city hunting money is that it's our money they're hunting.

Quoted Text

Americans have right to protect themselves
First published: Friday, August 3, 2007

With regard to Raymond Blanchard's July 22 letter about the right to keep and bear arms: I'm not sure what world Mr. Blanchard lives in, but in this one, it can take the police anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes to respond to a 911 call. I'm sorry, but that's more than enough time to be killed in your own home.
This area has seen more than a few home invasions lately. We need to protect ourselves and our families, in the legal and proper way our forefathers intended -- with arms. Hopefully we will never have to, but it's good to have the option of fighting back, not just giving up.
  
TONY BARBARO
Schodack

Quoted Text

Gun lobbyists react to what they know  
First published: Saturday, August 4, 2007

This is in respond to your July 25 editorial "In the crossfire":
  
It's not so much that the gun lobby is all powerful, they just know what Franklin D. Roosevelt knew. If you let the camel get his nose under the tent, pretty soon he's in the tent with you.

The smokers learned this first: Ban TV ads, then smoking here or there, then offices, then restaurants, then bars. In some places in this country you can smoke only at home and in your car.

The fast food industry is afraid it will be next, too. Pretty soon you may need a ration-like coupon for a Big Mac, if your cholesterol or blood pressure are deemed to be too high.

C.L. STILL
Rensselaer

Quoted Text

Guns are indeed a tool -- with one purpose  
First published: Wednesday, August 8, 2007

In response to Drew Holcomb's Aug. 2 letter, I don't know anyone who claims that guns are the cause of violence in our society. Rather, what is obvious is that guns make deadly violence much more likely, so that controlling and reducing their availability seems to me to be responsible and sane policy.
  
If we were to accept Mr Holcomb's ill-considered claim that "guns are simply tools," then we need to ask him: What is the purpose of this tool? I know what the purpose of a saw or screwdriver is. But a gun? Well it's only purpose is to shoot bullets which, depending on the shooter's aim, may kill a living being, maybe your spouse, child or friend. So this is simply a "tool" that everyone should have in their toolbox?

Read the Second Amendment: It says that the right to bear arms is related to and dependent upon the need to maintain a "well-regulated Militia." It does not say that access to guns should be everyone's unregulated right.

MICHAEL FOSTER
Niskayuna

Quoted Text

First of all Mr Foster is interpreting the second amendment as he would like it to read not what it really says. As far as a militia is concerned, kick in my back door and the militia will appear right in front of your eyes. There are many people who hunt, target shoot, shoot competitively in gun clubs, and just plain protect their home and family. No Matter what you say Mr Foster it is my right to bear arms, and it's not the gun that kills it's the nut behind the trigger. We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books, do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally challenged individuals. If we follow the writers lead we wouldn't have knives, autos, baseball bats, rope, or anything else that has ever been used by a nut to kill people.

Quoted Text

Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
By Lee Ross

WASHINGTON —  The nine justices of the highest court in the land will meet Tuesday to hear arguments on who the Founding Fathers intended when they called for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms: a well regulated militia or all individuals.

Tuesday's arguments in front of the Supreme Court — the focal point for gun rights advocates and foes alike — will be the first significant Second Amendment case in front of the high court since 1939. Supporters and opponents are equally excited and concerned by the prospect of what the court’s ruling — expected by June — could mean for individuals seeking clearer laws on the right to bear arms.

Washington, D.C., the nation's capital and one party to the case, argues its handgun ban “is a governmental duty of the highest order.” The contrary argument claims the city's law is “draconian” in its infringement of Second Amendment rights, which states, "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."


In its pre-argument briefs to the Supreme Court the parties to this case seem to have been writing to convince today’s nine foremost grammarians or historians. Much of the presentations to the Supreme Court focus on the grammatical meaning of the 27-word amendment.

The agitator at the center of this case is private Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.

The agitator at the center of this case is private Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.

Heller contends the handgun is necessary to defend himself at his home. The city’s law, on the books for more than three decades and one of the most stringent in the country, was passed to prevent violent and accidental gun violence. It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful.

