Forum Thread

Obama's 23 Executive Actions are reasonable and constitutional

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 16 1 2 Next
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There was an immediate backlash over Obama's 23 executive actions on gun control by the conservatives and Republican Party. And, being a person that is leery of government overreach, to be honest, at first I bought into it a little bit. I was hearing things like, "Obama is acting like a King!", or "this is the beginning of the end of the 2nd amendment!" and countless other bold statements along these two lines.

    I was assuming there would be provisions in there to outlaw semi autos. Or, at least "assault weapons" like he has stated already of wanting to make illegal. Or, making extended magazines illegal. You know, something substantial. Something that was crossing the lines, going over the heads of our normal democratic way of doing things by having to have legislation brought to and passed by the House and Senate.

    Well, much to my surprise, when I actually pulled up the 23 orders he set out, I was confused. They aren't threatening at all. Some seem like a long time coming. Others are worded kinda funny, but seem pretty non-threatening. All in all, there's nothing there. This seems like more of a national "conversation starting point" set out by the President, than "executive orders" hailed down from on high. What's going on here? Clearly this is a fake controversy, trumped up by the GOP and its supporters/followers to play fast and loose with people's gut check emotions.


    Here are the actual 23 orders for you, to set the record straight and to help quiet some of the loud voices that are yelling over nothing. (Don't get me wrong though. I will say that a few of these are very loosely and strangely worded and could lead to something to really talk about. But, so far, nope. Nothing wrong here yet.):


    1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

    2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

    3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

    4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
    5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

    6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

    7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

    8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

    10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

    11. Nominate an ATF director.

    12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

    14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

    15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

    16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

    17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

    18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

    19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

    20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

    21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

    22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

    23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    When it comes to Republican politics, anything goes. Mitch McConnell is using Obama's gun safety measures to solicit campaign funds for his 2014 re-relection. In an e-mail to supporters:

    The Hill, January 21, 2013: McConnell pledges to block gun-control measures in email to supporters

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) campaign is calling for supporters to back his opposition to expanded gun controls, warning in a new email that "they're coming for your guns."

    "You and I are literally surrounded. The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment. On your rights. On your freedom," the email opens.

    It goes on to warn that "our freedom is under direct assault ... from those who want to shred our Constitution."


    WTF...same old Republican cliches repeated again and again.

    McConnell also put out a phone recording:

    As reported by Joseph Gerth, The (Louisville, Ky.) Courier-Journal,January 19, 2013: McConnell vows to block gun control measures

    "President Obama and his team are doing everything in their power to restrict your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms," McConnell said in the recording. "Their efforts to restrict your rights, invading your personal privacy and overstepping their bounds with executive orders, is just plain wrong."

    "Jesse Benton, McConnell's campaign manager, said the call went out to "several hundred-thousand gun owners and hunters across the state."


    McConnell is engaging in fear mongering and lies of the worst kind to to extract funds from gun owners.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I guess this McConnell is a very sick person; probably never has been out of Kentucky except Washington. It is time that old people like him quit; term limits should be a priority. Also I absolutely do not understand why people like that live on an "island" and refuse to look beyond the borders of this country how things can be done much better related to gun safety. Just holding onto a 1776 document and trying to interprete it to this time and age is pure childish; the US has become the laughing stock of the world. Normal countries adapt their laws to the modern times without any problem. It is part of Democracy in modern times. People who wrote Constitutions always were aware of changes in societies, that is why you have "amendments" the same as the "2nd one", which according to the gun fanatics is cut in stone and applies to 2013, added with their own invented interpretations. One word: NUTS.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Gallup, January 23, 2013: Americans Back Obama's Proposals to Address Gun Violence

    Gallup's poll is about American attitudes about guns, but their latest poll reveals more about the way Americans think...or don't think. I've mentioned in other posts about the psychological effect that certain words have on the emotions of the American people...or what George Lakoff calls "cognitive policy"...the Republican policy of "changing the brains of millions of people" by creating public perceptions. Lakoff defines the term with respect to "ideas" such as "faith based solutions" or "big government." It's really the word association repeated over and over again that effectively conditions the brain to trigger an immediate emotional response upon hearing certain words...and those responses can be either positive or negative.

