It seems to me that what you are saying is that their view is a serious misstep because it is a view that differs from that of the Supreme Court in a recent case and because (I suspect rather more importantly) it is a view you disagree with. Perhaps the ACLU just disagrees with you (and the SC) about what the words mean? I don’t know that there is anything particularly nefarious about them doing so. Don’t people and organisations disagree with courts (and posters on message boards) all the time? Is that wrong? Should they not do that?
You seem to put great store by the fact that you say there is no other instance of the ACLU disagreeing with the Supreme Court on a case that incorporated any other part of the Bill of Rights. So what? I have no dog in this fight and don’t even live in the US but I guess as a lawyer I’m qualified to say that the 2nd amendment appears to me to be ambiguously drafted. There is in my view, at the risk of severe understatement, a great deal of room for reasonable people to differ about what the hell it is supposed to mean, particularly in a modern context.
I say that the topic calls for some serious investigation. For example, from Wikipedia: A 2008 article by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell uses a more extensive data set and projects effects of the Ayres and Donohue hybrid model beyond a five-year span. Though their data set renders an apparent reduction in the cost of crime, Donohue and Ayres point out that the cost of crime increased in 23 of the 24 jurisdictions under scrutiny. Florida was the only jurisdiction showing positive effects from Shall-Issue Laws. Donohue and Ayres question the special case of Florida as well.[95] Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia I should like more details.
All that said, what little literature on gun control that I’ve seen is a mess. Some of it is statistically suspect, and there are indications that high profile researchers on both sides have engaged in unscholarly conduct. Personally, I’ve thrown up my hands and have shifted attention to the question, “Does buying a firearm increase or decrease your life expectancy?” Even that turns out to be a challenging topic.
Odesio: Really? You think Der Trihs had an interesting thought? Der said that millions of gun holders would “…betray any other person or principle they claim to care about as long as you promise them they can keep their guns.” I’d say the thought was more unintentionally comical than interesting.
At the risk of disobeying the moderator’s ban on personal comments, I can only say that I think you’re being deliberately obtuse and that I don’t believe you’re willing to honestly debate the topic. If someone else wants to take the bait and dignify your comments, they’re free to do so; I’m done.
Yeah, but good luck getting any pro-gun people to admit it. That said, ambiguities in the US Constitution are generally resolved in favor of individual liberty.
I’m saying that some people seem to be debating the change of may issue to shall issue, and others seem to be debating either the change of no issue to shall issue, or else just the general idea of concealed carry. And those are different topics. Just clarifying.
I wasn’t aware that anywhere in the US other than DC had had no issue- even places like Chicago and New York City had provisions for issuing a vanishingly small number of carry permits to people like government officials’ bodyguards for example. I suppose the subject overlap comes from the fact that may issue in a lot of jurisdictions effectively became no issue, and that of course is going to raise the whole general subject of carry if more than a tiny elite of approved people are going to have permits.
BTW: “concealed” carry is a bit of a misnomer- laws vary by state but generally permit to carry usually covers both concealed and open carry. Even within the carry community there’s debate over whether open carry is impolitic enough to be counterproductive to the pro-carry movement.
Even DC had quasi-legal provision for people with the right connections or high enough political status to carry weapons. One such dodge used for years was to get special deputy status as a US Marshal. The Attorney General did finally put a stop to that, at least WRT to congressmen, in the mid-1990’s. Some discussion of it and a copy of a letter from the AG here.
I don’t think there has ever been a place in the US where it was flatly impossible to get a weapons permit. There have been a great many, though, where such were limited to the wealthy, politically powerful, or retired LE.
I don’t know that this will answer the question but:
My take is that most folks who will want to carry firearms will jump through whatever hoops you put in front of them and of course those who don’t want to won’t be jumping through any amount of hoops.
Lesson learned? Not all gun carry advocates are crazy?
I fear the police more than I do any person with a concealed carry license, or any other citizen for that matter.
Who else could break into your house at night, kill your pets, mace you, handcuff you, then discover it was all a mistake and leave without going to jail? How many times have you been pulled over and harassed by private citizens wanting to search your car (in a jurisdiction that has rumors about planting drugs on cars in order to seize them)?
I was responding to the post with a hypothetical. The direction of your questioning is misplaced, sorry to say.
Consider what I was responding to. LG Butts (great name by the way!) said that studies show the majority of guns were committed with illegal firearms. Thus, his conclusion is, the problem is with illegal firearms and not with legal concealed carry.
“Not so!” says the enigmatic YogSosoth! While that conclusion is obvious one, it could be (and I said “could” precisely because I knew someone would respond as you have) misleading. One could also surmise that had those guns been legal, the same criminals who perpetrated the gun crimes would simply have done their crimes with legal guns.
The larger implication here on your part is a mistake, and its twofold:
One, that only criminals only get their guns illegally
And two, a legally purchased gun deterred people from committing crimes or prevents criminals from…I don’t know how to put it…forming? Manifesting?
I would submit that the crimes itself were unpreventable to a certain point (How would one predict and prevent a random act of passion killing? Or gang violence? Or Yakuza vs. Mafia shootout?) and thus, if the weapons were legal, they would have still happened. The only way to stop them, I think, is to tackle the larger issue of crime in general, or ban all guns and restrict firearms.
You could be right, I don’t know for sure. But maybe the saturation level of crime has something to do with it, like another poster said. I don’t think we’re all potential criminals in this country. But there should be a some point where firearms are so freely available that it wouldn’t increase crime past a standard deviation.