Heller’s lawsuit against the city was initially dismissed but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a landmark 2-1 decision, overturned that ruling. It declared that the Second Amendment guarantees all individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

That ruling contravened decades of jurisprudence that held the Second Amendment right was exclusive to militias. The D.C. government appealed that ruling and in November the Supreme Court announced it would take the case.

The D.C. government presents three overarching arguments to the Court. First, the city contends the D.C. Circuit erred in its basic interpretation of the law.

“The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes,” reads the appeal by the city to the high court. Specifically, it points to the language of the Second Amendment and argues both clauses taken individually or in concert can only be read to suggest its application to militias and not individuals.

As for its historical argument, the city concludes, “There is no suggestion that the need to protect private uses of weapons against federal intrusion ever animated the adoption of the Second Amendment.”

The city's attorneys detail the debate that preceded the enactment of the law as part of the Bill of Rights. In so doing, the city draws upon the works of William Blackstone, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and similarly worded legislation passed in the late 18th century. It argues the Founders’ “efforts surely were purposeful, and should not be ignored two centuries later.”

The city’s second argument is that the Second Amendment does not apply to District-specific legislation. It is a curious argument, at least politically, for a government keen on seeking equal representation in Congress.

“The Framers created a federal enclave to ensure federal protection of federal interests. They could not have intended the Second Amendment to prevent Congress from establishing such gun-control measures as it deemed necessary to protect itself, the president and this court.”

Its final argument rests on an analysis of the D.C. statute which the city says should be done on a “proper reasonableness” standard. The city argues its law “represent(s) the District’s reasoned judgment about how best to meet its duty to protect the public. Because that predictive judgment about how best to reduce gun violence was reasonable and is entitled to substantial deference, it should be upheld.”

In response, attorneys for Heller roundly disagree with the District’s positions with its most fundamental argument being that the lower court was correct in its judgment that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear arms.

They contend the D.C. gun ban is a “draconian infringement” of the Second Amendment. And they too present their grammatical and historical interpretation of the law writing there cannot be “doubts or ambiguities” about the meaning of the second clause or its relationship with the first.

“The words cannot be rendered meaningless by resort to their preamble. Any preamble-based interpretive rationale demanding an advanced degree in linguistics for its explication is especially suspect in this context,” the attorneys argue.

Heller’s lawyers also present its Founders-era evidence by quoting from George Mason, Blackstone and Madison. They also quote lawyer John Adams during his successful defense of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.

In that trial Adams conceded that “here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time for their defense, not for offense."

They also dismiss as spurious the city’s argument that the Second Amendment does not have the effect of law in the District of Columbia. They acknowledge that Congress (and now the D.C. government under Home Rule) has the ability to make gun laws but must do so in accordance with the Constitution. Heller's lawyers draw a parallel with Congress’s power to run the city’s schools which they note cannot then be segregated or otherwise be operated contrary to Constitutional holdings.

Finally, they dismiss the city’s argument that the handgun ban is legal under a “proper reasonableness” standard. Instead they offer a “strict scrutiny” guideline for imposing restrictions on gun ownership.

“As our nation continues to face the scourges of crime and terrorism, no provision of the Bill of Rights would be immune from demands that perceived governmental necessity overwhelm the very standard by which enumerated rights are secured. Exorbitant claims of authority to deny basic constitutional rights are not unknown. Demoting the Second Amendment to some lower tier of enumerate rights is unwarranted. The Second Amendment has the distinction of securing the most fundamental rights of all — enabling the preservation of one’s life and guaranteeing our liberty. These are not second-class concerns.”

It is common for the Supreme Court to ask for the official position of the United States government. In this case, Solicitor General Paul Clement has been given 15 minutes to argue before the court. Lawyers for the District of Columbia and Heller will each have 30 minutes.

