Actually, both of those points are arguable. States clearly can restrict firearms to a certain extent given that California and New York still have bans of a sort in place. They cannot restrict the right to the point of banning them completely but until/unless the courts strike down their restrictions they are well within their rights to maintain their versions of the expired Assault Weapons Ban.
As far as concealed carry goes, there is no obvious legal issue with national concealed carry reciprocity, something that was almost passed in Congress (the Thune Amendment failed by only two votes).
Your first point isn’t at all contrary to what I have said (thought my use of restricted was probably unnecessarily vague, I concede). Your second point does show I went too far in what I was saying. I should have said that current precedent is clear that you cannot force a state to permit concealed carry - Thune wouldn’t have done that. Thune would have attempted to force reciprocity on states that already allow concealed carry (48 I believe). It’s my legal opinion that this would be unconstitutional, but I accept that isn’t settled. It could probably also be done through financial blackmail on the states.
And my reply to acid lamp, was based upon your comments earlier, where you stated that the feds cannot force a state to recognize concealed carry. In that line of thinking, the feds also cannot force a state to allow ownership of class 3 firearms which is what acid lamp’s proposal was suggesting. I was giving you credit, shoving things in asses aside, for being correct.
Just got through the whole thread, whew… and wanted to add two anecdotal bits:
I worked at the NRA for a year plus, during, and briefly after law school. (Every conceivable stereotype about working there is absolutely true, awesome, and hilarious). They are an incredibly well-oiled machine, though, and I have an undying respect for the organization. While working there I learned how to shoot a gun, helped the passage of LEOSA (so proud of that), and learned a little something about grass-roots campaigning.
Democrats, of which I count myself amongst, would be fools… FOOLS… to to make this a campaign issue. It would be our own, very well deserved, undoing.
I just had a case yesterday (public defender here), where a guy had his gun stolen. Out of his UNLOCKED, window down, vehicle. One of the favorite petty crimes for kids around here is vehicle tampering… basically reach in and snag what you can. This usually amounts to loose change, some CD’s, or occasionally a GPS.
These four juvenile knuckle-heads went into this guy’s car in broad daylight. It was hot out so he had the windows down. They lift up the center console. Fully loaded 8mm in a holster. They didn’t know what to do with it, so they traded it to a guy up the street for eight ounces of marijuana (this is not a paltry amount).
So basically this guy parks his car and runs into a store, and within 30 minutes, his loaded firearm is in the hands of a local drug dealer. He immediately reported the theft, and someone had seen kids around. Within two hours the cops had the kids rounded up and they eventually recovered the gun a few weeks later.
Thank god his gun was not used in a subsequent violent crime. But if it had, that guy should at least have civil liability for being an absolute ASS.
No need to google it. I see it now, and saw enough when I worked at the NRA. I just thought it was interesting/funny/worth mentioning. I like to read all the 2nd amendment threads, and it just seemed ironic that just YESTERDAY… I was involved in a case where a foolish gun owner was irresponsible, and within 30 minutes, his loaded gun was in the hands of a drug dealer.
Everyone knows there is a huge jump between criminal liability, civil liability, ethical/moral liability, and just basic dumb-assery. Sometimes I wish there was a way to punish basic dumb-assery.
First they came for the criminals, then the negligent… next for the immoral, then the dumbasses. What will you do when they come for… wait… no one left.
How is this more vague than any other part of the Constitution?
It never defines ‘being’, ‘the’, ‘keep’, or almost any other word used in it. It’s a constitution, not a dictionary. Arms is another word for ‘weapons’, generally guns. It’s a kinda archaic word now, but there was never a serious doubt on what it meant until a large segment of the population decided they didn’t like what it meant so attempt to argue it means something other than what it plainly does. It isn’t vague. It’s just intentionally very inclusive.
The bill of rights has long been held to apply to states even when it doesn’t explicitly say so. It generally comes from the 14th amendment’s ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’. The exact same argument for why your state, city, or other government form can not force you to attend church should apply for all other amendments, including the second.
In theory, the default is the government can do nothing unless specifically allowed to do it in the Constitution. So if it’s not mentioned, it is prohibited. Realistically, no right is absolute and no one seriously thinks it should be. But still, if we limited the first amendment as much as we do the second, you’d have to have a waiting period, registration, and licensing just to be allowed to post here.
Very true. However, our founding fathers never envisioned the internet, does that change the fact our freedom of speech is guarented? The founders knew that things change over time, that’s why they incorporated a method to change the Constitution as needed. If you wish to base an argument that the second amendment should be repealed with this as a reason, then make that argument. Until it is repealed, the second amendment clearly says citizens are allowed to own weapons and that should be respected as much as any other amendment.
How about we base our entire system of laws on a document that, in part, guarantees citizens the right to own firearms?
And this is why compromises never work out. Start with the best of intentions, then we get people who claim to support gun rights, yet create new concepts of law in order to make sure gun owners are liable, then… well, it all ends in tears.
Look where we are in this discussion. Do you wonder why gun owners get paranoid about this kind of thing? It’s because people are out to get them.
Just because something is general doesn’t mean we can’t make a reasonable interpretation. Many of the other parts of the document are quite explicit about certain numbers, types, procedures and so on. In this case, the wording is both general and being tortured in one direction in my opinion. It seems to me that the writers wanted to ensure that a balance of power was kept between the government, and the population in general. To so so they placed a a blanket prohibition on the banning of arms at the federal level. They also mentioned “A well regulated Militia”. I’m curious to see how many all or nothing owners are members of ANY sort of unit.
