**OT - Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide - OT **

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide
By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer
June 28, 2010

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statutes eventually would fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens, in his final day on the bench after more than 34 years, said that unlike the Washington case, Monday's decision "could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation's communities and to our constitutional structure."

The ruling seemed unlikely to resolve questions and ongoing legal challenges about precisely what sort of gun control laws are permissible.

The response of the District to the court's ruling in 2008 is illustrative of the uncertainty.

Local lawmakers in Washington, D.C. imposed a series of regulations on handgun ownership, including requirements to register weapons and to submit to a multiple-choice test, fingerprinting and a ballistics test. Owners must also show they have gotten classroom instruction on handling a gun and have spent at least an hour on the firing range. Some 800 people have now registered handguns in the city.

Anticipating a similar result in their case, Chicago lawmakers are looking at even more stringent regulations.

But the new regulations themselves are likely to themselves be the subject of lawsuits, a fact noted by the dissenting justices Monday. Already in Washington, Heller, the plaintiff in the original case before the Supreme Court, has sued the city over its new laws.

Heller argues that the stringent restrictions violate the intent of the high court's decision. So far a federal judge has upheld the limitations, but the case has been appealed.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said his politically powerful group "will continue to work at every level to insure that defiant city councils and cynical politicians do not transform this constitutional victory into a practical defeat through Byzantine regulations and restrictions."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent proponent of gun control, said the ruling allows cities "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens."

-30-

First, "Heller", now "McDonald": two Twenty-First Century American Heroes!

 

Good Post!

However, Bloomberg was singing a different tune this other day when he tried to bring the matter before some UN World Court. Now he is trying to save face with this backspin, but WE know him for what he is...

 

While this won't change much for me (since I live in a state that doesn't limit my 2nd amendment rights as a state resident, though they have no reciprocity with other states CHL's), it is good news in general to know that cities like Chicago can't get away with bans anymore.

Now if only we can get the 50 state CHL going on, I'll be a happy camper.

 

You and me both.... In MD it is almost impossible to get a CHL... It was not sweat in VA... VA has reciprocity with A LOT of states... MD won't recognize them however... Neither will DC...

 

The `District of Criminals' won't even recognize they got their "butts kicked" in `District of Columbia, et al. v. Anthony Heller'.

 

What is it about guns that make you want to have one (I'm just intrigued), apart from living in the outback and having dangerous wildlife around?

This isn't any US bashing, I'm just intrigued...

 

There is no "simple" answer to this one, and I am sure that most every member here can give you his/her own reason, but here are a few just off the top of my head:

In the woods - to hunt game for sport, to hunt game for food (or both at the same time, protection from animals that want to hunt you, protection from other human "animals" that may want to hunt you.

At the range - competitive shooting against others or just yourself, improving your skills with any particular weapon, just having fun!

At home - to protect what is yours including your family and your home, remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away, this is especially true after a natural disaster such as hurricane or tornado when there are never enough law enforcement personnel and there are looters at the door

On your person - to protect yourself and your loved ones, to intervene (only in dire circumstances) to protect others if attacked

I think you get the idea as these are only a few of many more...

 

You only need to get mugged once.

Since I got that out of the way long ago, now I carry a Glock G19 in my pants.

Everything else I've got is for sport/recreational/home defense use.

 

you can never have too many tools, too many toughbooks, or too many guns.......Driller

 

I live in one of those neighborhoods that have gotten progressively worse in the past few years..

One night at about 1am, someone was pounding on our front door asking for help. Expecting that "something" was probably amiss, I grabbed my trusty cold steel knife and answered the door.

On my porch was a guy rolling around, I figured he was a drunk from the bar down the street.

I asked him what he needed, he responded that he was shot.

So I checked, yep.. twice.. with one going through a lung, had I know at that time he was the bad guy, I'd have rolled him off my porch into the bushes.

