Could you provide an example or two of this phenomenon? My goofu is weak today.
There was a nice smack on the head:
Okay then, so it was an actual problem and not just a theoretical problem.
No comment on this issue, but I have to say I like the term I bolded. I plan to steal it.
What punches has the Second Amendment sustained in recent years?
Do the punches really have to have come in recent years? Until 2010, Chicago had a handgun ban that lasted for twenty-eight years. In 1994 the Feds passed the Assault Weapons Ban but of course that expired in 2008. It’s illegal for people in the state of New York to possess magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds manufactured after 1998. Of course that law is difficult to enforce because magazines produced after 2004 don’t need to have the date stamped on them. It was very difficult to own a handgun in Washington D.C. but it’s become a bit easier in recent years.
Yeah, the 2nd Amendment has taken some punches over the years. In recent years things have tilted in its favor though.
I wasn’t aware, apparently a new law was just recently passed banning unloaded open carry except in rural areas. (Seems bizarre, but go figure.) But, that only applies to handguns in public places. You can still carry in the home or otherwise on one’s private property, loaded or unloaded, without a concealed carry license.
I would still characterize it as “difficult.”
Here is a series of blogged entries by a woman named Emily Miller, who lives in DC and decided she wanted to get a gun after a frightening encounter:
She goes on over the next several months detailing each and every step necessary for her to actually legally purchase and bring home a handgun in DC. It’s fair to say it’s difficult. Read the entire series, or, if you prefer the Reader’s Digest version, here’s an excerpt for her testimony in front of the DC Council during the months she was trying to get her gun:
Surely some put “because I Live Free”, no?
I haven’t read the entirety of the Emily Miller story linked to above, but my first thought was “Wouldn’t the ‘pool guy’ have stolen the gun too?”. Unless she’s planning on carrying it everywhere she goes, but if you’re that paranoid you don’t leave the house and leave the door unlocked either.
That said, I too agree that the “you gotta give us a reason” approach is stupid and indeed unconstitutional.
Perhaps in her case, as she was housesitting. On the other hand, presumably she wouldn’t have left it out. The “pool guy” didn’t steal her Blackberry… sounds like it was a quick in-and-out.
At home, we would imagine a gun lock or a gun safe as safety measures against that eventuality.
So would you be okay if your right to free speech was restricted to your own home?
In other words, for public safety and for God’s sake think of the impressionable children, you can’t speak in public or post things on the internet, but if you want to whisper non-treasonous things under your bed sheets, at night, with nobody else in earshot, then would you feel that your 1st amendment rights have been protected?
No, but the Constitution says that freedom of speech shall not be abridged, whereas the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The two are not equal.
And I did not, in any case, state that I agreed with the law at hand.
That’s an interesting comment.
I know you’re not personally pushing this view, but for the sake of an intriguing argument, could you lay out how abridged differs from infringed in this context?
Well, I’m not gatorslap, but abridge means to shorten or limit while infringe means to invalidate or defeat (this is an obsolete definition - I’m not sure if it was prevalent at the time of the writing of the BoR - the non-obsolete definition doesn’t really work in this context).
So it could be argued that rights which cannot be abridged cannot be shortened or limited in any way (or at least not in any but the most necessary ways), while those that cannot be infringed merely cannot be so limited as to be defeated or invalidated.
I think the operative definitions here are:
abridge - to reduce in scope; diminish; curtail
infringe - to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
Very little regulation or restriction is permitted without doing the former, whereas a significant amount can be done without doing the latter. And I think the way the law/jurisprudence is now, is mostly correct. You can’t ban firearms altogether, but you can require permits and background checks and regulate the manufacture and import of guns. Similar regulations on free speech would not be Constitutional (and indeed, would not be tolerated).
edit: Or, what Jas09 said.
Thanks!
As a gun-rights proponant, I love this distinction.
It makes sense to me that the 1st Amendment should never be limited except in the interest of public safety (yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater, inciting a riot, etc.) yet the right to keep a firearm can be limited (you can have a handgun, rifle or shotgun but not a bazooka or thermonuclear device) as long as the State still allows reasonable gun ownership and usage.
I used to have a concealed carry permit and if having a gun makes you feel safer, then you are exactly the sort of person who shouldn’t carry a firearm.
Having a firearm, made me very conscious that I might have to make a split-second life or death decision. Based on the self-defense literature I’ve read, this is the correct reaction. A firearm is no substitute for situational awareness. Fear is a useful emotion. Fear is Nature’s way of telling you that you are doing something stupid. If you don’t feel safe in a situation. Get out! Being armed doesn’t mean you’re bulletproof. If you can’t put put aside the feeling of safety that a firearm gives you , then you are actually making yourself less safe.
That’s fascinating. Taken to its conclusion a law saying that you could lay a finger on an unloaded old flintlock musket on July 4th of each year at 4:43pm for 3 seconds, while supervised by 78 police officers would satisfy the 2nd amendment, but
A law against threatening the life of the President would be unconstitutional.
Surely , Antonin Scalia in all of his textual glory wouldn’t make such a fine distinction.