See The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers’ Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence by Stephen P. Halbrook, which includes a discussion of legislation and congressional statements about “the constitutional right to bear arms” contemporaneous with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
According to Halbrook:
Halbrook’s footnote:
He’s using here a law that wasn’t enacted to interpret one that was. If that’s the best that can be found, it’s better than nothing, but not much.
More significant is that Second Freedmen’s Bureau Bill doesn’t say it was a US constitutional right. State constitutions also had slightly different bills of rights from the federal one. I’m not 100 percent sure, but my interpretation of the vetoed bill is that the existing rights to arms given white men couldn’t be denied to African American men. I think that if you would have told the framers of either the Freedman bills or the 14th amendment that they were creating new gun rights for white Americans, rights not previously existing, consistent Republicans would have said that they just wanted to give southern blacks (or all blacks, in the case of Thaddeus Stevens) the same rights as whites now have.
In the context of the 2nd amendment, it is the "Due Process " clause of the 14th Amendment that applies. (I believe this is what **lance strongarm **was trying to point out.) Apologies if I have missed something in this debate..
Considering that over 90% of gun violence is committed by people who acquired the gun illegally, are you trying to address the less than 10% (and I think its a LOT less) of the time when cops have to respond to a gun being improperly used by its legal owner?
I’m still not seeing the huge benefit of gun liability insurance.
Yes, I said that this would not address illegal/criminal owners.
As a society, we insure against all sorts of low probability risks - that is the whole idea of insurance. I see no reason why the risks of firearms are any different. It is a non-draconian action that will help encourage more responsibility. Granted, not a huge benefit but very little bit helps.
The NRA even offers such insurance today.
If you are talking about insurance that I pay to cover my own liability, to make sure that I am financially capable of paying for any harm I might commit with my guns then I think thats fair. If you are talking about creating a pool that pays for ALL gun violence, where I pay a premium that pays for the criminal acts of others then I don’t see how that is fair or constitutional.
The 14th amendment applied the requirements of the federal bill of rights to the states. Whether it was the intent, or how or why, is another issue. The point is that it has happened.
For everone’s reference, the relevant case is McDonald v. Chicago. It only came out in 2010, after Heller, which surprised me.
Careless how? Like demographically if you were an inner city black male, of lower income, but law abiding, you would have to pay more? Sounds racist to me.
There’s no legitimate opposition to the idea that a right guaranteeing gun ownership does, in fact, guarantee gun ownership. If you want to argue with these people you have to get into a mentally addled fantasy world where dependent clauses aren’t a thing, history never happened, and “militia” means “standing professional army.” There’s nothing new to say about unless you really like pointless arguments with the proudly ignorant.
I fail to see how being black, male or inner city intersects with careless or racist. Feel free to explain my failure.
I think insurers would define careless as something that increases their claim rate for loss of or injury traceable to an insured firearm.
Nope, too late, you’re a racist pig! He proved it! Racist pig, racist pig!
Seriously, he was either pointing out how others might jump to ridiculous conclusions, or he was actually trolling with one. I’ll assume the former to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Let’s change this over, please. Name calling to so unproductive.
I have a question.
A couple days ago we have the perfect NRA scenerio - a good guy with a gun - one of the best killers in the nation - fully armed and loaded - gets gunned down and the NRA wants to arm school teachers. Hows that going to work?
A gun doesn’t make you invulnerable, especially to ambush. It just raises your odds from zero.
What are the insurance companies going to do, follow people around and see how well they follow basic safety rules?
There are a few ways I can see the insurance thing go, none of them good. Demographics will probably show that poor people, inner city people, and minorities are at a higher than average risk, so if you raise their rates for any of these groups disproportionately it will be seen as racist and I think it will be racist. A flat rate of all gun owners would screw more affluent and rural gun owners, who are not a high risk group but would still disproportionately deter the poor from obtaining guns, many of whom are minorities, so it would likely still be seen as racist, not to mention that poorer, urban folks are at a higher risk for crime and probably more in need of self protection.
I should also say that I am no fan of the insurance industry. However I do think if I were a gun control advocate that pushing this insurance thing is a good strategy. Anything that increases the cost and inconvenience of owning firearms will lessen their desirability. So yeah, I’m against this insurance thing. It’s just another gun-control idea in disguise.
No. Do they do that with your auto insurance?
By your standard - fire, homeowner and auto insurance is racist and designed to keep poor people from owning cars and homes.
I am by no means an insurance underwriter but I would think that any owner, regardless of demographics, who could show that they responsibly use, store and transfer firearms responsibly would see very low rates. If they fail to meet that standard, I cannot see how any constitutional right should protect them from higher premiums.