Apparently, he was pistol whipping one of his cousins in a house around the corner when someone grabbed the gun away and plugged him.

Now that I have a little girl, even though I don't have my H&K pistol anymore, I really need to get something to make sure she's safe..

Granted, my knife would work, but it takes alot more "finesse" to win a gun vs knife fight, any of our combat vets here can attest to that.

Plus, I don't have to worry about staining the floors with blood if I eliminate the problem at a distance, preferably in the grass..

 

Good answer!

Personally I am not a hunter as I can go down and buy a steak at the store... But it is nice to know I have the tools if needed. I used to shoot on a regular basis at various ranges and am a very good shot. There is definitely a testosterone release when doing this. Like smoking a cig after ...

I have a great alarm system in my house... I doubt anyone could get by it... But I also have a few guns hidden around the house in case of a home invasion or similar. If someone breaks into my house and I am home (or my wife is)... I am not going to stop and ask them what they want. They would not be able to answer anyway as they would already have been shot. I take my personal property and safety very seriously... If you attempt to do harm to me, my family or my property you will pay.

Perhaps it all has to do with where/how you are raised and the geographical location. Those in the sticks are hunters by nature... Those in the larger cities, not so much.... As said... It's different for just about everyone.

 

"I take my personal property and safety very seriously... If you attempt to do harm to me, my family or my property you will pay."
Agreed...
I won't call the cops... the coroner yes..

 

last friday came into satellite office at 6:20 am, my office and the med clinic had both been broken into and trashed, looking for drugs and cash. they don't allow weapons into the building so I wasn't armed to the "teeth"( pun intended) as I probably would have been at my main office. this is the third or fourth time for me with this sort of thing. rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. looks more like we may have to do more than just stand up for our rights if this gets more common place.......Driller

 

Whats allowed and whats known are two different things.

Even if you have to carry "dirty".. if something happens, better to have the fine or penalty to the state than to pay the reaper with your life or that of a loved one.

 

Q: "What is a `Neoconservative'?"

A: "A Liberal that just got mugged!"

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
`Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin' (1818)
-By Benjamin Franklin, William Temple Franklin

 

been mugged shot at three times robbed once, never go through another divorce again!.....Driller

 

bwahahahahahaha!

 

I'll even deliver the body to the coroner myself. I've got the appropriate vehicle

I was always a fan of guns before that happened (I was mugged when I was 18, so handguns weren't an option for me yet), and I'm one of those crazy libertarians you always hear about. I even have words spoken by Patrick Henry tattooed on my arm.

 

So basically, most of the points revolve around self-defence of some kind. I can understand that when you live out in the country and the police are some way away.

I don't think I've ever seen a gun in real life, let alone held/fired one!

 

"When seconds count the police are only minutes away"; no matter where you live!

 

The police were originally designed to enforce the law and bring criminals to justice. That was pretty much it. As this can be an intermittent job, some politico along the way thought that they could also be utilized to provide security services to their provide respective jurisdictions.

This is pure fantasy. It my last patrol position I one time figured out that given the population, divided by the number of man hours my department worked in a week, we had less then a second a night per citizen to provide "security." Of course this would require the miracle of instantaneous travel. No honest police officer with a half a brain will try to tell you that this can be accomplished and no reasonably intelligent man would believe it.

My family is armed when I am not home because I know that the officers that patrol my area are unlikely to be able to intercede during the commission of a violent crime in time to protect them. That should tell you something.

But if not, find out what the average response time for an emergency response is in your jurisdiction, if it is less then 10 minutes, you are very lucky! Mine is frequently over a half hour!

Now as I have said ten minutes is pretty fast, but it can seem like a long time when a crackhead with a piece of pipe is working on changing the shape of your head.

 

My local police will apparently be on the scene within 15 minutes of an grade 1 emergency call 90% of the time (although I'm 27 and never had to ring the police).