I think there is absolutely reason to doubt it’s original intent as applied today. I don’t know many local militias that are stocking m-60’s, APC’s, Tanks, Amphibious Assault vehicles, Helicopter gunships or fighter jets for example. We limit access to that sort of heavy equipment for a reason. It isn’t one yahoo with a musket, or even a cannon that will get taken down after a shot or two. Today, one yahoo with an axe to grind can easily kill hundreds, if not thousands of people in a very short amount of time provided they choose their target and weaponry carefully.
The bill of rights has long been held to apply to states even when it doesn’t explicitly say so. It generally comes from the 14th amendment’s ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’. The exact same argument for why your state, city, or other government form can not force you to attend church should apply for all other amendments, including the second.
Frankly I agree with your statement, but since the consistency is being held to the interpretation of the second, it is that one which matters.
I’ve long argued on here that the first is also overly broad and vague in certain instances. As far as I’m concerned the right to fully unrestricted speech stops at the individual level. It shouldn’t apply fully to corporations, advertisers, and people in positions of public trust or extreme influence. They should have to “show their work”. Many of the problems we face as an adolescent country stem from the fact that we no longer are small enough to adhere to a spirit of the law style where we all share a similar cultural perspective. We span a continent and more. We are now made up of hundreds of different ethnic groups, each bringing their own cultures and perspectives to the table. In return we have had to become more stringent in our definitions of what is a right and what isn’t. We have had to place reasonable limits.
The second is no different. It needs to be properly interpreted to fit into a modern setting. It doesn’t need to be repealed. I support everyone’s right to own a firearm, and I think everyone who desires to own one should be able to do so. I also believe that owning a weapon is a responsibility, and that you should have to show yourself to be basically competent. When someone is irresponsible with their speech, we have laws to protect us from real world damages. When someone exercises the second irresponsibly, people can and do die. As a gun owner myself, I find that to be totally unacceptable. THAT is why I support reform and redefinition, not the repeal.
The parts of the Constitution that are specific concern how the government is made, how people are elected, etc. The bill of rights are all intentionally broad. It’s ‘congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech’. It is not ‘congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except in cases of libel, slander, death threats, posing a public danger, violating copyright, etc’. The second amendment is no more vague than any other in the bill of rights.
A well regulated militia is an explanatory clause, not a limit. Although, someone who argues based on the founding fathers intentions really needs to pay attention to that explanatory clause. But still, it’s an explanation of why the right to have guns exists, not a limit on the right.
That’s a fair argument to repealing/amend the second amendment, but not really a fair argument to pretending it doesn’t mean what it clearly says it means.
I disagree with you, but I at least respect that your view is consistent regardless of which amendment we’re talking about.
Alright, amended rather than repealed. Either way, the second amendment guarantees a right. As with all rights, it’s not absolute and there are reasonable limits. However, there’s a point where things cross from ‘reasonable limit’ to ‘violation of the right’. Many of the limits put on the 2nd would be viewed as clear violations of freedom of speech if they were put on the 1st. So the intellectually honest route of gun control would be to repeal or amend the 2nd to permit broad limits on it.
I believe that anyone who owns a firearm should educate themselves on it’s dangers, be responsible in storage, and be basically competent in shooting the thing. However, that doesn’t mean I support requirements they must do so.
I also believe that anyone who votes should have some minimal knowledge of the candidates. Voting can affect the entire nation, and that sort of right should have the responsibility to be an educated voter. Yet when tests were put in place for voting, it was for the specific reason of disenfranchising blacks.
I see no reason why laying requirements on gun ownership like has been suggested in this thread would be any different. We all know there are many who flat out want to ban guns. I see no reason that limits on ownership would not be used by them to push for that, the same as ideas argued to foster educated voting were used to disenfranchise blacks.
So if you want to stand outside a gun shop and pass out fliers to everyone entering telling them about gun safety classes, how to store their firearm, or other aspects of responsible gun ownership then I’d strongly support that. But if you want to pass laws to enforce these things, no, it’s too easy to abuse. I know slippery slope is a fallacy, but we’ve had decades of watching the slippery slope of gun restrictions actually occurring, so that’s a legit concern.
Actually, incorporation hasn’t happened under “privileges and immunities,” which were gutted under the Slaughterhouse Cases. Instead, incorporation happened piecemeal through due process. And it isn’t complete. Two very important federal rights are not incorporated against the states:
The right to indictment by Grand Jury (Fifth)
The right to a jury trial in a civil case (Seventh)
Actually a third, The Third Amendment right against quartering has only been incoporated in the Second Circuit (IIRC). However, it hasn’t been ruled on in the other Circuits. The rights listed above have been specifically held not to be incorporated as against the states.
Actually, this a reply to me, Acid Lamp just forgot to put quote marks around what I said.
I realize that not all rights have been incorporated. I was arguing that, in theory, they should be. There’s nothing about one amendment that makes it different and less worthy of being incorporated than the others. At least in the Bill of Rights. Now is that the political reality, no, of course not. However, for this topic, any argument that applies to incorporating the first amendment should apply to the second as well in my opinion.
And when did they decide on the 3rd? Last I heard, the 3rd was only a factor in one court case ever in our history.
Do you really want every single state civil suit to have a right to jury trial? Hell, you’d reduce the amount of litigation because we would all be doing jury duty every day and so wouldn’t have time to sue one another!
Ah yeah, that was the case I heard about involving the 3rd. Just didn’t realize it involved a state rather than federal.
In general, I don’t like jury trials. The CSI effect, the ease of confusion with evaluating expert testimony, the fact juries tends to be swayed by emotion or irrelevant facts far more than judges, etc. all tell me that juries kinda suck. However, as a matter of principle, it is a Constitutional right. I understand why it isn’t applied to states, I just don’t agree. Strikes me too much as cherrypicking what the courts want. Either the whole of Constitution rights should apply to states or none of it should.
That’s in theory and my opinion of course. I realize that case law is decidedly against me in that.