By the way, I’m a gun owner and support the second amendment. However I happen to believe that with rights come responsibilities. I cannot support the lack of responsibility that leads to the current levels of gun crime and violence - and the burden borne by all taxpayers for the resulting costs to society. Almost without exception, every gun in criminal hands was at one time, purchased and owned by an individual who was responsible until they let the gun slip into criminal hands. If insurance could encourage the continuation of that responsibility without draconian legislation or more criminal penalties, I see it as a win for society at large and for gun owners.
You should communicate that to the NRA since they endorse liability insurance for firearm owners. I have not read the Rifleman for years now, but I think that the NRA would like you to let them know they are supporting gun-control.
Probably not so much homes, but certainly it prices a lot of people out of owning cars, or they just drive without insurance. What are you going to do with the people that can’t afford gun insurance, confiscate them?
You sound like an insurance agent. So if I have a CCW and I carry a handgun on my body is that going to be interpreted as responsible transfer and storage or not? What if I have to use my gun for defense, is that going to raise my rates?
OK, so you want responsible gun owners to bear the burden of the non-responsible owners. I understand.
Hey if you want to voluntarily get insurance then more power to you. Are you leading by example?
Why would anyone do that - have you had anything confiscated for lack of insurance? We are talking about insurance for civil and financial protection - not criminalization.
Ask an insurance agent but I would imagine that rates rise when there is a claim. Just like your auto insurance does not rise when you use your car, only when you or someone else files a claim.
No. You do not understand.
I want responsible owners to be encouraged to keep guns away from irresponsible owners/users. Foe example, Mrs. Lanza (or her estate) would have had insurance claim(s) against her for the actions of her son. Had a drug crazed hippie stolen her guns and sold them to a gang banger, she would have reported the theft and would not be financially liable for any subsequent crimes or claims.
She had insurance and doubtless thought of herself and son as responsible. She and her community are financially protected by insurance she paid for. The gang banger is not protected by her insurance.
See the difference?
I carry excess liability insurance (but not from the NRA).
Is it your belief that a 10 year ban can measurably impact a nation of 250 million guns? It needed to be longer. You wouldn’t do a longitudinal study on cancer rates using a sample size of 5 people over a period of 6 months, would you? The AWB did impact some guns, the ones that was determined to be too dangerous to have on the streets. Whether that had a measurable impact in 10 short years is irrelevant to the point that we shouldn’t have those things and that nobody needed them for any kind of self-defense. If tomorrow we banned contact between Martians, and in 10 years there still wasn’t any Martians to contact, why should that ban expire? It doesn’t impact anyone negatively, and the purpose of the law is good
It depends. I was responding to someone else who seemed to feel that encroachment itself is wrong, and unsupported, and I was trying to show him that legal rights are defined and restricted in any number of ways. I agree with your description of it, but not his, because his definition of encroachment seems to be that any restriction, however small, on the right to bear arms is wrong and unconstitutional.
My issue has always been the insane paranoia coming from the gun lobby. Boycott them if you like, but don’t lie and say that safety locks are an unacceptable affront to liberty. In this again, we agree
Again the confusion, or purposeful distortion by the gun lobby, seems to be that even voluntary compliance with the government is a 2nd Amendment issue. Its not. If Smith and Wesson wants to voluntarily take the most extreme anti-gun suggestions from the government and make their weapons compliant to that, they are fine to do so and it has no impact on the 2nd Amendment. I also get bugged about people talking about how so-and-so private organization is censoring free speech when that only applies to the government.
If a gun manufacturer wants to do that on its own guns voluntarily, then I don’t think that will be struck down as unconstitutional
Agree and agree
Well realistically, it depends on the amount of carrots and sticks offered by the government. If its a wink, wink, nudge, nudge “suggestion”, I think that would sail past any court challenge. If its a “do it this way or else”, then I think that would be more likely to be overturned by the courts. Everything depends on the details
Let’s not pretend there’s an equivalency here. I see this latest round of gun battles as a microcosm of the overall shift to the extreme right the Republicans and conservatives have moved to in the last few decades. I don’t think the President or VP, or senators and congressmen are poisoning anything. For proof of that, I ask you to look to the recent executive actions, not all of them actual Executive Orders (capital), that makes some very good and common sense suggestions and changes to how our nation deals with guns. Things like background checks are pretty much universally supported even amongst gun owners and NRA members, but the NRA spokemen and conservative pundits like to claim otherwise. There is no poisoning of the well when Feinstein wants to reintroduce the AWB which, even flawed, seeks to block some dangerous types of weapons that have no use for personal or home defense. Again, its like having an admittedly useless law in banning Martian contacts, its not hurting anyone so people shouldn’t be making such a big deal about it. Only in this case, those weapons DO exist and it will make some difference, if small, and for me, that is perfectly fine. Better to craft a law banning 1 out of 100 dangerous guns and claim it does almost nothing than to have no law banning all 100 guns and claim that’s better.
