# Just want to make sure everyone is clear that the Bill of Rights were the People’s rights, not the states, not the state militia. (Gun related) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 30, 2024, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468 "2024-08-30T12:19:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/101 "2024-09-03T01:53:08Z")
Gun owners want the Second Amendment to get the respect that an article of the Bill of Rights deserves; not, as Justice Clarence Thomas put it, regarding it as a “second-class right”. Specifically, gun owners think that any laws concerning guns should have to pass the Strict Scrutiny standard of constitutional review. And not simply presuming that guns are bad, therefore the more and broader anti-gun laws, the better. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/102 "2024-09-03T02:16:10Z")
In fact now that I think of it, it would be an entertaining exercise to imagine if the First Amendment was as routinely circumvented and downplayed as the Second is. Freedom of speech and of the press, yes; but with anti-libel, slander and sedition laws enforced to the max. As well as incitement to riot and “fighting words” laws. Oh, and banning hate speech, gotta’ have that too. A federal license to operate a commercial printing press (words cross state lines dontcha know). Basically, regard free speech as something our forebears got wrong and try to nullify the 1st Amendment in any way shape or form you can. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/103 "2024-09-03T02:50:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The gun lobby, i.e the NRA Nope, not buying that bait and switch routine. When I mean the NRA I will say the NRA, and when I say the gun lobby I mean the whole of the gun lobby. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/104 "2024-09-03T02:56:13Z")
That is vague enough to imply everything but actually mean nothing. Can you name any laws involving restriction of gun use that would pass such a Constitutional test and be supported by gun owners (and I definitely do not mean “Supported by gun owners until they get the right people installed on the Supreme Court, then we’ll get rid of those few laws too”)? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/105 "2024-09-03T03:12:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Can you name any laws involving restriction of gun use that would pass such a Constitutional test and be supported by gun owners I’ve never heard of anyone objecting to banning visitors from bringing guns into prisons, mental hospitals, or anywhere else that has an extraordinary need for security. Just not a New York State “everywhere is a security zone” law. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/106 "2024-09-03T03:25:04Z")
But I thought that under federal law, people with serious mental illness are not prohibited from owning a gun _unless_ they have been involuntarily psychiatrically hospitalized or have a court disposition related to mental illness? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/107 "2024-09-03T05:04:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Nope, not buying that bait and switch routine. When I mean the NRA I will say the NRA, and when I say the gun lobby I mean the whole of the gun lobby. Which is basically the NRA, the others are small potatoes- the Gun Owners of America shares many members with the NRA, but is less than half the memberships. Who do you think is the huge mighty nebulous “gun lobby”? Here are the top lobby groups - none are gun lobbies. > **[Top Spenders](https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders)** > > US Chamber of Commerce topped the list of lobbying clients in 2024, spending $38,240,000. See the top 20 clients. The smallest lobby group here spent $6.6Million- the largest $38Million . The NRA spent- $356K. This huge powerful gun lobby you think is out there- does not exist. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Can you name any laws involving restriction of gun use that would pass such a Constitutional test and be supported by gun owners Bidens bipartisan Gun control bill. Wide across the nation support- except of course the NRA > **[Biden signs bipartisan gun safety bill into law: ‘God willing, it’s going to...](https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/politics/biden-signs-gun-bill/index.html)** > > President Joe Biden on Saturday signed into law the first major federal gun safety legislation passed in decades, marking a significant bipartisan breakthrough on one of the most contentious policy issues in Washington. Most gun owners are all in favor of background checks, etc- stuff that keeps the guns out of the hands of criminals. they do not want people to be able to freely bring guns into schools or government buildings. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > But I thought that under federal law, people with serious mental illness are not prohibited from owning a gun _unless_ they have been involuntarily psychiatrically hospitalized or have a court disposition related to mental illness? The question is-_Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?_ How would you define a serious mental illness where a judge has not ruled you are mentally ill? That is the point- it requires Due Process, which the ACLU demands - > **[The ACLU's Position on Gun Control | ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/aclus-position-gun-control)** I more or less concur with what the ACLU thinks on this issue. _Other proposed gun regulations also raise civil liberties concerns. The proposal to ban individuals listed on the No-Fly List from purchasing weapons, for example, is constitutionally problematic, because that list lacks basic due process protections and its standards are unconstitutionally vague…The Supreme Court has said that the Constitution permits reasonable regulations of firearms in the interest of public safety. We agree. But those regulations can and should be crafted to respect fundamental rights to equal protection, due process, privacy, and freedom from unlawful searches._ ---
**Author:** ![Cmyers1980](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyers1980/32/11814_2.png) [@Cmyers1980](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmyers1980)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/108 "2024-09-03T12:18:19Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > is it also okay for the government to impose restrictions (say, an insurance requirement, or a mental health screening) before a person can exercise that right to own firearms for self defense? No. Background checks as they exist now are sufficient. Anything else would be unconstitutional, immoral, impractical etc. We shouldn’t demand restrictions be placed on the right to bear arms that we wouldn’t want applied to the rest of the Bill of Rights. It’s much more practical if they have the same protections. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/109 "2024-09-03T12:32:17Z")
> [@Cmyers1980](#): > > Background checks as they exist now are sufficient. Sufficient for what? Achieving our lofty goal of reducing gun murders to under 20,000 per year? ---
**Author:** ![Cmyers1980](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyers1980/32/11814_2.png) [@Cmyers1980](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmyers1980)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/110 "2024-09-03T12:43:55Z")
It’s a sufficient restriction even if it hasn’t existed for the entirety of the nation’s history. There are many ways to reduce crime and gun violence without infringing on the right to bear arms. The issue is that these ways are either being ignored entirely or fought for halfheartedly by the GOP and the Democratic Party. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/111 "2024-09-03T13:24:44Z")
