Well the ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ gun folks do interpret it differently. That much I think we can all agree on.
AFAIK, the DC law prevents any one from keeping a gun in their house in the City. I’m not sure how that applies to Police and members of the regulated National Guard. I would like to know though. Most police are encouraged to carry off duty.
It bugs me because if police are allowed to keep personal firearms, then that means that some people are more equal than others. I need to do more research on the DC gun laws.
Chicago has something similar for handguns. And SanFran tried to do the same but I believe it was shot down.
According to the Declaration of Independence, it happens every time a US citizen is born. Certainly there are people who would like to deny various others their rights. My argument is that there is an underlying reason why we should prevent people from being deprived of their rights. It was wrong to deny black people the right to vote, even before the Civil Rights Act. Slavery was an inherent wrong, even before the Civil War.
Actually, I was arguing from principle. Again, read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. These say, quite explicitly, that people have rights beyond the enumerated ones. And it also says that those rights belong to the States, or the people. Notice that the federal judiciary and Congress are not mentioned.
Sure. And so long as gun control laws do not infringe on the Second Amendment, they are legitimate. If they do, then they aren’t.
But, you see, there’s the problem. Your notion that gun owners have to get permission from the government before they exercise their rights does infringe on the Constitution as written. So they cannot be legitimate.
Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be willing to address the principle at all. Simply asserting “nope, there’s no problem and you haven’t lost any rights” doesn’t clarify things.
Put it this way - Romney wins the election. He appoints several Justices to the Supreme Court, and Utah subsequently bans all abortions. The case is appealed to the Supreme Court, and is upheld.
You would then agree that no rights have been violated, correct?
Meh, it sounds incorrect. “Well, JS Bach, I know that you like music.” Nothing beyond that. Well, also I liked calling you Doc Brown, because it amuses me, but if you prefer JR Brown, I shall do so.
Well, debating the source of rights would be an equally long and equally contentious tread. The Declaration of Independence indicates that rights are “endowed by [man’s] Creator”. Since I don’t believe in a Creator, or a just and benevolent Universe, or any other possible external source of rights, I believe that rights, especially in a democracy, arise from consensus among the members of society of what is desirable for the proper functioning of that society. Slavery is inherently unjust and abhorrent, I won’t argue with that, but it was also and simultaneously an established right, and it would have remained so if a large number of non-slaves hadn’t agreed to repeal that right.
But I don’t think that “gun owners have to get permission from the government before they exercise their rights”. I think that government has a right to regulate gun ownership. An individual’s rights regarding guns, as for an individual’s rights regarding anything else, are whatever is left after all legitimate extant laws and regulations have been applied. We are mainly arguing here about what laws and regulations should be regarded as legitimate, based on our interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.
True. A previously recognized right would have been revoked, in full accordance with our legal mechanisms. I (and quite probably a large number of others) would then fight for such legislation as would reinstate that right.
That’s a distinction without a difference. If the government has a right to regulate rights, and “rights” are only what remains after the government gets done, then we don’t have any rights under the Constitution.
The Constitution says we have a right to free speech. But the government can regulate it, and ban it for everyone who doesn’t present proof a priori that they are the kind of folks the government trusts.
Sure, you have a right to publish that editorial. You just have to send a copy to the government office to have it approved beforehand, and we will censor it if we don’t like it.
Nothing to do with interfering with your rights at all.
Doc Brown it is. Probably a good thing, as the next step was to ask if you had a loverly daughter. o/`
(Girls as sharp as her are somethin’ rare.)
And speaking of that loverly daughter, there are certain rights which I feel are, ah, beyond the confines of the rule of law, such that any government that seeks to dictate them deserves to be brought down. For example, a government that attempted to dictate who would marry whom, or who actively attempted to control private thought.
Winston Smith loved Big Brother. That did not make Big Brother anything less than something which deserved to be smashed with a sledgehammer, now did it?
Reading posts #226 and #227, I think we may have hit a fundamental point here. Last time I checked, the US of A was a democracy, so in a nontrivial sense, government = us. That’s what the whole “we the people” schtick is supposed to be about.
