Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban

I realize that a SWAT team would presume a suspect armed and dangerous, and that there are going to be times when the SWAT team isn't going to know the identity of a gunman.

That said, I still think a SWAT team would prefer the specific information about what guns the person might have if they could access it rather than go with the base assumption. It would seem to me that you approach the situation differently if the suspect is known to own only one handgun than 10 different guns of different sorts.

I am not trying to make the claim that a registry would ALWAYS be useful, accurate, up to date or anything else.

I am simply addressing the point that there are non-confiscatory reasons for a state or local government to want to maintain its own registry.

Those reasons may not be good enough for some, or may seem like just a pretext to grabbing guns even though under this ruling confiscation seems clearly illegal (as far as I can tell -- haven't taken the time to read it myself).

Nevertheless, they are reasons.

Hence the trend in front lawn decorations across the South.

No, that's because a lot of guys who think they know something about cars... Don't.

There's reason for this.....there is that much less grass to cut if your lawn is covered by cars. Less mowing = less mower gas consumed.

They had "Going Green" down long before it was popular!

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- Hitler, April 11 1942

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Are you saying that a cop would not prefer to have the information that a suspect is known to have 10 firearms of given sorts in a SWAT situation than to not know it?

In this particular situation, I assume there would be no difference between this or that caliber of a gun. But knowing for sure that someone owns a gun versus not, it seems to me, would be potentially valuable information for a cop to know.

It similarly would be potentially valuable to know whether it was a rifle vs. shotgun vs. handgun.

Because guns are are much more likely to be deadly than all the other weapons you named, and are capable of being deadly to multiple people in a quick fashion and from a distance in a way that all of the other items you mentioned generally aren't.

Yes, I am telling you that law enforcement would and should react no differently to someone who has one gun than they do to someone who has 100 guns.

If SWAT is involved, why don't they just operate under the conservative assumption that he's got 10 high powered rifles at his disposal in any case?

And, if they don't think he's got any guns anyway, why involve SWAT at all?

I'd expect that they assume that the person has at least a gun. I'd also expect that it would make a difference if they knew for sure that he owned 10 guns versus only knowing that he had a gun because one was shown.

Also, that it might make a difference in how they respond if the person owned particular types of guns, or when the person purchased the guns. (i.e. a guy who has been a registered owner of guns going back 20 years probably knows more about how to handle guns than someone who just bought his first gun two weeks ago. Or someone who bought 20 new guns two weeks ago might have been stocking up for this particular situation)

I'd also expect in general they would want as much potentially relevant data as possible in deciding how to respond.

All those ninja assault-team units use the same techniqes regardless of what arms they suspect are present - blast open the door at 4AM and toss a flash-bang onto some flammable furniture, slam any pregnant women up against a wall till they miscarry, shoot anyone taking a bath or holding a baby in their arms, kill the family Shitsu for making threatening yapping noises... then assess the situation and discover they're in the wrong house.

I'll be more than happy to go into detail if anyone asks or is interested, but just to get to the point:

Any time a SWAT team goes in the building, it's always worst case. You assume the place is wired for sound and video, you assume he's got 40 machine guns trained on the front door, and you assume he's got a bomb strapped to his chest.

I, either being the Investigator or Team Leader, don't need a gun registry to tell me how many and what types of guns he has. I'm going to assume he has hundreds and plan accordingly. Also, I'm not willing to bet my life or anyone else's life on a gun registry.

The process doesn't really change if I, the Investigator, enlist the Uniformed Patrol Division's help in executing the warrant rather than the SWAT team. I admit to a little hyperbole, but you stay alive by assuming he's standing on the other side of that door with an RPG.

I will take Elwood's word for it and stand corrected on the SWAT point.

on post #66.

Actually in this case, my direct quote from Herr Adolph was one of those rare instances when it was an appropriate, direct reference to the topic being discussed thus nullifying Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law should never be nullified.