Streams

SCOTUS Ban Makes Waves

Monday, June 30, 2008

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision on the Washington DC handgun ban will have far-reaching effects. New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-8th) and State Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R-24th) discuss how the ruling may negatively affect New Jersey.

Guests:

Alison Littell McHose and Bill Pascrell

Comments [81]

Richard from Texas

I feel that as an honest and sane resident of the United States of America, I should have the right to own a gun of my choosing.
I do not and probably will not own a gun, but I still want to retain that right.

Jul. 06 2008 02:59 PM
Andy Bradshaw from New Jersey

In short, most murderers are hardened criminals not average folks who use guns in a moment of anger.

Banning handguns not only fails to stop violent criminals from committing crimes, but also denies law-abiding adults a critical means of self-defense.

Kudos for the Assemblywoman!

Jul. 01 2008 12:16 PM
Andy Bradshaw from New Jersey

The vast majority of individuals who commit homicide are not first-time offenders. Studies going back as far as the 1890s bear this out, including University of Colorado Sociology Professor Delbert S. Elliott's 2005 article published in the University of Colorado Law Review focusing on the National Youth Survey. Elliott found that "life-threatening criminals almost always have a long history of prior involvement in criminal behavior."

A 2005 study of Illinois arrests and felony convictions published by the Journal of the American Medical Association also found that homicide offenders from 1990-2001 were "certainly concentrated among individuals with a criminal record." And this included the Chicago Metropolitan area, where handguns have been banned since 1983.

In fact, people with criminal records committed ninety percent of New York City murders from 2003 through 2005, according to a New York Times survey. In Massachusetts, researchers at Harvard University's Kennedy School discovered that 95 percent of homicide offenders had been arraigned at least once in Massachusetts courts before committing murder. In Baltimore, policy records showed that 80 percent of murder suspects and 82 percent of victims in 2005 had criminal records as well.

Nationally studies reveal that roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have adult records, have an average crime "career" of six or more years, and have committed an average of four major felonies.

Jul. 01 2008 12:12 PM
Isaiah from Philadelphia

Assemblywoman McHose calls the assault weapon question "narrow." Clearly, she knows absolutely nothing about urban crime, and cares absolutely nothing about people who live in cities ridden with violence caused by "handguns" that are, in fact, assault weapons.

She states that gun laws don't affect the lawless. Really? Interesting that a week ago, the Inquirer reported the arrest of about a dozen straw buyers - people who purchased handguns legally and sold them illegally on the street.

As usual, the pro-gun lobby is uninformed at best; more likely it is clever, manipulative, and very, very greedy.

Jun. 30 2008 11:20 PM
Douglas from forest Hills, NY

Ok Ken,

You do know that there are stricter laws on running red lights, such as red light cameras. People still run red lights, right? Stricter handgun laws, yet people still shoot others with handguns. So according to you, we need to relax handgun laws, and allow people to carry. So, we need to relax red light laws and allow honest citizens the right to go through red lights or at least give us honest citizens the right to pull over and ticket the criminal.

Look at MOST of the handgun crimes that occur. Most of the times the shootings take place between criminals (inter gang warfare, criminal cheated another, etc), or between family members (beaten wife shoots husband). These are NOT the crime every republican gun toting 2nd Amendment spouting American THINKS occurs, which is the innocent homeowner being robbed in their own home at gun point.

How will having people have the right to carry willy nilly stop the shooting deaths of the two boys in NYC this past week? Dead by STRAY bullet.

You talk about upping enforcement, and that is EXACTLY what these laws are meant to do. EXACTLY what Mayor Bloomberg and other mayors are doing when they call for Southern Gun Shops to stop these sales. And yet Bloomberg and Co. gets bad mouthed and yelled at.

BE CONSISTENT, for crying out loud.

Jun. 30 2008 02:07 PM
Ken from Edison, NJ

Ayana, I agree with you 100%. Perhaps when we can't contain such an obviously mentally disturbed individual, it's time to look at how far astray we've gone with worrying about the rights of the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists... versus the good of the society at large.
Now if a few of the Professors at Virginia Tech had been allowed to posess a weapon on school grounds, (gun, tazer, mace?), I wonder how differently that story would have turned out.