His brief, however, surprised many when it argued against a definitive ruling on the merits of the case. Instead the brief counsels the justices that the “better course” would be to remand the case back to the lower courts for further review. In so doing, Clement urges the court to acknowledge the “plain text” of the Second Amendment and recognize that the law does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. He says such an interpretation “reinforces the most natural reading of the amendment’s text.”

Clement asks the court to remand the case out of fear that an outright affirmation of the lower court’s ruling could “cast doubt” on all existing federal firearms legislation.

“The Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms.” Within that framework Clement offers to the court what he describes as an intermediate or heightened level of judicial review. He says the court’s handling of legally similar cases by remanding them for further proceedings represent a due diligence that should be followed in this case.

Of the more than 65 friend-of-the-court briefs filed on this case, one drew immediate attention for its dismissal of the solicitor general’s remand argument and because the lead name attached to it is that of Vice President private Cheney.

Cheney, in his position as president of the Senate, joined a brief with 55 senators and 250 House members to support Heller asking the court to fully affirm the lower court ruling. It created the most unusual circumstance of the vice president — not to mention majorities of both chambers of Congress — in opposition to the official position of the U.S. government.

“This court should give due deference to the repeated findings over different historical epochs by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that the amendment guarantees the personal right to possess firearms. ... No purpose would be served by remanding this case for further fact finding or other proceedings.”

The members of Congress who joined the brief are mostly Republicans, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain. A healthy number of gun-rights Democrats also joined in the brief.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, did not make their positions known to the court. Another brief by 17 other House members—all Democrats—and the non-voting delegate to the House from Washington, D.C. asked the court to uphold the city’s handgun ban.

Quoted Text

High court ponders scope of amendment on gun rights
BY DAVID G. SAVAGE Los Angeles Times

    WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” finally had its day in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and the long-held view that it protects the rights of gun owners appeared poised to win a historic victory.
    Five justices, a bare majority, signaled they believed the amendment gave individuals a right to have a gun for self-defense. It was not limited to arms for “a well-regulated militia” for the common defense, they said.
    By adopting that view, the justices probably will strike down the nation’s strictest gun-control law, a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.
    But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he favored a narrow ruling, one that would not cast doubt on an array of gun-control laws. They include a ban on the sale of new machine guns, required background checks for new buyers of handguns and state licensing rules for those who wish to carry a concealed weapon.
    “I don’t know why when we are starting afresh we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case,” Roberts told one lawyer.
    The court is indeed “starting afresh” with the Second Amendment, nearly 200 years after it was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights. It 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.”
    Despite this command, the court has never struck down a gun-control law for violating the Second Amendment. For many years, judges believed the amendment merely prohibited the federal government from interfering with the state’s right to maintain a “well-regulated militia.”
    But most Americans know the second clause, referring to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” And in polls, a large majority say they believe it gives law-abiding persons a right to own a gun.
    While the court appears ready to agree with them, the chief justice alluded to the difficulty of deciding what kind of right is protected by the Second Amendment. Is the right to own a gun like the right to freedom of speech in the First Amendment? If so, most restrictions on that right would be in doubt. Or is the gun right subject to strict regulations by the government?
    The justices strongly hinted Tuesday they would leave open the question of whether many current restrictions on gun rights will stand.
    Nonetheless, a ruling recognizing an individual right in the Second Amendment would be a landmark. And it could well signal the beginning of an era in which anti-gun regulations are subject to legal challenges.
    The case heard by the court Tuesday began when Robert A. Levy, a libertarian lawyer who lives in Florida, decided to challenge D.C.’s 30-year-old ban on handguns. One plaintiff, private Heller, is a private security guard who wants to keep his handgun at home.
    Last year, the U.S. appeals court here struck down the D.C. law, prompting the city to appeal the case.
    Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, defending the city’s law, began by arguing the Constitution’s framers sought to protect state militias. The phrase “bear arms” refers to the “military context,” he said.
    But he ran into skeptical questioning.