    So the Gallup poll above asked respondents to vote "for" or "against" each of nine key proposals included in President Barack Obama's plan to reduce gun violence. The respondents were not told that all nine proposals come from Obama's recently released plan to reduce gun violence. They voted on each of Obama's proposals individually. Perhaps surprisingly respondents voted in favor of all nine, with the top vote getter being background checks, supported by an overwhelming 91 percent of respondents. Increasing funding for mental health programs aimed at youth garnered 82%, increasing funding for programs to train law enforcement and schools in responding to active armed attacks got 79% support, and increasing criminal penalties for people who buy guns for others -- so-called straw purchasers was supported by 75%. Number 9 and last on the list, limiting the sale of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or less, received 54 percent support.

    Gallup also asked a question that gauged Americans' immediate reaction to Obama's proposed gun control plan as a package, and found only a slim majority, 53%, saying they would like their member of Congress to support it. So how is it then that people overwhelmingly support the individual proposals, but as soon as you attach Obama's name to all nine, the support drops dramatically? I saw the same effect early on with respect to ObamaCare. People liked each of the provisions of Obamacare with no labels identified, but as soon as you label the whole package "Obamacare," the people's responses turned sharply negative.

    Republicans have been doing a masterful job of creating a negative perception of President Obama to certain segments of the population such that the mere mention of his name invokes immediate hatred. These people are otherwise "ordinary Americans" but like a "Pavlov dog" their brains react immediately to certain stimuli..in this case, Barack Obama.

    This isn't a random outcome, but rather a closely planned and orchestrated campaign to control minds by the leadership in the Republican party.
  • Independent
    New Hampshire
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I would expect the results of a Poll to drop when a name is attached. The attachment of the name causes several different things come into play.
    It is now partisan
    It is now racial
    I would also question the Poll itself to be meaningful the same people would have to be used. If those presenting the Poll used a list of people or phone numbers from CT for the single items and a group from Utah for the single question I would expect even a greater difference. Reversing the two groups at these two extremes could provide completely different numbers. The polarization of the political parties has caused me to become a skeptic. The extended use of PR to use a virtual reality approach in presenting candidates is a major contributor to the transition.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    sbfriedman Wrote:There was an immediate backlash over Obama's 23 executive actions on gun control by the conservatives and Republican Party.
    I would say that the backlash was to his statements before the list was released. He lead everyone on as if he was going to act autonomously without waiting for Congress. Once they came out that level of alarm quicky subsided. You yourself acknowledge this:

    sbfriedman Wrote:I was assuming there would be provisions in there to outlaw semi autos. Or, at least "assault weapons" like he has stated already of wanting to make illegal. Or, making extended magazines illegal. You know, something substantial. Something that was crossing the lines, going over the heads of our normal democratic way of doing things by having to have legislation brought to and passed by the House and Senate.
    And many people shared your expectations.

    sbfriedman Wrote:Well, much to my surprise, when I actually pulled up the 23 orders he set out,
    Do you think that list represents the "actual" Executive Orders?

    sbfriedman Wrote:Clearly this is a fake controversy, trumped up by the GOP and its supporters/followers to play fast and loose with people's gut check emotions.
    Where is this outrage you are talking about? I haven't heard any substantive complaints focused directly on "the list" or any particular proposal in the list from gun rights people or "the GOP" since the list came out . . . Obama promised a lot and delivered very little (and what is in the list is within the perogative of the Executive).

