<p>^So you would accept a regulation that restricts a certain type of weapon, such as a machine gun, but does not prohibit the ownership of all “arms”, such as rifles and shotguns?</p>
<p>I would be ok with a restriction on those who have proven themselves violent or unstable (such restrictions are already in place). </p>
<p>I don’t like banning certain types outright, because that is a blanket restriction. I advocate strict oversight on 2A restrictions, which a ban like that would not meet. If you want a restriction that does not ban but merely requires more stringent applications, it would depend on the exact terms of that restriction. I am fine with states that require people to attend a class before obtaining a concealed carry license. This seems a reasonable regulation to ensure public safety to me. I don’t like the tax and local sheriff’s approval required to purchase an automatic weapon. The tax seems like a restriction to make money and penalize owners. The local approval leaves too much to personal politics IMO.</p>
<p>^So you feel anyone not proven “violent or unstable”, who has taken an appropriate class, should be allowed to own and use a .50 cal machine gun?</p>
<p>P2N, if you can restrict who has it, it’s not a “right” - it’s a privilege. There’s lots of rights in the constitution, and if it’s a “right” you can’t put reasonable restrictions on its possession, only on its use. </p>
<p>Let’s start with Religion. (I can see you sitting up in your chair, waiving your hand, ooh! ooh! call on me! call on me! I know lots of restrictions on religion!!! No. Sit down!) There’s absolutely no restriction on religious belief in this country. You can’t be prosecuted for being a Catholic, or a Muslim, Buddhist, Rastafarian or whatever. There are restrictions on various exercises of those beliefs which may conflict with others’ rights - but that’s not a restriction on the right to hold the religious belief itself. </p>
<p>The same holds true of freedom of speech. You can say anything you want in your own home. But if you shout fire in a crowded theater you can be held responsible for the consequences of your exercise of that speech - similarly with libel and slander. Again, the distinction between possession of a right and being held responsible for abusing your exercise of that right is where “reasonable restrictions” arises. </p>
<p>The comparison with guns? Well, you can’t shoot people with them. That’s the kind of restriction on the exercise of the right which wouldn’t conflict with a “personal right” under the second amendment. But the kind of restrictions you guys are talking about - who can own guns, what kind of guns they can own, etc. - those are restrictions on the right itself. </p>
<p>So, if it is a personal right, unrestricted by that “militia” stuff, that means the following applies:
Gun ownership = can’t restrict. Gun abuse = can restrict or punish. That’s what “right” means.</p>
<p>Every personal right has restrictions. Freedom of religion does not mean you are allowed to sacrifice humans to your religion. Your religion may encourage human sacrifice, but your right to practice that aspect is restricted.</p>
<p>The right to firearms does not mean you can own a firearm as a convicted felon, for example. A2 will be restricted like every other right.</p>
<p>What I see changing will be a lot of gun control laws now on the books in places like California and Illinois. Legislatures will have to prove a compelling interest in banning large magazines, for example. Places like Morton Grove, ILL will get sued in federal court until their laws meet constitutional muster.</p>
<p>What will result will be a much better application of reasonable firearms laws nationwide.</p>
<p>States grant “privileges”, like a driver’s license, for example. States cannot grant rights.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure what you meant by this, Ramius, but your second sentence is a good description of what I was referring to when I used the term “hero fantasy.” As to the pro-gun “studies” here’s the Sparknotes version: Lott: Was he asleep during the “correlation is not causation” lecture? Kleck & Gertz: Aside from the laughable study flaws, didn’t anyone pipe up at some point and say “If 2.5 million crimes are thwarted by private individuals with guns each year, year after year, why don’t I personally know anyone it’s happened to? And how do you prevent a rape with a pistol, anyway?” </p>
<p>Icarus: I’m an appellate lawyer. I read and write thoroughly researched briefs with citation to authority day in and day out. And the funny thing is, when it’s done well, either side’s brief, with its selected citations, is utterly convincing. It’s just that they reach opposite conclusions. And if you go in favoring one position you’re likely to find that side more convincing. So here’s an exercise for you - try reading the arguments offered up by the other guys, instead of just the ones supporting the position you already agree with.</p>
<p>Face it. We are in an uphill battle against the gun nuts’ own very rich and powerful lobby. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>P2N, I get that, as a policy question, you want more guns to be available to more people with fewer restrictions, or at least just the restrictions you think are “reasonable.” That’s a policy discussion worth having but couching it in terms of the second amendment defies the strict construction of the law. We agree that laws prohibiting human sacrifice or shooting people to death don’t violate the Constitution - but you’re jumping from laws restricting people’s exercise of their rights to the extent that they impinge on other people’s rights to an assertion of authority to pick who has the right at all. That’s what I have a problem with.</p>
<p>Crazy people have freedom of speech and religion, a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, a right not to incriminate themselves, etc. - but the right to bear arms is denied them? Why? If it’s a “right” you get it, up to the point where you exercise that right in a way which harms someone else. And until a crazy person shoots someone, they haven’t abused that right.</p>
<p>Your “reasonable restrictions” are just activist lawmaking in the guise of “interpreting” the Constitution. I thought we were against that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have, and in some detail, and I simply don’t find it convincing. Believe me, I was raised in a very anti-gun household, so this is not my default position. I have seen both sides from a more or less unbiased viewpoint and the pro-gun side has the better logical argument hands down.