Quoted Text

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Quoted Text

Amendment II
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.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Quoted Text

Main Entry: mi·li·tia  
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Quoted from Shadow

Maybe this will settle the argument that has gone on for years about an individuals right to bear arms. The state, federal, and local governments will still be able to regulate who can get firearms and as long as you're a law abiding citizen, non felon, and mentally competent you'll be able to possess a firearm.

Quoted from Michael

The right to bear arms.  Somebody raises a good point.  What was around when this was written?  Muskets and cannons?  I doubt our Founders envisioned automatic assault weapons and no fair minded individual can argue that they need one.  Want a handgun or rifle?  Fine.  But like anything that possesses the potential for dire consequence in the wrong hands, there HAS to be regulation.

Quoted Text

Quoted from Shadow

I just like knowing that if someone kicks in the door of my home at 2am when the police are just minutes away and the end of my life is just seconds away I can do something about it. As someone once said I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Quoted Text

I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Quoted from Sombody

If  the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms.

I mean it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.

Quoted Text

I personally keep a 36" machetti in my car ( jeep ) between my seat and the door-

Quoted Text

Learning about lives lost to guns
Albany panel hears about loved ones who became victims of crime

By TIM O'BRIEN, Staff writer
First published: Wednesday, March 26, 2008

ALBANY -- Mothers described the gunfire that killed their children to those attending the first forum on reducing gun violence in the city Tuesday.
The emotional stories brought home the kind of street crime the 13-member Task Force on Gun Violence is seeking to solve.
     
"We need to bring hope back in our children," said resident Barbara Judkins. "There are too many kids out here depressed."
Judkins was among more than 60 people who came to Phillip Livingston Academy to share their views.
County Legislator Wanda Willingham lost her son to street violence 16 years ago and saw another young man killed on the street about six years ago. She said when she recently spoke to Albany High School students, 75 percent in a class said they knew someone who had been shot and 90 percent knew someone who had a gun.
She said her son became involved in illegal activity, so it can happen to anyone's child. "Peer pressure is a terrible thing for these kids," she said. "They need to know a gun, it kills. They need to know that when that gun puts a hole in you, it puts a hole in everyone else in the household too."
Young people often think that being able to flash a gun beneath their shirt keeps them safe, said another parent, Annette DeLavallade.
"Somehow they think that protects them," she said. "The kids don't get it."
Young people in the city need more to do, stronger guidance at home and better education in school to keep them from succumbing to the temptation of street crime, speakers at the forum said.
DeLavallade recommended filming a documentary showing what it is like to be shot and taken to the emergency room where doctors struggle to save lives.
Others praised the gathering for focusing on illegal guns and not legitimate owners of firearms.
"The crimes aren't being committed by legal firearms," said Ralph Passonno. "I ask when you think about the resolution of these problems, that you not punish the law-abiding citizens. The unarmed citizen is a target. The unarmed nation falls to tyranny."
Doreathea Brace said access to illegal guns is too easy.
"I can walk right out of here and buy a gun right now," she said. "That's how easy it is."
Many kids get pulled into selling drugs and carrying guns because their parents are struggling to make ends meet, and they see it as a way to help bring in money, she said. Community programs don't help if work isn't available, she said.
East Greenbush resident Martha Lasher-Warner said the problem of gun violence affects communities other than the cities. Her daughter, Liza, was killed by her estranged husband in 2004 in Princetown, Schenectady County.
"I wish I had the answer how to get the guns out of the wrong hands," she said. "It's a horrible epidemic."
The Common Council approved creating the 13-member task force last July, and the task force met for the first time in November. It was given one year to study gun violence in the city and to make recommendations.
District Attorney David Soares and Police Chief James Tuffey, who are members of the task force, were in attendance.
Task force leaders said the ideas gathered will inform their findings. The members are also studying programs in other cities including Rochester and Baltimore.
"We've received tonight many constructive comments that will make our work easier," said the Rev. Edward B. Smart, a panel leader.
The task meets twice a month and expects to hold more forums. Tim O'Brien can be reached at 454-5092 or by e-mail at tobrien@timesunion.com.