    Really, the warnings / fears of Obama impressing actual "gun control" and bypassing the Congress fizzled right out when the list went public so perhaps the only one "faking controversy" is you?

    sbfriedman Wrote:Here are the actual 23 orders for you, to set the record straight and to help quiet some of the loud voices that are yelling over nothing. (Don't get me wrong though. I will say that a few of these are very loosely and strangely worded and could lead to something to really talk about. But, so far, nope. Nothing wrong here yet.):
    Problem is, those single sentences are NOT the "actual" orders.

    The White House Executive Order page does not have any of these January 16, 2013 directives.

    If you click on the link for January 2013 on that main page the result is, "There are no executive orders for this time period."

    So, until the "actual" orders are "actually" published, nobody knows what the breadth or effect of them will really be. . . . As with most policy proposals from the left, the devil is in the details.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:WTF...same old Republican cliches repeated again and again.
    He's correct.

    Schmidt Wrote:McConnell is engaging in fear mongering and lies of the worst kind to to extract funds from gun owners.
    Can you cite the Article, Section and clause in the Constitution that grants either the Congress or the President any power whatsoever to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen?

    Schmidt Wrote: So the Gallup poll above asked respondents to vote "for" or "against" each of nine key proposals included in President Barack Obama's plan to reduce gun violence. The respondents were not told that all nine proposals come from Obama's recently released plan to reduce gun violence. They voted on each of Obama's proposals individually. Perhaps surprisingly respondents voted in favor of all nine, with the top vote getter being background checks, supported by an overwhelming 91 percent of respondents. Increasing funding for mental health programs aimed at youth garnered 82%, increasing funding for programs to train law enforcement and schools in responding to active armed attacks got 79% support, and increasing criminal penalties for people who buy guns for others -- so-called straw purchasers was supported by 75%. Number 9 and last on the list, limiting the sale of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or less, received 54 percent support.
    "The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections."

    West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    So let's examine some of these proposals and see what they "do" or if they help. . .

    1, 2 and 3 seem to overlap the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 signed into law by President Bush in 2008. That law was supposed to rectify all these state reporting deficiencies in ciminal and mental heath records into NICS (National Instant Check System, ie, "background check").

    Here is a Brady Campaign Q&A (65kb pdf) on the law explaining it and here is an NRA page that lays out what the law does in an easier format. The enrolled Bill (as presented to the President for signature) can be read on GOVTRACK.

    Perhaps bookmark those three pages and refer to them when Obama's "Executive Orders" are finally published on the White House "Executive Orders" page (which will never happen, pay attention to the growing frequency of the word "memo" in Obama dirceted media reporting).

    As far as states being required to report all prohibiing records, the 2007 law is pretty comprehensive. Methinks Obama is heading up the Department of Redundancy Department and is looking to claim credit for something that is already law.

    There can't be much disagreement that the 2007 law was a failure; here is the total accounting of all records in the entire NICS database as of January 31, 2013 (11kb pdf) that prohibits firearm ownership under 18 USC § 922(g).

    My reaction to those numbers is . . . You have to be kidding me!

    Really, only 9 million total records are being run in a NICS check and ILLEGAL ALIENS account for 5 million?

    4 has some room for mischief. Giving the AG any sort of power to modify or expand what is represented in 18 USC § 922(d) and (g) is dangerous. I suspect this is a hoped for backdoor path to get the "terrorist watch list" and subjective VA determinations included in the prohibited person criteria, "enacted" through FBI/ATF regulatory revisions as opposed to Congressional action, like, you know, actually modifying 18 USC § 922(d) and (g).

    5 seems stupid on its face. People get run through NICS when getting their own gun out of pawn even if it was only there for an hour . . .

    Why police or court personel would be impeded in running a NICS check on a person when returning a gun that was seized doesn't pass the smell test.

    6 is another stupid one . . . FFL's already complete many NICS checks on private gun purchases/transfers that cross state lines. Hundreds of thousnads if not millions of guns are sold across state lines and federal law mandates that these transfers be done between two FFL's. This is another one I would classify as fluff / filler / redundant . . .