> [@Cmyers1980](#): > > We shouldn’t demand restrictions be placed on the right to bear arms that we wouldn’t want applied to the rest of the Bill of Rights. Aye, but there’s the rub. There are lots of restrictions place on the rest of the bill of rights, too. You want to exercise your free speech by parading down Main Street? You may need to get a permit first. It’s different exercising that right in public versus in private. Freedom of religion? It doesn’t include _all_ religious practices, even sincerely held ones. Child brides? Hallucinogens? Doesn’t matter; your right isn’t unfettered. Other rights are similarly constrained by exceptions. Your right to be free from warrantless searches doesn’t apply during hot pursuit, or when something is in plain view, or when you’ve just been arrested. Yes, you have a right to a speedy trial, but the law carves out reasons that the clock sometimes doesn’t count against the government. It’s really only the 2nd amendment when it seems to be asserted that exceptions and restrictions _should not_ apply. Now, obviously, there’s room for lots of debate over _what_ restrictions are appropriate. But that seems to me a far cry from just claiming that it’s a right, so the government has no role in limiting its application. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/112 "2024-09-03T15:02:04Z")
Following up on @Moriarty ’s excellent point, the Supreme Court has held that some types of expression are not « speech » for the purposes of the 1st Amendment (obscenity, imminent threats), and therefore can be regulated or criminalised by the government without a breach of the 1st Amendment. That same sort of interpretation could apply to the meaning of « arms » in the 2nd Amendment, I would think. The Court could conclude that some weapons are not included in « arms » for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Applying that sort of interpretive technique to the 2nd Amendment would be treating it in the same way as other amendments. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/113 "2024-09-03T16:04:06Z")
I think that if all protections were meant to be the same, it would be called _The Bill Of Right._ ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/114 "2024-09-03T18:19:13Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > does it mean the government can ban bullhorns? Or require you to pass a test before you can buy a bullhorn? Or require a special license to carry a bullhorn in public? > [@DrDeth](#): > > Or you can’t carry a bullhorn on public transit (not USING it mind you- that would be reasonable, but you cant even _carry_ it on a bus or subway or train from place A to place B), or near any parks, any government properly, or any private property (without specific owner permission). I’m pretty sure the government could impose _all_ of these hypothetical restrictions on bullhorns. Content neutral restrictions of time, place, and manner all constitutional, and do not violate the 1st amendment. You don’t seriously think you have a constitutional right to carry a voice amplifier, do you, even if you can scream your head off in your own home? If you want to apply the analogy to weapons, then restrictions on their possession and use are _entirely_ consistent with constitutional notions of freedom. (Personally, I favor a national open carry law. And weapons training to students. America ought to _embrace_ its gun culture, not shun it. But that’s just me). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/115 "2024-09-03T18:21:01Z")
Are there any countries you would use as a good example? ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/116 "2024-09-03T18:24:29Z")
With a national open carry law? No, I don’t know of any. And I’m not certain it would make things better. It might make them worse. It’s just my crackpot idea. ---
**Author:** ![DorkVader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/73ab20/32.png) [@DorkVader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DorkVader)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/117 "2024-09-03T18:52:26Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That same sort of interpretation could apply to the meaning of « arms » in the 2nd Amendment, I would think. The Court could conclude that some weapons are not included in « arms » for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment It is my understanding that this is in fact how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted. A minuteman missile or a sherman tank are weapons. Private citizens are not allowed to own Minuteman Missiles. It is possible for a private citizen to own a sherman tank, with main gun tube(the barrel) but not the main gun itself. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/118 "2024-09-03T19:08:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Moriarty](#): > > > > But I am curious. How broad is that right? Does it include a rocket propelled grenade? An automatic weapon? > > No, and mostly no (special licence, hard to get, very small limited numbers available) > > . I adamantly disagree. Militia arms are protected under the Second Amendment. Militia arms are those arms that the common foot soldier would carry. The common foot soldier does not carry a semi-automatic rifle but a rifle with both semi & full auto features. And, yes, grenade launching capabilities. The 1986 full ban on new machine guns is perhaps the largest, most outrageous violation of the 2nd Amendment in history. They are exactly the type of arms protected by it. How else is the whole people supposed to be the militia if not allowed actual militia arms? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/119 "2024-09-03T19:15:25Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > > [@Cmyers1980](#): > > > > We shouldn’t demand restrictions be placed on the right to bear arms that we wouldn’t want applied to the rest of the Bill of Rights. > > Aye, but there’s the rub. > > There are lots of restrictions place on the rest of the bill of rights, too. > > You want to exercise your free speech by parading down Main Street? You may need to get a permit first. It’s different exercising that right in public versus in private. But as I believe I said in another response, a crowd-control ordinance that pre-defines all unauthorized gatherings as riots? _That’s_ the level of prior restraint that is typically applied to owning and carrying firearms. > [@](#): > > It’s really only the 2nd amendment when it seems to be asserted that exceptions and restrictions _should not_ apply. Rather, it seems to be only the 2nd amendment that a lot of people think shouldn’t exist at all, or barring that should be cut back and restricted in every possible way, because unlike freedom of speech or of the press or of religious belief or peaceful assembly, freedom to possess weapons is supposedly an inherently bad thing and how could anyone have ever thought that it was a right? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/120 "2024-09-03T19:20:34Z")
And creating a group that supposedly wants to take away all your rights is a great way to put a hold on any/all conversation of the subject, isn’t it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468.md?page=7)