Yeah I can understand the point about somebody attacking your family, it's just a somewhat alien concept to me to have guns (hence the original question). The risk of violent crime is so low here, that I'm more worried about getting into fisticuffs with a drunk person when I go out drinking in town then I am about having a situation anywhere else. Anytime someone gets shot, no matter who it is, it pretty much makes national news.

 

"Call for the police, then call for a pizza; see which one arrives first." --Unknown Victim

 

Stop getting your knickers in a twist!

Different cultures, different crime trends means we have different ways of dealing with crime. Having no guns is no better or worse then you guys having a profligeration of guns.

 

Since I have no idea from which country you are posting, all I can say is that here in the U.S. the courts have ruled time and time again that the police have "no duty to protect any single individual."

See:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of App., 1981)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 855 F.2d 1421, 57 USLW 2136
Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F.Supp.1521 (D.Conn. 1984)
Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)
McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, 877 F.2d409 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct.727 (1990)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of App. 1983)
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of App. 1977)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.)
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969)
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)

as a few examples.

Your opinion; it's a "minority opinion" here in the U.S.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
`Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin' (1818)
--by Benjamin Franklin, William Temple Franklin

 

I don't think anyone is upset, but as two law enforcement professionals we may have an insight into the problem that you don't. And yes, I have policed in other places then then the USA.

On the other hand, if you are happy with your system, I am happy for you! We have many folks here that never need to call the police as well, but what does that really mean?

Surveys have consistently shown that people that are murdered, have never been murdered before...

Our Founding Fathers did not include our 2nd Amendment for hunting, target shooting or even as a deterrent to crime. They did so as another measure to keep our government honest.

Besides we are very aquinted with what you are saying, most of us have had the exsperence here of not having a gun, you on the other hand don't seem to have ever had the exsperence of being armed or shooting.

 

Apologies if I read it wrong, but it's hard to gauge opinion when the chat is in text!

I live in England, which probably tells you all you need to know about the gun laws. I know of the second amendment, and the pros and cons of being armed - the sole point I was trying to convey to TopCop is that while your culture of policing and being armed at home works great for you (and I am in no position to argue otherwise), our culture of no guns at all here works great for us as well.

Lol on the surveys shown bit - reminds me of a newspaper headline I saw once: "Tornado rips through cemetary, hundreds dead". Morbidly amusing.

 

Pinecone, if you get a chance, check out crime statistics for the UK going back 10-15 years. Look at how the near total loss of guns (which wasn't that long ago) affected the violent crime rate. Also, check out the same for any country (Australia for instance) that did the same and their stats. Yes, you will send a few "trends". Compare that to the stats here in the US as the laws in recent years have been relaxed concerning concealed carry. While the liberals say one thing, the stats show something completely different. Having guns is not the problem, it's who has them and more importantly who doesn't have them that decides in what direction the crime rate will go. The results can be quite eye opening to those that assumed (not saying you have or not), that having guns in the first place is the root of the problem.

 

Crime stats here show a slight rise in crime involving firearms, but I wouldn't say it's a significant amount (in 2005/6 there were apprently 50 firearms murders, which equates to 0.1 deaths from firearms per 100,000 of population).

Most violent crime involves knives rather then guns here, but it's difficult to kill someone at 5 metres with a knife! As you say, having guns isn't the root cause of the issue, it's what people do with them, but the problem is exacerbated by the sheer ease of killing someone with a gun, especially if you are one chip short of a happy meal.

 

Wow Pinecone, I must say that I am surprised to hear that you are in the UK, and at the same time feel so safe. Some figures now put violent crime at 5 times the rate of the US and the worst in Europe.

There are several interesting articles to support this... and just so I don't just use sources from this side of the pond here is a bit from the Daily Mail.

Now this could be attributable to many things, but you must forgive us Colonials who suspect that it may have something to do with your government taking firearms away from its folks. You see here we have found that cities with the lowest percentage of firearms ownership, like Washington DC, have some of the highest crime.

