ElvisL1ves, we have no responsibilities to the government, other than obeying the laws that we chose to enact and be bound by. That’s called democracy. If democracy means anything at all, it means that the government is a creation of and servant to the people, and never ever the other way around. In a society of free people it’s anathema for a government to take on a life of it’s own, a dynamic whereby it self-justifies it’s own power and demands that it be the one to be obeyed.
In legal theory our country started out as a victorious rebel army that had thrown off a government it regarded as tyrannical; the armed mass of the populace was primitive to the government itself- literally, the guns were here first. And then since anarchy was not considered a viable option, a new governement was formed as a sort of necessary evil. Regarding every government as a potential Frankenstein’s Monster, the framers envisioned it would be strictly bound by limits of what it was allowed to do. And one of the key guarantees, the equivalent of a master off-switch to an AI, was that government was to rely as little as possible on standing armies and instead rely on the armed people. If the right to keep and bear arms is a right that exists only within a framework established and controlled by the government, then it’s of zero deterrence to a would-be tyranny. The very political theory that allowed the founding fathers to justify their rebellion against the British government wouldn’t logically allow them to say “ok people, you won the Revolution- now put your guns away forever”.
The idea that governments are entities in their own right and should be, entities that we as people are merely cells of, has a long history. It goes back at least to Hobbes’s Leviathan, a work which the Framers would have been intimately familiar with, perhaps all the way back to Plato’s Republic or the proto-totalitarian Spartan state. It’s little exaggeration to say that the Framers’ entire political theory was anti-Hobbesian. Much of the Constitution is built around the recognition that this idea is one that keeps reoccuring and continually has to be fought againt. The entire anti-gun position almost seems to be a revival of Hobbes; namely, the presumption that people are irresponsible yahoos who need a nanny state to tell them what to do, and who cannot be trusted with weapons. Even if it’s presumed that those who take this position do so with the best of intentions, it’s still a slippery slope of the kind where you start out with the twelve disciples of Jesus and end up with Roderic de Borgia as Pope Alexander VI.
If that happened, a wide view of the right, including such militia weapons as machine guns (and “assault weapons” :rolleyes: ) I believe one of the winners would be Pols who are otherwise pro-gun control. In many areas of the country gun control is a losing issue. There seems to be far more pro-gun single issue voters than there are ant-gun single issue voters. A wide ruling takes most of it off the table, and an otherwise anti pol then doesn’t have to deal with it much.
But I don’t believe we’ll get such ruling. It will be somewhere in the middle.
The Constitution was created to define a government. The authors’ view of the proper role of government is that government was a servant of the people, not vice versa. That worldview required mechanisms to keep uppity government agents in their place (i.e. rights) and rejected any concepts (i.e. your proposed “responsibilities”) that would encourage them to develop such uppity attitudes.
I’m aware of the historical context of over two centuries ago, a context which did not include actual models of functioning democracies and therefore required the framers to make their best collective guesses.
I’m also aware of what we have since learned it takes to make a democratic republic not only function but endure. Do you not agree that citizenship entails responsibilities as well as rights?
I expect that they will respect and expand upon the precedent of Miller, making it unambiguously clear that the militia clause provides guidance as to the definition of the term “arms” and does not in any way suggest that the phrase “right of the people” in the Second Amendment means anything other than what it means elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
Their “best collective guess” (making it clear that government is constrained by rights, and does not have the moral or legal authority to demand “responsibilities” other than those citizens choose to extend to one another) has worked out quite well. If you find it unsatisfactory, see Article V.
We’ve learned quite a bit during the twentieth century (and the more observant had learned it during the French Revolution) about the sort of state that claims the power to define citizens’ “responsibilities” to it. Getting back to the subject of the thread, Kipling proposed the proper response to such “Holy People’s Will”.
But I have a right to own an American Pit Bull Terrier. Yet many state and local governments have criminalized this right based on the belief that a pit bull is dangerous. Therefore it is reasonable for me to fear that the government will outlaw this right at any time.
Yet I am required to register and license my dogs.
Will the Second Amendment defenders step up and help me fight breed-specific legislation? If not, why not?
What are you getting at with the whole “responsibilities” thing? Is freedom of speech flawed because the amendment doesn’t contain responsibilities?
Is there something inherently irresponsible about gun ownership?
