Adquirir un arma tan fácil como pagar $20

NR – Es un abuso el que los maleantes estén armados y las personas decentes no. La Constitución Americana garantiza el derecho a tener y poseer armas de fuego. Se debería mas, usar la Doctrina Nebraska donde se exime de responsabilidad civil y criminal al que use un arma para defender su vida o propiedad luego de cerciorarse que razonablemente el intruso a su hogar o propiedad lo hace ilegalmente. Es momento en vivir con la legalidad en Puerto Rico. Felicitamos al Senador Carmelo Ríos por tan importante iniciativa y todo lo que podamos hacer para ayudarlo, estamos a sus órdenes. – Lea – http://ammo.com/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide.

Adquirir un arma tan fácil como pagar $20

Por Carmen Milagros Díaz, EL VOCERO el 21 de febrero de 2012

Obtener una licencia de posesión y portación de armas será más fácil de aprobarse el proyecto Nueva Ley de Armas de Puerto Rico, que elimina la intervención investigativa de la Policía.

EL VOCERO/Ingrid Torres

El proyecto de ley propuesto por el senador Carmelo Ríos Santiago delega la responsabilidad de otorgar el permiso al Departamento de Transportación y Obras Públicas (DTOP) a través de los CESCO o agentes autorizados como armeros, clubes de tiro y concesionarios en los puertos de entrada a Puerto Rico y deja muchas preguntas por contestar.

Actualmente, la Policía tiene a su cargo verificar si el solicitante tiene expediente criminal y entrevistar a los vecinos sobre su conducta. Con esta medida, ese proceso quedaría eliminado. Si el solicitante da indicios de padecer alguna condición mental sin diagnosticar, tiene riñas con los vecinos o es violento en el hogar pero no ha sido denunciado por la familia no habría forma de saberlo y por ende, denegarle la licencia.

El Senador restó importancia a este hecho y enfatizó que el derecho constitucional que decretó el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos está por encima. Dijo que como mecanismo se utilizará el sistema del National Instant Criminal Background Check System para saber si el solicitante ha cometido delito.

“Esta es una ley con un concepto distinto, que incorpora nuevas ideas colocando en el DTOP el manejo de licencias, liberando personal, equipo y recursos económicos de la Policía que tanto necesitamos para que atiendan y empleen con todo su esfuerzo hacia combatir el crimen”, expresó el presidente de la Comisión de Gobierno del Senado.

De acuerdo con Ríos, las oficinas están capacitadas para expedir licencias porque tienen la información que se requiere como dirección del solicitante.

“Yo estoy seguro que pueden (prestar el servicio) porque además de que tienen la data, van a tener la tecnología que se va a implementar en los próximos meses para poder atender el asunto del personal. Las personas que van a tener este carnet van a pagar $20 y por lo tanto van a aportar”, expresó.

El secretario del DTOP, Rubén Hernández Gregorat, no quiso confirmar a EL VOCERO si en efecto los CESCO podrían atender la nueva clientela. La directora de Prensa y Comunicaciones, Doris Torres, dijo que el Titular no tiene información del proyecto para opinar. En la Isla aparecen registradas más de 380,000 armas de fuego y se estima que la cifra pudiera ascender al doble con las no registradas. Unas 30 mil tienen licencia vencida, según el legislador.

El costo por obtener una licencia sería reducido sustancialmente.

Por la compra de sellos y otros pagos, el Senador dijo que el gasto asciende actualmente a casi $1,000. Con la medida, el costo será de $20 la primera vez y $10 por renovarla cada seis años, que es el término de vigencia. La licencia no limita la cantidad de armas. Se puede solicitar desde los 15 años.

La medida surge de la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos que elevó a derecho constitucional la posesión de armas de fuego.

Justicia

Justicia

“No hay razón alguna por la cual los puertorriqueños tengan menos derechos que el resto de los demás ciudadanos americanos y esta es muestra de que nosotros somos iguales y esta ley atiende las necesidades de nuestra gente humilde y nuestras mujeres”, indicó.

Destacó que en la nueva ley se retienen todos los delitos por el uso ilegal de armas e impondría nuevas sanciones más severas a quien intente obtener una licencia cometiendo fraude, y a quien trafique armas ilegalmente. Obtener una licencia bajo engaño impondría una pena fija de seis años de cárcel y por conspirar para traficar armas y municiones la pena fija aumenta a 30 años de prisión.

Reacciona el Superintendente

El superintendente Emilio Díaz Colón dijo a EL VOCERO que espera obtener una copia del proyecto hoy para evaluarlo y emitir una opinión.

“Hay que buscar en los valores y buscar la forma de tener más diálogo y no llegar a los extremos más inmediatos como ocurre ahora, que si una pareja tiene una discusión enseguida busca un arma. Tenemos que tener más tolerancia y más comprensión y tenemos que dar el ejemplo para que las personas vean que somos un país de ley orden”.

“Me parece que el procedimiento para tener un arma de fuego es una cosa muy seria y no se puede despachar con una simple opinión y sin ver todos los ángulos (del proyecto)”, añadió.