Jun. 30 2008 12:25 PM
Ken from Edison, NJ

Sorry Douglas, but you don't seem to get it either. The laws that exist should be enforced. To place new and tighter controls on gun ownership do nothing to stop the criminal who doesn't respect the law. As to speeding, running red lights, etc. There are already laws in place to cover these things. When they are enforced they work. I'm sure you slow down when you see a Policeman on the highway. Most people stop when they see a red light. These are law abiding people. The CRIMINAL who we see running from the police, speeding and busting red lights is a CRIMINAL who flaunts the law. There is a world of difference there. You can make whatever laws you want, it's the enforcing of these laws that makes a difference. In Vermont where a resident WHO IS NOT A CRIMINAL may legally buy, own and carry a gun without any sort of permit, they vigorously enforce the laws that prohibit criminals from possessing guns, and allow the law abiding citizens to own, and even carry concealed weapons if they wish. THEY ALSO HAVE THE SECOND LOWEST VIOLENT CRIME RATE IN THE NATION!!

Jun. 30 2008 12:19 PM
Arlene from Westfield NJ

Look at who we do allow & train to carry hand guns in our society -- police.
The review of the Sean Bell case said that NYC officers are not trained enough in those types of situations. If we do not yet adequately train our police force, how can we accept the argument that citizens licensed to carry guns for self defense will be adequately trained. Any situation where one thinks a gun will help will be confusing, emotionally charged & frightening -- true for a police officer or a citizen.

Jun. 30 2008 12:13 PM
Haddon from New Jersey

I'm a full-time sworn police officer in New Jersey. The SCOTUS ruling is a good thing for the country . Here are some bullet points:
Law-abiding citizens with proper licensing and training should be able to own and carry firearms for self-defense. This will not increase the crime rate.

"Smart" guns are a long way off from being viable.

Ammunition "barcoding" is not feasible.

Machine guns, rockets and the like have been controlled by the federal government since 1968 and should not be part of this discussion.

The frequency of violent home invasions is of little comfort if you are one of the victims.

Screaming, throwing stars, etc, are not effective self-defense measures.

By all means call 911 when someone is kicking in your door. We probably won't get there in time.

Far more children die each year from bike and pool accidents than guns. Teach your kids to swim and road safety.

Bottom line: If you don't feel the need to own a gun, please don't. But don't stand in the way of those who do.

Jun. 30 2008 12:08 PM
Ayanna from Brooklyn, NY

I think legal gun owners who are buying guns for hunting or self-protection should have to pass a gun safety test, in the same way drivers have to pass written, sight and driving tests before getting a drivers' license.

Also, something is wrong with the system when someone like that kid at Virginia Tech can buy a gun. Crazy people should not be allowed to own guns.

Jun. 30 2008 12:06 PM
Douglas from forest Hills, NY

Ken,

That argument is completely invalid.

The laws pertaining to speeding are broken all the time, so all speeding laws do is restrict how fast the honest driver can go, and so in your argument, we should have no speeding laws.

The laws against running red lights are broken all the time, and the current laws simply restrict the honest driver as to what intersections they can cross and when, so we shouldn't have them either, right?

There are laws against polluting the potable water supply, and yet look at how many companies do it AND how little the fines are against the companies and how no one even goes to jail....SOooooo....we should just get rid of them right? Because people do these things illegally anyway?

After all what if I NEED to run the red light b/c my wife is pregnant and in labor, then I should be able to, right? It's really just a caution other cars crossing sign after all...

Jun. 30 2008 12:01 PM
Nora Freeman from Port Chester, NY

This may be a bit off topic, as strictly defined, but there is now research out [UC- Davis, winter 1998 issue] questioning the true intent behind the 2nd Amendment. Specifically, an article titled "Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment" states that the purpose of the "militia" as referenced in the amendment really has to do with slave control, not the people rising up against tyranny of any government. According to the article, those founding fathers who favored passage of the Constitution had been able to secure 8 of the 9 state ratifications, but the last one was proving to be difficult. Virginia appeared to be where their chances were best, but even there it was not at all certain. The sticking point was apparently fear on the part of VA slaveholders that the Northern states would attempt to abolish slavery by taking away the slaveholders' ability to put down slave revolts; therefore, James Madison placated them with the coded language of what we now know as the 2nd Amendment.

