Top of the Morning

Top of the morning

In light of the N.C. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that state law unfairly kept a convicted felon from buying a gun, it’s worth remembering a few facts about guns in North Carolina.

Every six days a North Carolina child seventeen or younger is killed by a gun in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting.  The group North Carolinians Against Gun Violence points out that toy guns, like teddy bears and virtually every other product, are subject to federal safety laws. Real guns are not.  

The firearm death rate in the U.S. for children 14 and younger is nearly 12 times higher than the combined rate in 25 other modern industrialized nations.

There’s plenty more and it all raises an interesting question—why would we want to change the law and allow felons to have guns?

11 Comments

  1. Scranton Lawyers | Top Of The Morning

    September 1, 2009 at 8:21 am

    […] View the entire post by clicking here […]

  2. Rob Schofield

    September 1, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Now that we have the group Billionaires Against Health Care Reform, it seems as if it’s only a matter of time before we hava new one called “Murderers for Gun Rights.”

  3. IBXer

    September 1, 2009 at 10:15 am

    This case does not apply to all felons. It is about a guy who was arrested in the 1970s for selling drugs. Your front page on NC Policy Watch today has a “Numbers to think about” article detailing how we waste so much money on keeping people with minor drug offenses in prison instead of giving them a helping hand.

    Your first article I see on this forum is about how these same people should not have the same rights that the rest of us have.

    You guys are truly amazing.

  4. Steve Harrison

    September 1, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Here’s the decision:

    http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2009/pdf/488-07-1.pdf

    Justice Brady really screwed the pooch on this one. His basic opinion is: Current statute is unconstitutional because everybody has the right to keep and bear arms, and Mr. Britt has been such a good boy since his felony conviction for drug-dealing such a long time ago.

    For those on the Right constantly whining about judicial activism, I expect to hear some loud complaints over this. I’m listening.

  5. Rob B

    September 1, 2009 at 11:33 am

    For once, I think IBXer really has a good point: What should be the official position of Progressive Pulse about this? Should he be allowed to have a gun because his felony was a drug offense that is so needlessly penalized, or does the fact that he’s a felon mean he shouldn’t have a gun for any reason? A good compromise would be to say that violent felons shouldn’t be able to have guns, and that this man was not a violent felon, so it should be fine.

  6. Jake

    September 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    It is becoming evident that people do not trust the court’s judgement and as a result judical reform will succeed. Then, to whom will the people turn for justice?

  7. Brian M.

    September 1, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    I too am interested in responses concerning Rob’s comment.

    Thanks in advance.

  8. Steve Harrison

    September 1, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Good Lord. Hat tip to Connie Mack, but it looks like Justice Brady is also a gun dealer.

    Both the Brady Law Firm and the North Carolina Arsenal share the same address in Fayetteville (325 Green Street), they also share the same fax machine. ;o

    What the hell is that? File for divorce and get a complimentary handgun?

    JLF? Civitas? Les Merrit? Bob Orr? You guys interested in investigating a Supreme Court Justice that apparently hasn’t a clue what the term “recusal” means? Anyone? Bueller?

  9. Rob B

    September 2, 2009 at 1:06 am

    I guess in lieu of a response, we can just assume they mean something like this:

    “It doesn’t matter why the guy is a felon– he’s a felon, or someone considered a serious problem for the public, and they restored his gun rights. We’ll talk about whether he should even be considered a felon some other time.”

    I have to say, this decision doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to bother P.P.– it’s basically a neutral outcome. And if we progressives can turn it into a back door way of saying that the court has acknowledged the relative harmlessness of non-violent drug offenders, then it’s a positive one!

  10. Steve Harrison

    September 2, 2009 at 8:25 am

    Rob, I can’t speak for NC Policywatch, but my concerns stem from what I see lately as a strong push by the gun crowd to wipe away laws regulating guns. They’re not just trying to preserve rights, they’re pushing for more, and some of them are downright reckless.

    And if what I alluded to above is true, then it’s more likely that Justice Brady merely used the Britt case to do something he already wanted to do: Erode statutes limiting gun use.

  11. Stern Dixon

    September 3, 2009 at 9:27 am

    If this guy really wants a gun, all he needs to do is pick up a stolen one on the street like the rest of the convicted felons do. Gun laws do little to protect law abiding citizens, but help create an unarmed and unprotected public at the mercy of those who disregard the law for their own interests.