These gun confiscations were also problematic for the UK during WWII when the there were barely enough firearms there for your war effort. Our own NRA formed "The American Committee For Defense Of British Homes" to answer Britain's call for firearms for use by your Homeguard and such. Plus of course there was the government/military effort with the Lend-Lease Program.

I have also had the pleasure of working with cops from the United Kingdom during the 1996 Olympics and then when over and did “ride alongs” there. They almost to an officer bemoaned the fact that they must work unarmed and felt unsafe, particularly the Irish cops. But again, if you do, that is great with me!

I like the UK and admire the British. Despite the quarreling of cousins I think that they have been a great ally to the US. But having worked for the government for many years I have seen many programs fail, including those to control crime. I would think that you would honestly have to say the same thing. But, my Glock 20 10mm or my Colt 1911 .45, are as reliable as death and taxes.

Happy 4th of July!

 

Hah - well the Daily Mail is somewhat known for "sensational reporting". But then statistics can be wrapped up however you like - and in the article they only refer to violent crime, which includes gun crime and a host of other categories, and then it refers to only to "crimes per 100,000 people" without specifying which type of crime. Typical tabloid reporting. Having said that, I don't pretend we are some pacifist nation who won't swot a fly, we do have crime issues (particularly knife crime is on the rise), but it's not a huge issue.

If you are in some of the dodgy inner city areas of London, Birmingham or Manchester (the 3 biggest cities in UK), then I'd probably be somewhat more wary of where I walked. Having done some more reading, then this is apparently where more then 1/2 of gun crimes happen.

There are different gun laws in Northern Ireland if the Irish cops you were with were from there which probably accounts for their feelings, it's still a bit of a troubled area despite the Troubles being long over.

Anyhow enjoy Independance day - as you say the US/UK is more of a sibling rivalry thing now I think. Fair play in the World Cup too, despite our rather lackluster performance, the US did pretty damn well.

 

A LOT OF GREAT POSTS HERE.... All points are valid!

What was it that Robin Williams said? In England the Bobbys don't carry guns... Just batons... So when the bad guys run, the Bobby will scream, "STOP... Or I'll scream STOP again!"

Not a slander... Just a little fun... Back when Robin was really funny....

When I discover and move to my own Utopia where everyone respects everyone else's rights and the rights to their own opinions.. I wouldn't mind doing away with guns... The world would be at peace and everyone would just "get along"... (Though I would keep my blowgun to peg those pesky squirrels that chew on everything I own!) But MAN is a war-some creature and, at times, a hate monger and I think it will take a few thousand more years of evolution to sort stuff out. We either need "Devine Intervention" (If you believe) or a 6 miles wide asteroid to thin the herd. It seems that, no matter what, someone will always want what YOU have.... And will try to take it. Will you let them? I'd rather die defending myself/family/friends or even a total stranger that is being wronged than to sit idly by and then spend the rest of my life wondering what would have happened IF I would have done something. I don't think I could live with that.

The murder rate for the whole of the UK is still small enough to be probably only 20% of the murders that happen in Washington DC on any given year... Not to mention Detroit, LA, Atlanta and other larger cities where drugs and drug problems exist.

Then we get into the whole "Terrorist" thing... Not that I have the intel to know when the briefcase bomb will go off in DC... But I do know that it will happen one day... You're dealing with people that are used to living on or under a rock and eating scraps of stuff that we would throw away.... And they have time... LOTS of time.... Just knowing that they will EVENTUALLY get us will placate them for now. As long as they lurk the Earth... I shall carry!

But I digress.... I am on vacation and am getting ready to head back over to the cabin on the lake, do a little canoing, a little sprucing up around the cabin for the owners (In-laws family) to help them out, wait for the lobster to show up.... Then sit down and have a long conversation with Jack!

EDIT: Pinecone.... You guys are allowed "long guns" aren't you? For fox hunting and the like? If they have a range... You should go try one out... It is a heck of a release!