Quoted Text

Guns kill people, the revisionists said. We have the police to protect
us, and the truths of 1776 have no place in 20th century society.

Quoted from Sombody

Applying the  logic of some post-I think the rental agreement for Yates Village should encourage/suggest the residents to get a gun-
This would most certainly lower the crime rate ?

Quoted Text

BEARING ARMS

                               __________

                            SECOND AMENDMENT

  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.

Quoted Text

"What is the militia?  It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"

Quoted Text

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
    

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Quoted from Sombody

Who does the Amendment mean by “the People”?

       Second Amendment:  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.

Quoted from Kevin March

Individuals, in the case where it may be necessary that the people rise up against the tyrannical government.

Quoted from Shadow

I'm ready all the time.

Quoted from Shadow

No matter how it gets spun, the state has the right to form a militia, and we the people have the right to bear arms.

Quoted Text

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Quoted from Sombody

We are able to make a hand held lazer- gun if you will- that can incapacitate - like maybe burn a hole through a person- but it is not used in combat because if it just blinded the enemy that would be inhumane-
So the Geneva convention has banned such devices-

Quoted Text

Guns aren’t problem, lack of responsibility is

    Your April 24 editorial, “Address Schenectady gun culture,” was a misguided attack on firearms. The constant spreading of misinformation regarding the availability of guns being the problem, without looking at why people choose to use them in a violent manner, needs to stop.
    It’s ignorant to perpetuate the gun as the problem, and not how a person resorts to violence. Children have played with BB guns for decades, so the statement that the “. . . BB gun of today . . . — will be the handgun of tomorrow” is an example of this questionable editorial.
    The root causes of gun violence can be traced to our liberal society that doesn’t support responsible parenting, along with as failed schools and gun violence’s main cause — illegal drugs. The solutions are not fast and easy.
    A start would be to place more emphasis on drug treatment and prevention. Our public schools need to create alternatives to provide an education that both interests and prepares our youth for entry into the workplace. The government has to fix the welfare system, which has destroyed the family. Finally, both fathers and mothers together need to teach their children responsibility, not the schools or police.
    MICHAEL A. FRISONE
    Rexford

Quoted Text

Weapons on hips, ‘open carriers’ aren’t gun shy
In some places, gun owners can freely wear them
BY NICHOLAS RICCARDI Los Angeles Times

