Now bear with me because I’m not actually advocating this, but why shouldn’t it be constitutionally mandated: If a person can’t afford a gun, the state must provide him one.
For example:
[QUOTE=6th amendment]
the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[/QUOTE]
The courts have interpreted this as the accused shall be able to pay to have a lawyer, but if he cannot pay, then the state will pay for one for him.
However,
[QUOTE=2nd amendment]
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
[/QUOTE]
The courts have interpreted this as the people shall be able to pay to have guns…(but not the italicized part above regarding the 6th amendment).
Why the difference in the two textual interpretations?
I’m a poor law student. Where do I get my free gun and holster?
I’m not sure how that is determinative. Under the constitution, I have (among other things) the right to:
Keep and bear arms.
assistance of counsel in a criminal case.
If I’m too poor to afford these, the government must constitutionally pay for #2, but not #1. No matter how the right is worded, it exists. Why must the taxpayers pay for my right to counsel, but not my right to bear arms (or for that matter, my freedom of speech)?
For one, if the government doesn’t pay for your counsel, and you cannot afford it yourself, you’re deprived of counsel. You thus don’t have a fair trial, and can lose your life, liberty, or property.
If the government doesn’t pay for your firearm, you still have the right to keep and bear arms. You’ve been deprived of nothing, you lose nothing. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect a right to defend yourself (in which case you might have a point), but merely a right to keep and bear arms.
I understand the argument from absurdity, but I would say, “Why not?” If a right in the BOR is accompanied by a corresponding government obligation to pay for that right, why shouldn’t the government pay for poor people to publish a newspaper?
But if the government doesn’t pay for my lawyer, I still have a right to counsel. I’ve been deprived of nothing and lose nothing.
Your argument that I have a greater chance of being convicted is no more relevant than the argument that I might not be prepared to defend myself or appear for militia service (causing harm to my community and myself) or whatever else you might say that the 2nd amendment defines.
It’s highly relevant. Being punished for a crime is something the state does to you; being unprepared for self-defense is your own concern. The Bill of Rights protects the individual from the state, not from ruffians. Ensuring fair trials is protecting the individual from the state.
I don’t think you do. The right to a free press does not guarantee you a newspaper and the right to bear arms does not mean the government has to buy you a gun. The right to counsel only applies when you’re on trial, which is much more specific. There are only two ways to get counsel: you hire the lawyer or the lawyer is provided. If neither of those happens, you do not have the assistance of counsel.
In other words, you believe Constitutional rights are a mere technicality that don’t have to be acknowledged. It doesn’t matter if we’re unable to exercise our rights as long as it’s technically possible that we could have exercised them.
The first amendment just says that the government won’t make a law abridging your rights. It says nothing about guaranteeing access to exercising your right.
Exactly- just like it doesn’t say anything about guaranteeing your ability to get a gun. On the other hand the Sixth Amendment guarantees “the Assistance of Counsel for [the accused’s] defence.” If you can’t afford a lawyer and the government doesn’t provide one, you do not have the assistance of counsel.
I think I have. I don’t believe that rights are a technicality. You agree that the right to an attorney presumes that if I can’t afford one in a criminal case, you and the other taxpayers get me one, correct?
If I can’t afford a gun, then why don’t you and the other taxpayers buy me one? I would suggest that you (the general you) are saying that my 2nd amendment right is merely a technicality for the same reason you suggest that I am saying that the 6th amendment right to counsel is a technicality.
If I can’t afford a lawyer or a gun, I really don’t have a 6th or 2nd amendment right, respectively, unless the government pays for them.
The difference is that the text of the constitution says that the government:
will not interfere with your right to keep and bear arms
guarantees the right to assistance of council
The first just says we won’t interfere with your trying to do this thing and the second indicates a positive right that the government is guaranteeing. It would be different if the sixth amendment said something along the lines of:
In all criminal prosecutions, the government will not make a law prohibiting the right to the the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
This construction would not impose a duty on the government to provide council It would just prevent the government from saying you can’t have council.
Because the Constitution doesn’t guarantee you any guns. It says your right to have them can’t be infringed. That doesn’t mean you personally need to have one. If the Second Amendment said “citizens shall have arms for the defence of their homes,” then the government might have to buy you a gun if you couldn’t afford one.
But it doesn’t guarantee you a lawyer. It says that you “enjoy” the right to have one. How is that linguistically different that saying that I have a “right to keep and bear arms”? Do I not “enjoy” the right to keep and bear arms?
I fail to see a positive/negative distinction between the two. The right is there for both, but a poor person must pay for the second.
Let me edit that a little differently than you did:
If you’re on trial and you are denied counse, you’re not enjoying the right to have the assistance of counsel. In other words you’re inventing a distinction between the right to enjoy something and the right to have that something.
I think maybe you don’t understand what “enjoy” means in this context. It doesn’t mean you like what you’re doing. It means you can exercise that right if you choose to. So if you are on trial, you have the right to a lawyer. If you can’t afford a lawyer and the government does not provide one, you are unable to exercise your right to counsel.
There is some guy (Atlanta I think) who is giving away shotguns to poor people in a particular crime ridden neighborhood. There are some prerequisites (taking safety classes, etc.) but otherwise it appears to be an attempt to arm the citizens of a crime ridden neighborhood to see if it has any effect on the crime rate. They have historical crime rates of that neighborhood and other neighborhoods like it. They want to see if there is a difference over time in a neighborhood that is better armed.
I agree with this but SCOTUS did not always see it this way. It wasn’t until the 1930’s and most importantly the 1960’s that the right to assistance of counsel meant that the state would provide you with a lawyer. Gideon v Wainwright.
For a long time the obligation of the state to provide you with counsel only attached in special circumstances (like capital crimes).
SCOTUS felt that the actual assistance of counsel was so important to the integrity of a fair trial so they made it a constitutional requirement.
I don’t believe that rights are a technicality. You agree that the right to an attorney presumes that if I can’t afford one in a criminal case, you and the other taxpayers get me one, correct?