As I admitted at the beginning of this post, this may be somewhat off the topic of your segment on the effect in New Jersey of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the D.C. handguns ban. I bring it up anyway because it bears on the frequently invoked image of the [armed] outraged citizenry rising up etc. If people are going to go back to "original intent" of the founding fathers that is what they really need to own up to.

Jun. 30 2008 11:59 AM
Ken from Edison, NJ

I can't get over the lack of understanding by the anti-gun camp, of a basic fact. The gun laws in this country, ESPECIALLY New Jersey and New York are already extremely tight, but the criminals that use guns DON'T FOLLOW the rules, or obey the laws, (hence the criminal label). So all we end up doing by restricting gun ownership is to make the honest citizen an easier target for the criminal.

Jun. 30 2008 11:50 AM
Susan

I don't buy her argument about the smart gun. If that were truly a problem, that the gun would not fire in any other's hands but the husbands-- wouldn't a smart couple get a gun for him and for her if his was useless in her hands?

DeHose's argument is bunk.

Jun. 30 2008 11:49 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey


You also have to figure: What about people who are buddy buddy with the cops? They already get off for drunk driving...

My uncle was a police captain in Brazil. After he'd retired and no longer had the same leeway as an off-duty cop would, he got into a car accident. The woman in the other car was badly injured and had to be rushed to the hospital. My uncle stayed on the scene of the accident and the woman's husband showed up and started screaming and made an inappropriate remark. My uncle went to the back of his pick-up, took out his rifle and stuck it in the chest of the man. Now, if he'd pulled the trigger, he would've killed him in cold blood essentially for calling him a bad word. But one could technically argue that that man's belligerence presented a life-or-death threat. And with the right to fire a gun in public, the police would be be given a free pass to look the other way on it.

Jun. 30 2008 11:48 AM
Douglas from forest Hills, NY

AB, All I can say is that subway musicians, the
recently homeless, and the kids selling candy would go away realllllll fast.....

Jun. 30 2008 11:45 AM
ab

#58

Good point

Plus how many more incidents like that wuld there be.

There are some days when I'm trying to get to work and the MTA pulls it's usual crap and the trains are messed up,etc when I get very annoyed

Can you imagine a bunch of people carrying guns, locked in a sardine can, angry and frustrated.....

Jun. 30 2008 11:41 AM
Douglas from forest Hills, NY

Paulo, this is the argument going on in Texas concerning the King and Castle law saying that all homeowners and car owners have the right to shoot to kill first anyone they deem is a threat to themselves in their home or car.

What happened was that a guy saw his neighbors house being broken into, called the police, then told the 911 operator he was going to shoot the robbers.

Despite repeated orders to do nothing by the operator, the caller went outside, told the robbers they are going to die, and shot both of them pretty much point blank with his shotgun.

In every other state, that would be cold blooded murder, but in Texas, it's called protecting your home or in this case, your neighbors home.

And so now the fate of the homeowner lies in the hands of a grand jury and people are waiting to hear what's going to happen with the law.

Jun. 30 2008 11:41 AM
J.C. from Minneapolis

I would like to know if Iraq would be safer if only the populace had more guns.

Jun. 30 2008 11:40 AM
World's Toughest Milkman from the_C_train

And thus proves the constitution as an outdated document in regards to the second amendment, we no longer have a militia.

The biggest problem with gun laws and control is the utter inconsistency between states which is why they get "trafficked" to urban areas from the South. This law as well as many need to be federally enforced, but I guess if we look at how well they handle immigration then we'd be infiltrated.

Jun. 30 2008 11:39 AM
bkershnar

Another comment on the smart-gun issue: Regarding the Assemblywoman's example, if the gun is registered to the husband wouldn't the wife also have to be registered and have a license to fire the gun legally? Can there be dual registrations or "owners" of a single fiream? Also, I agree about the feasibility of the technology as people are already using similar biometric tech. If she wanted to be a "recognized" user of the smart-gun, then it would be as easy as obtaining a gun license, same as her husband, no?