    7 sounds great but the devil is in the details. Will this include mandatory training and storage laws or mental health screening to buy a gun?

    8 no issues . . .

    9 and 10, depending on implementation may run afoul of current law (Tiahart Amendment).

    11 OK

    12 Ummmm, there isn't anything set up yet?

    13 is a joke. Gun laws will remain what they always have been, throwaway bargaining chips for plea bargains or pleaded down to misdemenaor offenses. Those people who shoot other people have criminal histories and when these crimes are examined, the perp should have been in jail for the crimes he already committed.

    14 could again run afoul of existing law. The NRA pushed for a law saying that the CDC was forbidden to engage in studies that arrived at political agenda serving conclusions (IOW, advocated for gun control).

    Here is an NBC News article about Obama's "memo's" that makes the NRA's point. It mentions "a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine" but not by name (Kellerman) . . . Kellerman is perhaps the most debunked and disgraced "gun violence" study ever published and NBC does not miss the chance of regurgitating the primary position of the "study" LOL.

    15 seems to throw more money at "smart gun" technology. Pretty much a lost cause because it can't be shown to be bug-free and fail-safe. If the technology were foolproof then cops would be demanding it for their guns. When cops embrace it I'll start listening.

    16 Problem is, nothing will assure citizens that answering the question honestly does not place them in a federal database under ACA. I will not be cooperating.

    17 is almost funny. As if they didn't know already and ignore the law mandating they do report those who they consider threats to themselves and others.

    18 is essentially calling for armed gaurds? Obama want's to put armed guards in schools? Well, I guess if Chicago can have two cops in every single high school in the city, what's good for that hellhole is good enough for the rest of us.

    19 seems like a rehash of 12?????

    20 is the consensus that the states are not aware of this now?

    21 yeah, that and a lot more!

    22. OK

    23 launch some dialogue huh? I going to go out on a limb and say that the dialogue will only be between those opposed to gun rights discussing what they want to shove down the nation's throat.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Where did everybody go?
  • Other Party
    South Bend, IN
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
    Tell the agencies to do their jobs.

    2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
    This probably will be prevented in many cases by state laws.

    3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
    Pay them to do their jobs.

    4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
    Tell the AG (who eased the sale of dangerous weapons to Mexican criminals) to do his job.

    5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
    What, the police can't do background checks now?

    6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
    Unless they are Mexican drug runners or their straw buyers!

    7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
    Would this be similar to the safety program that the NRA ran for years?

    8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
    Is this the first step to requiring all guns in homes to be locked away at all times?

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
    They don't trace guns seized in criminals investigations now? I imagine many police departments would be surprised to hear that.

    10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
    This requires an executive order?

    11. Nominate an ATF director.
    Excuse me, who nominates the ATF director? Plus, remember, you made it ATFE! I nominate Wayne LaPierre.

    12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
    Again, aren't they already training for this? Especially after Columbine and Sandy Hook.

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
    Enforce the current laws, check.

    14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
    They do this every year, already.

    15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
    Guns have always been as safe as the people using them. Many of the 'safety features' I've seen proposed appeared to have as their primary purpose to make guns more expensive than most people can easily afford. A $400 pistol with a $900 system to prevent anyone except the registered owner from firing it is really a $400 pistol with a $1,300 price tag.

    16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
    My doctor can ask until he's blue in the face. He doesn't have a 'need to know'.

    17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
    Most states require such reporting and have for years.

    18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
    How do they define "school resource officers" ? Teachers with guns?

    19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
    What? This would require schools and churches to allow federal inspectors in to check their emergency plans? Let's see, four hours to inspect each place, four more to finalize and approve the plan, plus we can't forget travel expenses and per diems. Times how many facilities affected?

    20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
    No one has ever decided what Medicaid covers? How are they operating without his personal guidance?

    21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
    Not necessary if Obamacare is repealed.