Tags: 

Right to bear arms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to bear arms may refer to:

[edit]See also

  • Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the amendment in The Bill of Rights providing this freedom in the United States of America
  • The United States Constitution, the basis for rights in the USA
  • The Right to Arm Bears, a collection of three science fiction novellas
  • The Right to Bare Arms, comedy album by Larry the Cable Guy
  •  

    The Second Amendment 
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

    LINK: Questions about meaning of text


    Introduction
    The meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to.  The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms.  Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.  For almost seventy years following its cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Millerin 1939, the Court ducked the issue, finally to resolve the question in its much anticipated 2008 decision, District of Columbia v Heller. Miller was subject to two possible interpretations.  One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns).  The second–broader–view ofMiller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all, and the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not members of a state militia. 

    In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes.  Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias.  Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause.  The Court easily found the D. C. law to violate the 2nd Amendment’s command, but refused to announce a standard of review to apply in future challenges to gun regulations.  The Court did say that its decision should not “cast doubt” on laws restricting gun ownership of felons or the mentally ill, and that bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld.  In the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates said that they approved of the Court’s decision.

    Heller left open the question of whether the right to bear arms was enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation?  In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right–if it existed–was enforceable only against the federal government, but there was a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then.In 2010, in the case of McDonald v Chicago, the U. S. Supreme Court held (5 to 4) that the 2nd Amendment right has been incorporated through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause and is fully enforceable against the states.  The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, proceeded to strike down Chicago’s gun regulation insofar as it prohibited the private possession in the home of handguns for self-defense.  Justice Thomas, concurring, would have held the right to bear arms to be a right protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, an approach to applying Bill of Rights protections against the states first rejected in the 19th-century Slaughter-House Cases and never used since.

    Cases
    United States vs. Miller (U.S. 1939)

    District of Columbia vs Heller (U.S. 2008)
    McDonald v Chicago (U.S. 2010)


    District of Columbia officials hold a press conference to denounce the Court of Appeals decision in Parker v D. C.

    We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce theSecond Amendment extinct.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority in District of Columbia v Heller (U. S. Supreme Court 2008)

     

     

    Supreme Court Decides Second
    Amendment Case

    The Supreme Court votes 5 to 4 to strike down a
    Washington, D. C. ban on the private possession of handguns.
    Justice Scalia authors majority opinion.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
    The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting.  The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand.  At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights.  The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.

     

    Opinion of the Court (edited version)
    District of Columbia v Heller (2008)Full Opinion

     

    Opinion below of the D. C Circuit:
    Parker v District of Columbia (2007)


    Questions
    1. Does the historical evidence support the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms?
    2.  If the Second Amendment does create an individual right, how broad is the right?  Does it include the right to possess arms that would be useful to a militia today–hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc.?  Or does it create only a right to possess arms that would have been used by a militia in 1791–muskets?  Or is the right answer somewhere between these extremes?
    3.  The Second Amendment speaks of the right to bear arms.  Does this suggest, for example, that there is no right to possess weapons that could not be carried, such as cannons?
    4.  If the underlying concern that inspired the Second Amendment–fear of an abusive federal government oppressing states and their citizens–no longer exists, should that affect how we interpret the Amendment?
    5.  What is the argument for choosing what provisions of the Bill of Rights we will give full effect?
    6. Which of the following regulations of firearms is constitutional?: (1) an age restriction, (2) a four-day waiting period for purchase of a firearm, (3) a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons.
    7.  The Court in District of Columbia v Heller announces that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but says that this right extends only to weapons in “common use” for such purposes.  If many people began using machine guns for self-defense, will the weapons covered by the 2nd Amendment extend to include them?
    8.  The Court in D. C. v Heller suggests that concealed carry laws and laws prohibiting guns in public buildings are constitutional.  Why is that so?  What test should the court use to evaluate future gun regulations–strict scrutiny? intermediate scrutiny? an “undue burden” test?
    9.  In 2011, the Seventh Circuit struck down a Chicago ordinance that required range training before getting a gun permit.  Noting that the city also bans all firing ranges in the city, the court found the range-training requirement to violate the Second Amendment. The court applied heightened scrutiny to the regulations, saying that laws that substantially burden the core right of gun ownership “will require an extremely strong public interest justification and a close fit between the government’s means and its ends.”  Do you think the Seventh Circuit was right to apply strict scrutiny to the Chicago ordinance?  (See Ezell v Chicago 7/6/11).



    Otis McDonald, the Chicago resident who sued for his right to possess a handgun–and won.
    (CNN photo)
    Links
    Sources on the Second Amendment (UCLA Law)
    Second Amendment Foundation
    Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep Arms
    National Rifle Association
    Handgun Control, Inc.
  • http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htmea http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
  • http://ammo.com/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide.
Para trabajar por la Estadidad: https://estado51prusa.com Seminarios-pnp.com https://twitter.com/EstadoPRUSA https://www.facebook.com/EstadoPRUSA/

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Para trabajar por la Estadidad: https://estado51prusa.com Seminarios-pnp.com https://twitter.com/EstadoPRUSA https://www.facebook.com/EstadoPRUSA/
Para trabajar por la Estadidad: https://estado51prusa.com Seminarios-pnp.com https://twitter.com/EstadoPRUSA https://www.facebook.com/EstadoPRUSA/