Jun. 30 2008 11:39 AM
Ayanna from Brooklyn, NY

Where did they get this woman? She is really scary.

Jun. 30 2008 11:39 AM
Pablo Alto from Riverdale but work in Manhattan...

America needs more guns and more gas.

Let's combine the two. Give guns to everyone that wants one and send 'em off to the Middle East so we can grab us some oil...wait a minute, we're already doing that? Dang!

Seriously, haven't we evolved at all from the days when everyone had to carry a loaded sidearm? Apparently not. Very sad.

Jun. 30 2008 11:38 AM
Lou S from central NJ

Even trained police sometimes panic and kill innocent people. If everyone had a gun, I would be much more afraid of being hurt by a random neighbor than I am now of being hurt by a criminal.

Remember that person who shot a bunch of people on an LIRR (?) train? Poster case for gun advocates: if everyone had a gun someone would have shot him. But how many people would have died from missaimed bullets had a dozen people opened fire on the shooter?

Jun. 30 2008 11:37 AM
ab

#39

Exactly.

She pointed out that the constitution said "men".

Why is it that these right-wing wackjobs are "strict constitutionalists" (i.e. literalists) when it suits them and then when it doesn't they advocate for an interpretation that fits whaever their view is.

By her logic really then every MAN should be allowed to have a gun and carry it in public and women should not (if we're going to be "strict constitutionalists here). So her own logic kills her own cause. Love it.

She was an idiot, Brian...you need more intelligent guests.

Jun. 30 2008 11:37 AM
Harry from NYC

Harvey Jones #43
Many of the in organized crime serve in the New Jersey legislature. No wonder they don't want the people to have guns!

Jun. 30 2008 11:36 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

Well, if you give everyone the right to carry guns on the street without having the right to fire them, then that's silly. If you give them the right to fire them, what are the criteria for firing them? Does the person you shoot have to be clearly carrying a weapon? Appear to be carrying a weapon?

If you're wrong, can you be held criminally responsible? If you miss and hit an innocent bystander, are you criminally responsible?

Jun. 30 2008 11:36 AM
chris o from New York City

I know and like Bill Pascrell from his memorable interview with Stephen Colbert. Check it out here when the BL show is over:
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=50035

Jun. 30 2008 11:35 AM
Bill from New York, NY

Hey harry, link us to that research.

Jun. 30 2008 11:35 AM
Maldo from Manhattan

Can you imagine people having concealed weapons on the subway? It would be a bloodbath every day.

Jun. 30 2008 11:35 AM
larry Jackson from Elizabeth

Why would WYNC let a rural legislator whose constituents are largely 'rural types' (fill in your own blanks), argue that having a gun in your home is a good thing to a largely metropolitan audience? Just seems they could have gotten someone a bit more relevant and less 'hick'y to argue that point, unless she's the best they could do?

Jun. 30 2008 11:34 AM
Rachel from Queens

The debate over gun control seems to have no right answers, and there are strong arguments on both side of the fence. However, since the Supreme Court ruling last Friday, neither side has mentioned that gun control laws in the United States target and disarm African Americans.

Pro-gun advocates always frame their arguments for the individual protection of whites, and I have seen no comments from the gun control side of the debate advocating disarming hunters, Civil War re-enactors or neo-nazi's. Instead gun control laws are slated against poor, urban African American men, who proportionately commit less crimes than whites yet are arrested and incarserated at higher rates.

Jun. 30 2008 11:34 AM
Harry from NYC

Bill Pascrell is obviously oblivious to the research proving craime goes down in areas where gun ownership and carrying goes up. He should rather concern himself with the corrupt New Jersey legislature unwilling to control the cost of state government!