    PROVO, Utah — For years, Kevin Jensen carried a pistol everywhere he went, tucked in a shoulder holster beneath his clothes.
    In hot weather the holster was almost unbearable. Pressed against his skin, the firearm was heavy and uncomfortable. Hiding the weapon made Kevin feel like a criminal.
    Then one evening he stumbled across a site that urged gun owners to do something revolutionary: Carry your gun openly for the world to see as you go about your business.
    In most states there’s no law against that.
    Kevin thought about it and decided to give it a try. A couple of days later, his gun was visible, dangling from a black holster strapped around his hip as he walked into a Costco. His heart raced as he ordered a Polish dog at the counter. No one called the police. No one stopped him.
    Now Kevin carries his Glock 23 openly into his bank, restaurants and shopping centers. He wore the gun to a Ron Paul rally. He and his wife, Clachelle, drop off their 5-yearold daughter at elementary school with pistols dangling from their hip holsters and have never received a complaint or a wary look.
    Kevin said he tries not to flaunt his gun. “We don’t want to show up and say, ‘Hey, we’re here, we’re armed, get used to it,’ ” he said.
    But he and others who publicly display their guns have a common purpose.
    The Jensens are part of a fl edgling movement to make a firearm as common an accessory as an iPod. Called open-carry by its supporters, the movement has attracted grandparents, graduate students and lifelong gun enthusiasts like Kevin and Clachelle.
    “What we’re trying to say is, ‘Hey, we’re normal people who carry guns,’ ” said Travis Devereaux, 36, of West Valley, a Salt Lake City suburb. Devereaux works for a credit card company and sometimes walks around town wearing a cowboy hat and packing a pistol in plain sight. “We want the public to understand it’s not just cops who can carry guns.”
    Police acknowledge the practice is legal, but some say it makes their lives tougher.
    Police Chief John Greiner recalled that last year in Ogden, Utah, a man was openly carrying a shotgun on the street. When officers pulled up to ask him about the gun, he started firing. Police killed the man.
    Greiner tells the story as a lesson for gun owners. “We’ve changed over the last 200 years from the days of the wild, wild west,” Greiner said. “Most people don’t openly carry. ... If [people] truly want to open carry, they ought to expect they’ll be challenged more until people become comfortable with it.”
IN THE OPEN
    Kevin and others argue that police shouldn’t judge the gun, but rather the actions of the person carrying it. Kevin, 28, isn’t opposed to attention, however. It’s part of the reason he brought his gun out in the open.
    “At first, [open carry] was a little novelty,” he said. “Then I realized the chances of me educating someone are bigger than ever using it [the gun] in self-defense. If it’s in my pants or under my shirt I’m probably not going to do anything with it.”
    As Clachelle pushed the shopping cart holding their two young children during a recent trip to Costco, Kevin admired the new holster wrapped around her waist. “I like the look of that low-rise gun belt,” he said.
    The Jensens’ pistols were snapped into holsters attached to black belts that hug their waists. Guns are a fact of life in their household. Their 5-year-old daughter, Sierra, has a child-sized .22 rifle she handles only in her parents’ presence.
    Clachelle is the daughter of a Central California police chief and began shooting when she was about Sierra’s age. She would take her parents’ gun when she went out, and hide it in her purse because the firearm made her feel safer.
    “I love ’em,” Clachelle said. “I wouldn’t ever be without them.”
    Kevin’s first encounter with guns came when he was 11. His grandfather died and left him a 16-gauge shotgun. The gun stayed locked away but fascinated Kevin through his teenage years. He convinced his older brother to take him shooting in the countryside near their home in a small town south of Salt Lake City.
    “I immediately fell in love with it,” said Kevin, a lean man with close-cropped hair and a precise gait that is a reminder of his fi ve years in the Army Reserve. “I like things that go boom.”
    Kevin kept as many as 10 guns in the couple’s 1930s-style bungalow in Santaquin, 21 miles south of Provo. In January 2005, he decided to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, mainly for self-defense.
    “I’m not going to hide in the corner of a school and mall and wait for the shooting to stop,” he said.
REGULATIONS
    When Kevin bought a Glock and the dealer threw in an external hip holster, he began researching the idea of carrying the gun in public and came upon opencarry.org.
    The Web site, run by two Virginia gun enthusiasts, claims 4,000 members nationwide. It summarizes the varying laws in each state that permit or forbid the practice. People everywhere have the right to prohibit weapons from their property and firearms are often banned in government buildings like courthouses.
    According to an analysis by Legal Community Against Violence, a gun control group in San Francisco that tracks gun laws, at least eight states largely prohibit it, including Iowa and New Jersey. Those that allow it have different restrictions: In California, people can openly carry only unloaded guns.
    Utah has no law prohibiting anyone from carrying a gun in public, as long as it is two steps from fi ring — for example, the weapon may have a loaded clip but must be uncocked, with no bullets in the chamber. Those who obtain a concealedweapons permit in Utah don’t have that restriction. Also, youths under 18 can carry a gun openly with parental approval and a supervising adult in close proximity.
RANGE OF REACTIONS
    Most of the time, people don’t notice Kevin’s gun. That’s not uncommon, said John Pierce, a law student and computer consultant in Virginia who is a co-founder of opencarry.org.
    “People are carrying pagers, Blackberries, cellphones,” Pierce said. “They see a black lump on your belt and their eyes slide off.”
    Sometimes the reactions are comical. Bill White, a 24-year-old graduate student in ancient languages at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wears his Colt pistol out in the open when he goes to his local Starbucks. Earlier this month a tourist from California spotted him and snapped a photo on his cellphone.
    “He said it would prove he was in
the wild west,” White recalled.
    But there are times when the response is more severe. Devereaux has been stopped several times by police, most memorably in December when he was walking around his neighborhood.
    An officer pulled up and pointed his gun at Devereaux, warning he would shoot to kill. In the end, eight officers arrived, cuffed Devereaux and took his gun before Devereaux convinced them they had no legal reason to detain him.