The Bill of Rights enumerates some of the natural rights that government is barred from infringing upon. Where would adding “responsibility” anywhere in here be appropriate? How would you suggest amendments be changed to incorporate that?
What I’m getting at is that the Constitution is *imbalanced * between defining rights and responsibilities, and that imbalance enables a lot of unnecessary heat due to the imbalanced interpretations drawn from it. But tt works anyway because we *want * it to work, because We the People have accepted the responsibility (both individually and collectively) for making it work. Just about any other document would work as well, if we wanted it to, and just about no other document would work if we didn’t.
In the case of the Second, I think the framers made it clear, as I already said - they explained bearing arms as implementing a responsibility for the common defense, not as an absolute, cold-dead-fingers individual right, as the imbalanced interpretations I mentioned so often have it. Sailboat, where do you find this “right” to own a pit bull? Is it somewhere *other * than “the list of things We the People, acting through our elected government and the officials they appoint, have not placed controls upon in the cause of the common good”?
Oh, to SB’s comment about the First, in practice the interpretations that have needed to be made have limited it where it interferes with other rights. There are always going to be situations where there is a conflict between rights that cannot be resolved without creating responsible limitations on them. That’s one thing we know now, and that the framers pretty well knew then, too.
No, I am not claiming a personal right to pick and choose which laws I’m bound by. I’m claiming that no government can expect duties of it’s citizens that it’s citizens did not explicitly agree to.
And no, that does not mean that anything that 51% of an elected legislature votes for automatically becomes a duty we’re bound to. A trivial look at some of the laws that legislatures have tried to enact is enough to make your hair stand on end. The framers were perfectly aware that the British laws imposed on the colonies were duly voted for by a parliment that was perfectly lawful by it’s own standards. The whole point of having a constitution is to declare beforehand what things are and are not on the table for consideration as far as legislation goes. The constitution is what the people collectively agreed to- not whatever bill that Sen. Bullhorn can armtwist a voting majority into passing. No one’s claiming that the DC law wasn’t voted for by an elected assembly; they’re claiming it’s unconstitutional.
To me, a “wide” ruling would be the justices saying:
There is an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Federal Government and States can limit this right reasonably, but
The complete ban on handguns in DC (post-1976), which does not take into account any qualities of the person wishing to have a gun, is un-Constitutional.
IMO DC should be allowed to restrict via a registration system, which requires fees and training which are reasonable (a big variable, but there you have it), but should not be able to say “all persons, regardless of their bona fides, regardless of their training, regardless of their qualifications, cannot have them.” It should also not be able to pass laws which make functional use for lawful self-defense impossible (such as “OK, you can own it but the ammunition is illegal”, or “transporting it in a motor vehicle any distance for any reason regardless of the circumstances is illegal.”)
Aren’t Chicago gun laws as draconian as DC’s? My understanding is that it is legal to own a handgun if you have a Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID).
But FOID’s are not issued to people that live in Chicago.
Illinois has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the country.
To possess or purchase firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the state police.
Some municipalities, most notably Chicago, require that all firearms be registered with the local police department. Chicago does not allow the registration of handguns, which has the effect of outlawing their possession, unless they were grandfathered in by being registered before April 16, 1982.
So it sounds like Chicago is doing pretty much what D.C. has done. You can’t have it if it isn’t registered, and you’re not allowed to register it.
What I’d like to know is, if SCOTUS knocks down the D.C. law, does that automatically knock down every other handgun ban in the country (as far as I can tell, most of them being in the Peoples Republik of Illunoiz).
I’m definitely no legal expert, but I don’t think it automatically invalidates bans - but I think it would give precedent to invalidate a ban if it were specifically challenged.
DC also is unique in that it’s a federal city and doesn’t belong to any state - how the Constitution interacts with local DC laws is different from how it works in other places.
B’lieve he’s referring to incorporation there - the states aren’t bound directly by the federal constitution unless the federal courts say they are, one clause or amendment at a time, under the terms of the 14th. The Second is not (yet) incorporated. DC, however, is directly controlled by the federal constitution, not that of any state, so incorporation isn’t an issue for it.
And that’s why DC was chosen for this manufactured suit by its activists, who are ardent states-rights ideologues as well as ardent individual-gun-rights ideologues - because a DC case could permit the Supremes to rule on it without having to find a way not to further advance the incorporation process they also hate.