Jun. 30 2008 11:34 AM
Micheal from UES

ok Assemblywoman.. you can have your guns but you wil have to wear a monitor that tracks your movements 24/7 as well as a reporting device that tracks the gun and its usage 24/7

Jun. 30 2008 11:33 AM
Susan

Assemblyman McHose should live in one of these crime -ridden, economically depressed urban areas that she's claiming they should allow to carry concealed weapons. We'll see how she feels about guns then.

Jun. 30 2008 11:33 AM
ab

So this woman wants everybody to carrya gun around in public concealed funny how she was reluctant to say that directly...is it because she knows it makes her sound like a radical crackpot?

Jun. 30 2008 11:32 AM
birder1

that lady is a fucking nut job.

Jun. 30 2008 11:32 AM
sarah from Williamsburg

two words...

ROAD RAGE

Jun. 30 2008 11:32 AM
Harvey Jones from West New York, NJ

Unfortunately, NJ has had a long history of individuals who have been associated with "mob" crime families. We know people have always had hand guns, now legally?
The assemblywoman wants concealed weapons, hum what "family" is she associated with?

Jun. 30 2008 11:31 AM
justin from Manhattan

Quite frankly Brian, you should vet your guests better. This woman is not of the quality that I have come to expect from your show, quite frankly. Please don't have her back.

Jun. 30 2008 11:31 AM
darius from brooklyn

I agree with chris o! More spudrays!

Jun. 30 2008 11:30 AM
Sean from Brooklyn

Wow the wild west... So who is going to provide the training.

Jun. 30 2008 11:30 AM
Douglas from forest Hills, NY

Oh wait congress woman, so now you are saying that WOMEN aren't allowed to have weapons since it's not in the constitution?

Get your story straight.

Jun. 30 2008 11:30 AM
Bill from New York, NY

I second what was said above about the relative occurrence of home invasion versus random gun crimes on the street. Empirical data ought to trump paranoia.

Jun. 30 2008 11:29 AM
Douglas from forest Hills, NY

The Right To Bear Arms doesn't say

The Right To Own Semi and Full Automatic Assault Rifles, M-60 Heave Machine Guns, A 500 BULLET PER MINUTE Chain/Gatling Gun, or anything else besides a simple hunting rifle and a simple handgun.

You REALLY need to own 5 handguns, 7 rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammunition?

The founding fathers didn't have heavy weapons.

And aren't you supposed to be in a Militia?

Jun. 30 2008 11:29 AM
hjs from 11211

what if your child gets shot by your gun

Jun. 30 2008 11:28 AM
humbug

ask assemblywoman whether she owns a gun

Jun. 30 2008 11:27 AM
Zak from Brooklyn, NY

Congresswoman: Are you aware of how rarely one protects him or, as you keep arguing, HERself with a handgun? Are you aware of how often there are mishaps with guns in the home? Also, to have a gun handy for self-protection, it should be loaded at at the ready, right? B/c if the ammo's locked up in one cabinet and the gun in another? So then...to PROTECT ourselves...we SHOULD keep loaded guns right on hand. Where our children can find them? Well, to protect our kids, we should have them locked up. But we can't protect ourselves then...ahh...my head is spinning. Why not just not have the darn things?

Jun. 30 2008 11:27 AM
Bill from Wharton

It seems from the ruling that it may give more forse to the argument to do all background checks since the only way to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, scalia even said that the ruling does not mean that criminals can have guns, how else can you stop the spread to criminals except by checks.

Jun. 30 2008 11:27 AM
anthony clune from Brooklyn

There are thousands of ways to stay SAFE other than wielding a firearm. Bear spray, a knife, a loud scream, a baseball bat, a telephone (911), throwing stars, sturdy locks.

Most home invaders are probably non-violent drug addicts. Petty thieves.

Here in NYC we have seen that even law enforcement officers fire weapons when they should not.

I do not want untrained civilians wielding guns in my city.

Jun. 30 2008 11:27 AM
Jeff H from Lincoln, Nebraska

As a computer programmer, there is no reason that multiple users couldn't be recognized by the gun allowing specific users to fire the gun while preventing unregistered users from doing so.

Jun. 30 2008 11:27 AM
chris o from New York City

We should ban guns and distribute spudrays to the populace.