Quoted Text

Let's take gun control to another level
First published: Wednesday, June 11, 2008

It's about time we get real about gun control in our cities. If we can have sobriety checkpoints and now motorcycle checkpoints, why don't we have cops creating gun checkpoints? Have them create checkpoints in the city where the gun violence is running rampant.
Give the cops metal detectors and make people stop and get checked for guns. They are illegal and they are a lot worse than drunken drivers, and motorcyclists without the correct credentials. Let's get real here and start doing something about all these guns on our streets.
     
If it's legal to stop people driving a car down the street to see if they are drunk, why isn't it legal to stop people walking down the street to see if they have a gun? I'm sick of reading in the newspaper day after day about the gun violence and everyone is up in arms about stopping it. What is really being done -- a few protests where everyone is saying they want them off the streets, yet it's their families out there with them shooting up the streets like it's the Wild West.
Let's get real. Start stopping people and let's find out who is carrying guns and get them off our streets.
MARK ARRAS Schenectady

Quoted from Admin

http://www.timesunion.com

Quoted Text

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Quoted Text

Supreme Court's Gun Ban Decision Likely to Spark New Round of Court Battles

Thursday , June 26, 2008

WASHINGTON —

One of the first results of the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to overturn Washington, D.C.'s gun ban is likely be a legal onslaught by the National Rifle Association, which is gearing up for a nationwide campaign to make sure the court's decision is enforced.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told FOX News moments after the court struck down the 32-year-old ban on loaded weapons inside the homes of residents in the nation's capital that his group is targeting other localities that have blanket prohibitions on gun ownership.

"It's a great day," LaPierre said. "We're going to make sure this freedom is carried out.

LaPierre said that the first round of lawsuits will be in the suburbs of Chicago and San Francisco, where bans are in place. The NRA is going to see to it that "every American has equal access to guns," he said.

"The fact that it's an individual right, individuals all over the country have to get access to it. It cannot be walled off by the elite. So this is the opening salvo of a step-by-step process providing relief," he said.

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment grants an individual, not just a "well-regulated militia," the right to bear arms. The ruling reinforced the rights of marksman, hunters and others, even in crowded or high-crime cities, to keep a gun in his or her home. The long-anticipated decision was the high court's first explicit ruling on the Second Amendment in 127 years.

La Pierre likened the ruling to those that have upheld freedom of speech and the freedom to vote.

"You can't say you can vote in some parts of the country but not in others," he said. "Individual rights means individuals everywhere, and the NRA will not rest until individuals everywhere can exercise this freedom."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors restrictions on firearms, said the decision has set new parameters by reducing legal extremes — a ban inside the home on one side and unfettered access to firearms on the other. But it allows for reasonable restrictions.

"You can deal with middle-ground restrictions. ... We can enact common-sense measures to make it safe," he said, including banning assault weapons and closing a loophole that allows easier purchasing of weapons at gun shows.

The decision also made strange bedfellows of some Republicans and Democrats who frequently are on opposite sides on other issues.

Liberal Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold both praised the court's ruling. So did more centrist Democrat Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. Tester stood alongside conservative Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Orrin Hatch at a brief news conference outside the court that sits across from the Capitol.

"The Supreme Court has recognized the personal right to bear arms, guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and expressly held for the first time that our Bill of Rights includes this right among its guarantees of individual liberty and freedom. That is a good thing," said Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.

"I am very pleased the Supreme Court finally recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. This is an important decision for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Public safety must be ensured without depriving our citizens of their constitutional rights," Feingold, of Wisconsin, said.