 

I used to carry an FN Herstal FNP9 until I moved to kommiefornia... and had to sell it to pay some bills.

They wouldn't have let me keep my 16-round magazines, anyway.

CA doesn't have a law against laser weapons, does it?

 

Well, i gotta say that here in Norway we dont have that much gun related violence.
The best known incident are the shootout between the A and the B gang at aker brygge.

The common ones are knifes and other common stuff.
Handguns are not available for self protections.
Only the military and the police have them.
The cops does not carry them in the open, they are locked away in the cars.

It is very hard to obtain a handgun illegally here in Norway.

A shotgun or a rifle is possible to obtain if you can document the need for it.
The only viable reasons are target shooting or hunting for rifles.
Target shooting only for handguns.
It is mandatory to keep a handgun or a vital piece of a shotgun/rifle in a safe.

Silencers/suppressors are not regulated, so there is no permits necessary.

Full automatic weapons are available for personnel in the police or the army only.

Myself, i have 4 handguns:
Ruger MK2 Target, silenced, 22LR
CZ 75 SP-01 Shadow, 9mm
Ruger New Vaquero, 45LC
Dan Wesson mod 40, 357 supermagnum.

 

Trust me; if Laser Weapons become popular The Peoples Socialist Republiк of Кaliforйicate will try to ban 'em!

 

Man Robin Williams cracks me up - well back when he was funny as you point out. He seems of gone downhill a bit lately. I'm all for friendly ribbing and self-depracting humour

As for "long guns", I'm guessing that means shotguns or rifles? I *think* shotguns are available for clay pigeon shooting, but clay pigeon ranges are few and far between, I have no idea where they are. As for fox hunting (which is outlawed now as being inhumane to the fox!), it was usually done on horseback with dogs!

And as you say the Police are only armed with batons - if someone doesn't stop when they are asked to, then they get run after after rugby tackled to the ground.

Enjoy the wilderness Toughbook - I'm somewhat envious of the amount of countryside and free space you guys have over there! England has about 53 million people crammed in to an area just smaller then New York state over there....

 

Why a gun, the better question is why you personally might choose to defend or not defend life and freedom.

You may have never seen a gun, but it's highly likely a gun carried by someone has done something, directly or indirectly, to insure your freedom and life.

What guarantee is there a knife will remain five meters away, I wouldn't depend on that myself. Really it isn't even a question of what an attacker has, it's how the person attacked will defend, or is able to defend. Poetry and drama gone, if the day comes your comfortable safe cocoon world gets ripped open by the bad rough man, what are you going to do.

If people are willing to allow their personal, and families, safety and freedom be decided by others I allow that's their choice. My choice is to own some of the responsibility of protecting my own life and freedom.

 

I will choose to defend my life and rights, and those of others. The crucial point here is that I don't believe a gun is neccessary to do that here.

Crime with firearms is low enough here for the chances of me being involved in it to be *highly* unlikely. Therefore why do I need a gun if the other guy hasn't got one. If I had one and tried to shoot the perpertrator, what are the chances of me missing and shooting some innocent bystander by accident?

I'd choose to stand up to anyone who threatens another, I'd just prefer to do it without a gun as I believe in the UK that a gun is unneccessary.

Ron Burgundy: "If you want to throw down fisticuffs, fine. I've got Jack Johnson and Tom O'Leary waiting for ya, right here."
(I love that film so much!)

 

The guy that taught my CHL class told me that if I ever shoot somebody in my house, to order a pizza after I call the cops. It will give a very good timeline reference, plus then the cops have some food when they arrive, so they might be in a better mood.

You must train if you own a firearm. If somebody is in my house anywhere, they are within range of me nailing them with any of my guns, and not hitting anybody else.

 

Pinecone, you have been a gentleman, kept your cool and I have enjoyed the discussion. This can be difficult when defending the minority view as in this group, so hats off to you! I don't agree with you, but I will give you major points on style. However, I will close with this.