Jun. 30 2008 11:26 AM
Liz from brooklyn

You keep saying let her finish when she has dominated the conversation.

Jun. 30 2008 11:26 AM
Douglas from forest Hills, NY

And then when the smart gun technology becomes feasible and then they decide NOT to use them, and the gun owners child blows their friend or them self away....

you think the family wouldn't sue the state saying if we only had the smart technology in place?

you think people wouldn't call the family troubled that they had a kid and didn't do enough to keep the child away from the gun?

And before you say it wouldn't happen or that people lock up their guns, no, they don't. Just listen to the news in a given month.

Jun. 30 2008 11:25 AM
Sean from Brooklyn

Does this congress women even know how to fire a gun?

Jun. 30 2008 11:25 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey


"That would defeat the purpose"?? So the husband will register the rapist and murder to use the gun as well?

Yes, you don't know enough about the technology... therefore you shouldn't be taking an opinion on it.

Jun. 30 2008 11:25 AM
Micheal from UES

again I think we need ammunition control, registration and trace marks on all bullets

Jun. 30 2008 11:24 AM
Liz from brooklyn

She doesn't know is the point!!!

Jun. 30 2008 11:24 AM
Alex from Manhattan

New Jersey's gun laws have done a HORRIBLE job protecting the citizens of New Jersey. Simple question: how many of the murders commited in New Jersey were done with legally bought and legally owned firearms?

Jun. 30 2008 11:23 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

The regulation should really be coming down more on the lines of the production process than the on the consumer and owner side.

Jun. 30 2008 11:23 AM
Sean from Brooklyn

Smart gun tech can include anyone who the owner allows to fire the gun it not a one trick pony.

Jun. 30 2008 11:22 AM
Bill from New York, NY

That's a straw man. Who's to say the gun can't be designed to recognize multiple owners?

Jun. 30 2008 11:22 AM
darius from brooklyn

The "argument" against the Smart Gun law is ridiculous

Jun. 30 2008 11:22 AM
Sean from Brooklyn

How is a fire arm a safety tool. Sounds ignorant to me. I mean if the first thing we do is jump for a fire arm. I want to know if this person even has the ability to fire a gun.

Jun. 30 2008 11:20 AM
NC from NYC

As a single woman who lives alone, having a gun will not make me feel any safer.

Jun. 30 2008 11:18 AM
chris o from New York City

Go Pascrell! Give 'er hell! She is lame, unwilling to take a position on assault weapons, calling a gun a safety device like a fire extinguisher. I guess you could use a fire exintguisher to bash someone over the head.

Jun. 30 2008 11:18 AM
Michael DuBick from Brooklyn, NY

All of this talk about having a gun to protect yourself in your home is a canard. Is there any data supporting the idea that people are victims of home intrusions? To what extent have such crimes occured? There seems a much higher incidence of random gun violence, street crime, etc., that has nothing to do with this notion of personal protection.

Jun. 30 2008 11:17 AM
JG from New York, NY

An important missing piece of Brian's conversation is that the Court has not decided whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Not all of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, and the Second Amendment is a decent candidate for a right that applies only to federal activities (as with the DC ban). Why? Because the purpose of the right was to permit the states to raise militias and prevent federal tyranny. There's a decent argument that it should not therefore apply to state regulation.

Jun. 30 2008 11:17 AM
Sherman L. Greene from Manhattan

What a waste of air time!

Jun. 30 2008 11:16 AM
darius from brooklyn

Stats for 2005 and 2006 were given as evidence but Brian asked about the trend since the early 90s. Everyone knows that you have to look at trends, so I hope that he or his guests makes a mention of the actual trend.

Jun. 30 2008 11:14 AM
chris o from New York City

I would feel more empowered with an anti-tank missile.

Jun. 30 2008 11:09 AM
chris o from New York City

Guns empower women. Yeah, let's all get empowered!

Jun. 30 2008 11:09 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey


Harry,

My argument is that the language in the Constitution is fairly clear on the Second Amendment and pro-gun people try to muddy the waters by parsing the language of the 2nd Amendment in a way that is not rational in order to conform with their ideology.