I just don’t get where the paranoia is coming from. Other than me, a random guy on a message board, I have heard no politician or pundit say all guns should be banned. To me, this paranoia is completely unfounded, and the likes of LaPierre arguing against his own stance from 20 years ago is more proof that the right has moved to the extreme than an example that liberals want to ban guns. Where is this coming from? Who, in national politics, has said anything about confiscating all guns?
Let’s say I agree with that, and I do loves me some irony, then I would seem to think that your answer is functionally a defense of more restrictions on guns. Of course, going by your other posts, you are not, so you seem to point out the irony merely as a way to mock those who want to see more regulations and not as constructive criticism on how to design a better regulation. Am I right?
Because my goal is to reduce gun deaths and violence. That is why I want to increase regulation. If, ironically, Loughner was taken down by a defect in a higher clip, then my goal should be to make that defect the standard, not ignore the defect and champion a flaw-free 30 round clip. So I ask you, what is your goal? Simply to laugh at karma, or to suggest something that brings down deaths and violence from guns?
Let’s say you’re right. How much can we quantify that infringement? If you are still allowed to defend yourself using something much more efficient like a handgun, then your rights weren’t really infringed all that much. What infringement the gun lobby thinks would happen with the AWB is so miniscule as to be irrelevant to the discussion. Meanwhile, we’d have 50 more people alive. I’m sure their families and friends would prefer that over a minor infringement of a right that is not impacted at all
I’m unaware that we had to do one or the other.
I agree with this
I didn’t realize that I had to prove a future speculation in order to have a sound argument today. This ONLY comes up in gun debates. Someone who favors gun control has to not only come up with a coherent argument, but somehow ENSURE that all future possible permutations of government does not ever take it any further. If you could only see how crazy that sounds, you’d be as shocked and incredulous as I am.
I’m not going to do that. This debate isn’t your personal one to dictate however you want. I don’t need the burden of proof that no government will ever touch your guns. What I am interested, and what I thought you would be being a member of this board, is a discussion on the merits of an idea as it applies today. If you want to speculate and debate on the likelihood of the US turning into Hitlerville in the future, that is another debate, one that I don’t care to join but will watch with amusing smugness from the sidelines.
This is the gun debate as it stands in current law. I am interested in debating what, if any, is a good law pertaining to guns now. I have neither the time nor the patience to placate your internal fears about a possible future that doesn’t exist. If, however, that is what you want to hang your debate on, then message received, I simply won’t argue with you anymore. But if you want to drop the paranoia and not pretend like any of us here on this message board can sway federal laws one way or the other, then I would love to talk to you. You have some good ideas, I agree with some of what you said, but I’m not here to be a sounding board for a paranoid rant
But they’re not “dangerous”–or, rather, they are precisely as dangerous as non-“assault” weapons. How is the AR-15, objectively, more “dangerous” than the M1 Garand? The “assault weapons” aren’t even, to any real degree, more dangerous than bolt action rifles like these, or revolvers, like this one. The “assault weapons” aren’t “dangerous” because they have barrel shrouds or because they have pistol grips–they’re dangerous because they shoot bullets. The logic of “assault weapons” bans is thus, fundamentally, the logic of bans on guns in general. Now, a lot of people are perfectly OK with that–they want to ban guns in general (or severely restrict them, to the extent seen in the UK or Australia). But those people can’t expect that those who disagree with the pro-ban POV to be reassured because the “assault weapon” ban only bans a (more or less arbitrary) sub-set of guns–for now–or expect the pro-gun-rights side to see these incremental bans as fundamentally “moderate”.
This doesn’t apply to measures like strengthened background checks (such as doing a better job of including mental health data, or trying to institute truly universal background checks instead of just running background checks on people buying guns at gun stores or from licensed dealers). The logic of background checks is the logic of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people, which is a goal pretty much everyone agrees on, and doesn’t inherently lead to the logic of keeping guns out of the hands of the sane and law-abiding. However, the confiscatory logic of “assault weapons” bans–and the open calls for “Well, let’s just repeal the Second Amendment!” and “Let’s just get rid of all the guns!” seen in every gun thread–poison the well against proposals like better background checks that are actually in agreement with the old pro-gun bumper sticker, “Guns don’t kill people–People kill people!” (so let’s try to keep the guns away from those people).