Well I have noticed that the police assigned to the Royal's residence are very publically armed, and that was in 1996.

Apparently, when someone needs protecting the British Police seem well aware that a gun is the best way to do it.

 

Probably with the H&K MP5 Submachine Gun.

The London maintain Armed Response Units (ARV's) & Specialist Firearms Officers (SFO's) for those "special occassions."

 

I know there are armed units of the police - they are just extremely small unit of the police.

I'm also sure there police with a load of guns to defend the Queen & Royal Family. I'd also imagine there are armed police behind closed doors at the major airports these days, considering air travel in the days post New York. There are some areas where I'll admit guns are probably a good idea for the police to have (for the Royalty & at major airports are the only 2 I can quickly think of).

Anyway, as you point out, interesting little debate. Cheers for that! Enjoy the Independance day stuff tomorrow!

 

The question was about American choice, and answered as that.

You choose to defend, you may or may not have the ability to succeed. I'm guessing you believe you'll have a fair chance at a hand to hand fight, and hope for a fair fight.

Evidently the masses, coming to believe themselves and their rights safe or better protected by others, have declined that natural right for the whole.

 

Apparently, after that little "squabble" with `The Colonies' (1775–1783) the Brits chose to ignore sage advice from a `former' colonist:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
`Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin' (1818)
--by Benjamin Franklin, William Temple Franklin


"Asking government to do things for you is like telling wishes to the genie. Each time you get what you asked for, and a 1000 things you wish you hadn't. The only way to win with the genie is to leave him in his bottle."
-Unknown annotator

 

keep a watch on what hillary clinton is trying to do through the UN about guns rights and ownership of any and all guns, notice I didn't say gun "lefts". tomorrow is Independence Day, that can apply to the past as history has taught and to present day as with our loss of freedoms, guns are a part of our culture and the willingness to go in harms way for what the Constitution was written. Pray for our country and for Godly leaders, we need guidance devine and otherwise desperately.....Driller

 

We're clearly not going to see eye to eye here, all of us are going to (excuse the pun) stick to our guns!

I've specifically avoided trying to take any high ground, I don't pretend the gun laws in England are superior in any way then the US gun laws, it's just a different culture and way of doing things. All I ask is that you afford me the same luxury rather then appearing to be incredible condescending concerning our lack of guns by implying we deserve neither liberty of safety.

 

Actually, there in the U.K you seem to be doing quite well in the overall crime statistics:

Crime figures show 8% fall in England and Wales

except for:

Firearms Offenses - England & Wales

And, finally, a little "food for thought" from News (dated, but interesting):

Why Britain needs more guns

 

While we gun folks are all here... and to give Pinecone a break, I have been speculating lately, exactly how bullet proof is a CF-29? We have all seen the picture of the soldier that was saved when then bullet hit his CF-M34. Of course no one knows the distance here. But, in case you haven't.



I have shot a lot of plate steel, but not so much Magnesium whose alloys have a relatively low elastic modulus compared to other metal alloys, which usually translates into a relatively high specific stiffness.

There is normally a positive correlation between tensile strength and small arms ballistic performance in metal alloys, with higher stiffness typically contributing to enhanced energy absorption upon ballistic impact.

Then here is the fact that a Toughbook is not a humongous piece of material, being denser in places then others. So what I am wondering is what its lowest average ballistic properties are?

Has anybody seen tests like that anywhere, or would like to donate a Toughbook or two to the cause. I can supply the firearms...

 

I have several non-functional CF-28 chassis (thanks to a certain moderator ;-). Could take them to the local range for some "testing".

What calibers would be the most interesting to try?

 

I would start with .22 from a pistol, and then .38 Spl and 9mm Parabellm (9x19). If they passed that, I would try .357 Mag and .45ACP. If they pass THAT, I would try 7.62x39mm! They will not pass a .223, I have seen that stuff eat through 1/2" HY80 Submarine hull!

Sounds like fun! I wish I could help!