I believe in the right to own guns. I said that at the outset. But I also favor a flexible interpretation of a document that's two hundred years old.

My point was that conservative judges are strict constructionists when its convenient. Scalia is a classic example. He will essentially take a position on an amendment when it conforms to his ideology and then completely flip the argument when the decision would result in something other than his ideology winning.

Like I said, he suddenly considers historical context to be extremely important and has rejected historical context and precedents as being relevant. He did this because going based on the language of the Constitution alone, it's very hard to make a case for gun rights that are not attached to the militia.

Jun. 30 2008 10:32 AM
norman from nyc

Nader told you that the Democratic and Republican parties are the 2 parts of the same oligopoly.

As the caller Susie said, there's a long list of fundamental issues that Obama is on the non-progressive side of.

Another one is the privatization of public housing. This list doesn't allow urls, but you can search Google for the boston.com article, "Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy; the candidate endorsed subsidies for private entrepreneurs to build low-income units," by Binyamin Appelbaum. Basically, Obama destroyed public housing in Chicago and handed Federal money to his law firm partners, friends and campaign contributors, who built (and abandoned) tax-subsidized private projects in their place, and were even more incompetent than the government projects.

It's Bush-grade anti-government privatization and corruption.

Jun. 30 2008 10:26 AM
Harry from NYC

Paulo you are hilarious. You decided that support of an enumerated explicit right is judicial activism but ethereal and subjective ideas about "privacy" in every case are found somewhere in the 4th amendment See: Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
Yet many liberals are all to happy to agree with the liberal Justices that private property rights are subject to local political discretion as in Kelo...
Hahaha your duplicity make me laugh

Jun. 30 2008 10:24 AM
mc from Brooklyn

Obama has for the most part been a consistent careful middle of the road Dem partisan.
1. He was against the death penalty before he was for it.

2. He voted against reforming the 1872 mining act so that mining companies can continue to extract from federal land without paying royalties.

3. He opposed HR 676 the universal health care bill in 2006.

4. He was in favor of the Class Action Fairness Act which actually made it harder to bring class action lawsuits to state courts where plaintiffs would normally have a more sympathetic hearing.

Any "progressive" who is disappointed in him has not been paying close attention.

Jun. 30 2008 10:18 AM
Micheal from UES

we have the right to own a gun
but that does not mean that ammunition cannot be strictly controlled. I am for bullet control. Start bar codeing and registering ammunition.

Jun. 30 2008 10:13 AM
Ralph from brooklyn

Is it me, but it seems that Brian is on a crusade to bring down Obama!!!

Jun. 30 2008 10:10 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey


I support gun rights, but the Supreme Court decision basically shows how in spite of their claims to be "strict constructionists", the conservative members of the Court clearly put ideology ahead of constitutionality. It also shows how "judicial activism" works both ways.

Gun advocates have tried to parse the language of the 2nd Amendment in such a way to make us believe that the Founding Fathers would treat a clearly dependent clause as a completely independent thought. They started writing, stopped in mid-sentence and then started a completely different line of thought. It's absurd but that's exactly what the Court is claiming.

And its also wonderful how the idea of a "historical narrative" suddenly matters in this case, but when it comes to privacy rights, historical narrative and historically assumed rights are completely irrelevant.

Jun. 30 2008 10:09 AM
Tara from New York, NY

I am in support of the Supreme court ruling. The arguments that should be happening now are in regard to regulation of ownership and sale, which in my opinion should exist. To make handguns illegal has no effect on criminal use. If a person is going to break the law by robbing, shooting or killing with a handgun then obviously they are not going to abide by any kind of handgun law. To believe otherwise is ridiculous!If you're a criminal that pretty much means you are not going to respect the law, right? Or am I missing something?

Jun. 30 2008 10:03 AM
Harry from NYC

This decision will have just about zero effect on New Jersey residents. The "For what use?" question on firearms applications was removed in the early 1990's. New Jersey should be the model for gun transfer and ownership nationwide. The only feature that needs to be added is a training requirement for new gun owners. NYC on the other the other hand may need to liberalize their treatment of prospective gun owners.

Jun. 30 2008 09:49 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.