I think you’re going about it the wrong way. I have never, ever seen a gun rights advocate willingly concede the point on the basis of “its their state”. They always want to make some kind of Constitutional argument like you are dragging in. Its not. As far as I’m concerned, its legal, and I’ve accepted that. What I won’t accept is people such as yourself coming in to another state telling us that the way we interpret the Constitution is all wrong and asinine. It is not. California and New York, I believe have a perfectly justified reason to restrict guns and disallow the silly “Shall Issue” rule. If NY wants you to take years of classes and spend thousands of dollars and register yourself and your firstborn to even walk into a gun store, I think that’s fine. And I think you should be too because they are not violating the Constitution. And no, I don’t think this is a derailment of the issue
Until Heller, I never heard an anti preaching about states rights. What was your opinion on the matter in 1992 when Clinton’s ban was passed? Would you have been so cool with the idea of Pennsylvania or Texas electing to ignore the law because they figured they had “perfectly justified reasons” to ignore the “silly” ban?
If you’re talking to me, then obviously there are limitations and nuances to states’ rights. Don’t get that mixed up with my general stance on states’ rights, which is more in line with the Feds. I used states’ rights only as a counter-argument to those who, let’s face it, are conservative and usually love states’ rights and are pro-guns. Maybe they’d be making that argument less if they realize, or are forced to accept, that different states will have wildly different gun restrictions
As for your specific question, the Brady Bill was Federal, was it not? That should tell you how much I support it.
It would be hopeful, in the context of an honest debate, to hear from a gun advocate admit that the 2nd Amendment was written ambiguously and that New York has just as much right to restrict their guns as Montana has to include it as part of the gift basket in every birth
Regarding being against a state’s right to ban firearms:
The problem is that governments are virtually by definition about prohibition and imposing authority; freedom and laissez-faire are not the default. Many states have bill of rights provisions within their state constitutions, some don’t; and even a trivial look at some of the things that elected legislatures have enacted or tried to enact is enough to make your hair stand on end. Yes you could claim that the people of New York or California get the laws they deserve and if they weren’t happy with it they could change it. But once something is banned in perpetuity it’s nearly impossible to get it unbanned again, simply because of the sheer inertia of the law. Governments almost never agree to have less power.
Appealing to the Federal constitution against the states may be a case of “who guards the guardians?”, and pro-gun advocates are painfully aware of the paradox of using a provision intended to limit government power to effectively expand government power. But it’s often the only (and very imperfect) recourse because the federal constitution is by writ the supreme law of the nation and the federal government at least originally was supposed to embody the principle of government having no power in opposition to fundamental rights.
Let me stop you right there. While my personal views are more in line with banning, that is not what I was arguing. I’m arguing about restricting guns. Yes, some may have the effect of technically banning guns, but there are enough loopholes in laws for me to consider that a moot point.
I guess I differ most on what you consider an unforgivable trespass on gun rights. To me, a restriction that borders on banning is not unforgivable, its fine and dandy. I will not apologize for that position nor will I apologize for using the word “dandy”.
I don’t see it as a problem that government is about prohibition and imposing authority. There are good prohibitions and bad ones. I don’t think one on guns is bad
I think that people who like to appeal to some fundamental rights miss the bigger point entirely in that what rights you have, whether you want to call them god-given, fundamental, or basic human rights, are enforced and yes, given by government. You may not want to hear that, but as an atheist, I have little patience for this kind of belief of the universal righteousness of man.
So by my philosophy, government totally does have not only the means to oppose rights, but the right to restrict we see fit. But I say “we” because government is us. They are not some non-human entity lording over us from the beginning of creation, they are us. Yes, I hope and expect that government will enforce rights fairly and correctly, but I have no delusions about where our rights come from. Believing such as I do doesn’t make me a big government person (that comes from somewhere else), but it does mean that arguments citing some principle duty of government is not going to be convincing to me. And because of that, I hate how we, and in this case I’m specifically singling out people who use the tactic I mentioned in the previous post, are hypocritical about using the whole states’ rights thing. It bugs me a lot.
I do think his comment was interesting. He’s essentially saying the gun issue doesn’t matter when compared to other issues. Unfortunately, he only directs his ire at the pro gun side of the equation while completely ignoring the anti-gun side that makes it an issue.
YogSosoth, my main point was that governments institutionally have a built-in ratchet: make more things illegal, not less. It’s to the extent that governments have no innate tendency to liberalize (in the non-political sense of the word) prohibitions passed decades or a century or more ago that the premise “government is us” fails. The law is like a fortress that a minority can hold against an assault by a five-to-one supermajority. Overturning the precedent of something being illegal requires an enormous positive effort rather than simply being a case of the original prohibition being undone. It’s this grossly asymmetric aspect of government that makes supporters of any sort of liberalization leery of even tiny precedents for increased restriction.
In the case of guns, the current nationwide shall-issue movement is trying to undo laws that were originally passed in a moral panic abetted by a theory of social progressivism that in the light of experience simply hasn’t proven correct. Or to put it in much simpler terms, “getting rid of guns was a mistake, and we’d like them back please”. Only now overturning the precedent that guns can be restricted almost without limit requires something close to the peaceful political equivalent of a rebellion.
As for your being perfectly dandy with governments having very broad power to impose authority, I can only say that that harkens back to the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who in his treatise Leviathan argued that civilization required that individuals be almost completely subordinated to the power of the state. It’s little exaggeration to say that the Enlightenment philosophy of the Founders was largely a refutation of Hobbes.
Yes, governments “secure” rights as said in the Declaration of Independence so that they exist in fact rather than as ideals, but that doesn’t mean governments create them. “Rights” aren’t supernatural or imaginary, it’s simply a consequence of the belief that people as individuals matter more than a super-personal system that they’re members of. If you truly take the philosophical position that that’s not so, then that’s too broad a subject for this thread; but I’ll say that the only examples so far of collectives, government or otherwise, being promoted over individuals have had nightmarish consequences.
