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.
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.
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.
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”)?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Bidens bipartisan Gun control bill. Wide across the nation support- except of course the NRA
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.
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 -
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.
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.
Sufficient for what?
Achieving our lofty goal of reducing gun murders to under 20,000 per year?
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.
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.
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.
I think that if all protections were meant to be the same, it would be called The Bill Of Right.
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).
Are there any countries you would use as a good example?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?