"This is a great day for the country, for the Constitution, for the people to affirm the fact that we have a right to keep and bear arms, regardless of where you live, whether it's in rural Montana where I come from, or whether it's in Washington, D.C.," Tester said.

Hutchison, of Texas, led the effort to pen an amicus brief signed 300 lawmakers and submit it to the court. She called it "a clear opinion, and from this day forward the people of our country will have the right in any jurisdiction in America to protect themselves and their families in their homes, and that was our goal."

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, called the ruling "a resounding victory for the American people and sets a strong precedent that the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution may be regulated but cannot be extinguished by the law."

But the the court's ruling was cause for disappointment and alarm in other circles.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said the current in-home gun ban law will stand for 21 days until his administration creates emergency laws to comply with the court's ruling. But he said he does it reluctantly.

"As mayor of the District of Columbia, I think I speak for the near unanimous population here in this city when we say we're disappointed, we wish the ruling had gone the other way, but that we stand here and we respect the court's power to make this ruling and their deliberation that got them to this point," Fenty said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that her experience as a former mayor of San Francisco leads her to believe the court's decision will open the door to more, not less street violence. She also criticized the conservative members of the court, who she said did not follow the legal principle of "stare decisis," the Latin term for using earlier court decisions to strongly guide new opinions.

"I remember both (Chief) Justice (John) Roberts and Justice (Samuel) Alito sitting in front of us and indicating how they would respect 'stare decisis' and precedent — and this decision takes down 70 years of precedent," Feinstein said, referring to the two justices appointed by President Bush. "I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety."

She added: "I happen to believe that this is now going to open the door to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed — assault weapons bans, trigger locks and all the rest of it."

Feinstein said the court's decision, which also struck down a D.C. trigger lock requirement, is also faulty because those regulations prevent guns from being used by thieves or others who do not own the weapon.

Quoted Text

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that her experience as a former mayor of San Francisco leads her to believe the court's decision will open the door to more, not less street violence.

Quoted Text

CAPITAL REGION
Decision brings mixed reactions
BY CARI SCRIBNER Gazette Reporter

    Local reactions to the Supreme Court guns decision came swiftly Thursday, as many people stayed updated on the arguments leading up to the ruling via the Internet and television.
    Thoughts ranged from worries about violence to satisfaction about personal rights to concerns about future legal cases.
    “I’m really displeased,” Patricia Gioia of Schenectady, who is a member of the Brady Campaign against guns, said. “I respect the fact gun owners feel they have to have them, but there’s more chance for violence when people are harboring guns. Society has changed; now, when people fight, they don’t slap each other, they pull out a gun.”
    An employee at Accurate Arms and Ammo in Schenectady said he believes people supporting a ban on guns are not examining the issue as far as economics.
    “They have no idea what impact it would have on unemployment [to ban guns],” Tom DiBona said. “The steel and wood manufacturers would be out of business. They should think about this before they act.”
    DiBona also said he is opposed to the whole idea of people trying to force their ideals on others and background checks do a more than adequate job of controlling sales to potential criminals.
    “Our gun checks are thorough, there are so many federal checks in place and anything derogatory in a person’s background means they can’t buy a gun, and that’s it,” DiBona said.
    Albany Alderman Dominick Calsolaro, who wrote the legislation for the Gun Violence Task Force in Albany, said he’s concerned about the future ramifications of the decision.
    “This may very well lead to more court cases, and I think it opened a can of worms,” Calsolaro said. “California has a partial ban on weapons and now people may push it to the courts to interpret cases.”
    Calsolaro also said he has extensively researched historical stances on the rights of Americans to bear arms.
    “A lot of historians debate if those rights refer to individuals or groups, and most believe it did not apply to individuals,” Calsolaro said. “Now those rights are increasingly being applied to individuals, and that concerns me.”
    John Manger, of Zack’s Sports in Round Lake, said people should be allowed to make their own choices.
    “We live in