    22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
    I must be getting tired of this, I thought he was channeling Bill Clinton and saw "party regulations", lol.

    23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
    First have their mental health verified.
  • Other Party
    South Bend, IN
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ah, I wrote a reply before I saw yours, and you did a great job, so mine wasn't needed. <sigh> But at least some of it was fun. ;-)
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The more the merrier, I enjoyed reading it!

    You offer a few more points that could be a starting point for discussion and debate, sadly I fear your points / comments (along with mine) will be ignored by those asking for debate and dialogue . . . hence my post asking where everyone went LOL.

    Edited to add:

    Don't you find it just incredible that the entire NICS database only has 9 million records in it and over 5 millon are illegal aliens? I find that very low for all the prohibitory criteria that is included in law now:


    18 U.S.C. § 922(d) - It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -

    (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
    (2) is a fugitive from justice;
    (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
    (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
    (5) being an alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States
    (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
    (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
    (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner . . .
    (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hey Old John, let me ask you about your number 14. Who was the Doctor that proposed/proved gun violence has both a medical cause and solution? If not a doctor, then I still ask who? If this were true, our jail-crowding would be a thing of the past, but our hospitals may not be the safe havens they are today.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    All of his suggestions ignore the 2nd amendment and the fact that when the founding fathers wanted to limit something they A) didn't list it as a right and B) limited it in the constitution, as they did when they made it so felons cannot become President. (Kind of ironic considering we have yet to have a President who wasn't a crook. Oh well, they just weren't convicted...) I agree though... What on earth does the CDC have to do with guns?
  • Center Left Democrat
    Democrat
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I'd certainly agree that the 23 points mentioned by sb seem reasonable, but not all of our "fellow Americans" are reasonable people. The current leadership of the NRA, Larry Pratt (who started Gun Owners of America), the Citizen's Defense League, the publishers of Guns and Ammo, and Ted Nugent would all fall into the category of "not reasonable" people.

    Ted Nugent has recently been campaigning for Greg Abbott. All by itself, that's reason enough to support Wendy Davis to be the next Governor of Texas. His most recent statement about President Obama (from last month in Guns.com) proves that he is a totally irrational human being:

    "I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the acorn community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America."



    There is no shortage of books about guns in America. If you simply clicked "guns" on Amazon, you'd pull up 688, 874 hits. Typing in "gun control" will lead you to 35,325 items, and "gun rights" will take you to 106,003 selections, one of which is a book titled "Gun Fight" , by Adam Winkler.




    Product Details

    Winkler's book is about the fight to defeat the gun ban law in Washington D.C., and I finished reading it 2 days ago.



    The book provided some surprising information:

    1) the Founding Fathers favored gun laws that the current leadership of the NRA would find unacceptable.

    2) the "Wild West" was anything but, and had very stringent gun control laws

    3) the NRA at one time was a vigorous defender of gun control laws, and actually wrote major portions of the 1934 and 1938 laws that imposed restrictions on gun ownership, but a 1976 coup caused them to become the radical organization that they are today

    4) the KKK was originally started as a gun control organization

    5) Ronald Reagan, who is usually considered to be friendly towards guns, was a strong advocate of gun control in the 1960's, largely due to the actions of the Black Panthers

    6) the NRA was very much opposed to going to court to overturn the D.C. gun ban law

    7) why "enforcing existing gun laws" (the conservative mantra) simply won't work


    The Supreme Court ultimately overturned the D.C. gun law. Surprisingly, the ruling turned out to be a victory for both gun rights activists and gun control advocates.


    Although the court ruled that residents of the city had a right to defend themselves, it also reaffirmed the fact that reasonable gun controls are absolutely permissible under the provisions of the 2nd amendment, which is far less expansive than the "not reasonable" people listed above would think is true. The ruling also confirmed the fact that it is not permissible, constitutionally, to take away any one's guns, which should take a lot of air out of the argument from the gun rights activists that the "gun grabbers" are going to "take your guns away".