Obviously, there’s a certain time lag and a whole lot of shouting between the expressed will of the people and the legislation which enforces it, but in theory we get to say what the rules are. The problem comes in when a majority of the population (or at least the majority of those who bother to make it to the voting booth) want something other than what I (or you) want.
Shodan, E-Sabbath, if someone were to propose a Constitutional Amendment banning all firearms, and if it were placed directly before the people, and if by some miracle 100% of eligible voters in fact voted, how big a percentage would have to vote in favor before you would feel that your right to bear arms had been legitimately revoked? 75%? 95%? 99%? If you feel you should retain that right regardless of what the rest of the populace thinks, isn’t that inherently undemocratic?
While you probably saw the 1984 reference, you probably missed the reference to the 1984 Macintosh advertisment.
Well, here’s the thing. Part of the issue we have here is that part of the necessary functions of any democratic government is to protect unpopular positions, lest it fall into bread, circuses, witch hunts, and tyranny. (And I do mean witch hunts in the most literal sense: my family (paternal grandmother’s side) was forced to leave New Salem with undue speed one year.) So, again, banning guns is remarkably like banning speech. How big a percentage would have to vote in favor before you would give up your right to worship as you pleased, instead of at the altar of Moloch? Now, of course, nobody’s going to force you to worship Moloch… but that’s about as likely as you are to get a majority of the population to support revoking the 2nd Amendment.
It does come down to the question of natural rights. I believe that the Enlightenment concept of natural rights has a strong position. Even if they do not exist, we should act as if they do. For I believe in individual freedom. Classic liberalism, if you will. And I believe that my rights exist, seperate from the position of government, and that they can not be taken from me, so long as I breathe. Without natural rights, there are no human rights, and there is no moral justification to treat others humanely, rather than at the whims of your lord. Without natural rights, there is no justice. Merely law. And I’m sure you can tell the difference betwen them.
But that’s neither here nor there.
The point is not the gun, but the natural right to defend one’s life, liberty, and property.
I’m looking for the DC gun restriction passed in 1976 (?).
I get a lot of hits on newspaper stories, the NRA and the CATO institute.
From what I read, it seems, that the law in DC (if you obey the law) pretty much prevents the ownership of handguns.
And all long guns must be disassembled in the home. Or have a trigger lock or be in a safe. This prevents rifles and shotguns from being used as personal defense.
Bolding mine.
JRB You stated in a former post that guns that are powerful enough for personal defense and hunting should be allowed.
If you do feel that people should be able to protect themselves in their own home, what do you think about the DC law that prevents it?
I don’t think we are using the same understanding of “rights”.
According to the Declaration of Independence, human creatures are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Note the use of the word “inalienable”. That means these rights cannot be removed by anyone (except, presumably, God).
So certain rights cannot be removed, and a government that attempts to do so loses its legitimacy. Once the government loses its legitimacy, the People are entitled to alter or abolish that government, and try something else that will secure our inalienable rights.
I suppose we could argue for a couple of pages as to whether or not the right to keep and bear arms is one of the central, inalienable rights. The Founding Fathers thought so, at least to the extent that keeping and bearing arms (so as to have the ability to form a militia) was essential to maintaining a free state. By ratifying the Bill of Rights, it would seem that our current government accepts this. Therefore, they are assuming the burden and privilege of defending the inalienable rights of US citizens. To the extent that they fail to do so, they lose their licit authority, and the People have the right to alter or abolish the government.
Now this does not necessarily mean that we need another revolution every time some hack politician tries to pass another gun control law. The DoI says
Thus it is generally preferable to vote the rascals out, if they attempt to interfere with our inalienable rights. And one of the glories of the American experiment in self-rule is that it has worked that way so often.
But one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to be ready in case it doesn’t work that way.
It sure is. But that is the purpose of a Constitution - to secure the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.
Which, incidentally, is why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy in the literal sense of the word.
I’m firmly with Shodan - the consensus of a majority does not establish legitimacy when we are talking about preserving or abandoning basic rights of the individual. Any government that attempts to destroy individual freedom is illegitimate, and a people so disenfranchised should always fight: to the restoration of their liberties, if such is possible in their society; to their independence from that society otherwise; and, if even that is denied them, to the death.
Well, I would argue that the the necessary functions of a democratic government include acting in the best interests of the society as a whole, which includes seeing that rights are (more or less) evenly apportioned across society rather than concentrated within specific special-interest groups, even if those groups are in the majority. That does not exactly correspond with “protect[ing] unpopular positions”. There are certain unpopular positions which are probably detrimental to society (eg, “sex with 12-year olds should be permitted”), and certain unpopular positions which are probably beneficial to society (eg, “literary and artistic depictions of sex with 12-year olds should be permitted”).
I see your point, but I disagree. As a card-carrying scientific humanist, I can’t generate any faith in “innate” rights (or as one of my favorite authors has his characters say, “There is no justice. There’s just us.”). The “moral justification to treat others humanely”, in my view, arises through human society and human empathy and not from some external source, because there are no external sources; the Universe isn’t Just, isn’t Moral, and doesn’t care. And “natural rights” have been used to justify about as much ghastly behavior as “divine law”.
Well, I’m not entirely sure how I feel about DC’s regulations. On the one hand, I don’t think a total handgun ban would be necessarily unconstitutional, but on the other hand, DC’s implementation as I understand it is… well, maybe “underhanded” implies too much planning and foresight, so let’s say “non-transparent.” :dubious:
I can’t find a copy of the actual legislation, but if it is permissible to keep a (loaded?) longun in a lockbox, that really isn’t that much of an problem, is it? We have “controlled substance” lockboxes with 5-button pushbutton locks, and once you are familiar with them they take a matter of seconds to open; would that meet the regulations?
I find this story disturbing. It’s about the forced confiscation of firearms after the hurricane Katrina.
Law-abiding citizens were subject to confiscation of their firearms during the Katrina catastrophe.
Yes the story is from the Guns&Ammo magazine. It certainly may be slanted.
Anybody remember the videos ofPolice looting a Wal-Mart? Admittedly, it was a crazy situation. But it seems that the powers that be believe that some people are more equal than others.
Well, as I said, I don’t accept the idea of a Creator, so the first half of that paragraph looses a lot of its rhetorical oomph.
In any case, our government recognizes certain cases where those same “inalienable” rights can be revoked; are imprisonment and the death penalty unconstitutional? Should their existence prove that the government is “illegitimate”?
I can’t find the regulation either. At least not directly. Lots of quotes and perhaps paraphrases.
I have looked into pistol safes that have a much faster non-keyed entry than the 5 button lock you mention.
Though since it’s for a handgun, it would not be useful in DC.
There are many debates about the relative effectiveness of a handgun against a shotgun or carbine for home defense. IMHO, it all depends on where you live and your dwelling.
The DC law not underhanded? That’s what I would call it. Even if it wasn’t, it does not matter. Gun owners see the next step that anti-gun folks want to take.
Well, that just pushes on the debate to “what’s a basic right” and “who gets to decide”? I don’t believe the right to bear arms necessarily counts as “basic”. I’m guessing that you do. In the absence of a Higher Authority, what should we do to resolve this discrepancy, if not debate it and try to find a consensus?
Any form of government other than anarchy “destroy[s] individual freedom.” The question is which freedoms we should surrender, to what degree, and under what circumstances.
The question is addressed, however, by the “due process” clauses in the Constitution. Rights cannot be removed from citizens at large, only from those convicted in a duly-appointed court of law.
I just finished reading Variable Star. Lovely book, but clearly Spider Robinson.
That said, very well. We shall throw away the concept of political philosophy. We shall judge history useless, and eliminate justice as a goal to be searched for. (Though I disagree, while TANJ, there is just us. And what we can do in our blind ways is search for a more perfect tomorrow, and forge what justice we will.)
What gives you any right to tell me that guns are unnecessary, then? The will of the people is to have them. The government seeks only to control us all and perpetuate itself. There is no good and no evil, just the human condition.
And, as you know, humans are creatures of self-interest. All things being equal, I’d rather my interests win over yours, if they come into conflict. Seems me having a gun helps me as much as me not having a gun helps you.