My post was not an appeal to authority, but rather a response to a request for the views of the founding fathers. It is simply support for the argument, not the argument itself.</p>
<p>What I want is the Bill of Rights to be consistently interpreted. We cannot say A1 is subject to the whim of the day and the occasional plumbing of the “penumbra” to produce new variations of A1 while completely ignoring A2. </p>
<p>Like it or not, A2 will be found to be a personal right. From there we will have a period of litigation to establish limits of that right. This process is more an indicator of the youth of our republic than anything else.</p>
<p>Further, A2 was specifically included in the Bill of Rights by the founders. It is not there by chance and it is for everyone, not just conservatives.</p>
<p>I am really enjoying the energy of the statements in this discussion. It shows that it is time for this to be addressed.</p>
<p>The uphill battle is also against stories like these, Allmusic.
[ESPN</a> - Redskins’ Taylor dies from injury in shooting - NFL](<a href=“Taylor dies after being shot at home - ESPN”>Taylor dies after being shot at home - ESPN)
[Fairfield</a> Man Killed In House Invasion - News Story - KNTV | San Francisco](<a href=“News – NBC Bay Area”>News – NBC Bay Area)
[Monroenews.com</a> - Informing Monroe County, Michigan, for more than 180 years](<a href=“http://www.monroenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071126/NEWS01/111260054/-1/NEWS]Monroenews.com”>http://www.monroenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071126/NEWS01/111260054/-1/NEWS)</p>
<p>The question currently before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the NRA or any gun lobby – I don’t think any Justices would take an appointment with a lobbyist. As I understand it, the Court does not randomly tackle general questions – a specific case must have been decided at a lower court, which is then appealed to the Supreme Court. Is this correct?</p>
<p>So, this case is about a general, sweeping ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia. Last March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled (Parker v. District of Columbia) that gun control laws imposed by the D.C. City Council are unconstitutional. (The laws prohibited possession of a handgun and using any gun against violent criminals who invade a person’s home.)</p>
<p>It isn’t hard for me to think of places I’ve lived, where one side of the street might be in one city or town, and the other side of the city falls in the boundaries of a neighboring town. So you could conceivably have a situation around D.C. where one neighbor can have a gun and the guy across the street can’t. It always bothers me when things seem to be arbitrary. The total ban in D.C. may or may not make sense. But it seems to me that it should be decided in a more general case, and be applied equally to all American citizens. That’s one argument that supporters of Roe v Wade use – that abortion should not be decided at the state level, because the (perceived) right to privacy applies to all the people. </p>
<p>In the end, although it’s interesting to debate this topic, and we all have opinions on the topic, the only opinions that matter are those of the SCOTUS. If the people don’t like the decision that is made, then there are procedures for amending the Constitution.</p>
<p>You’re right, Sjmom - it is an interesting question, and it will be decided by the Supreme Court, who will be thoroughly (exhaustively!) briefed. But it will also be a political decision, as the court has been packed with right wing ideologues by the republican presidents who have appointed the majority of the court. My prediction is that we will see a split - indeed, fractured, decision, with three or more opinions emerging, and a plurality outcome which will satisfy no one. </p>
<p>Because the fact of the matter is, we didn’t have a bunch of 'liberal judges" who ignored the plain meaning of the Constitution before, and we don’t have “strict constructionists” now. We just have advocates for different philosophies on the court in varying lineups over time, and there rarely is a “right” answer to the tough questions.</p>
<p>Icarus, if you have studied the matter evenhandedly and in depth, how about quoting the best argument you’ve heard for the other side?</p>
<p>And for every case of someone killed in a home invasion, which I suppose was offered up as evidence that guns are “oh so necessary” for protection, I will offer you double, triple, quadruple the cases of gun deaths in street violence, school violence, accidental homicides.</p>
<p>Just last week, 10 gun-related crimes were reported nationwide: three in Texas (teenagers shot and several arrested after drive-by shootings), one in Georgia (a teenager shot dead), two in South Carolina, one in Oklahoma, a triple shooting in Las Vegas, one teen arrested in California, one shot dead in Miramar, Fla., and an arrest for killing a 5-year-old boy in Illinois.</p>
<p>Closer to home, more than 60 people have been killed in Boston by gun violence this year.</p>
<p>You aren’t going to find 60 cases of home invasions resulting in death by armed intruders in any one year, or two or three combined.</p>
<p>Fact is, there are people killed every day as a result of firearms. I’d ban them completely, if I had my way, but fortunately for the gun lovers of the forum, it isn’t up to me.;)</p>
<p>Kluge, imagine that the Court ruled that the second amendment applied to the state (militias) and not to the individual. I think there would be chaos. You could have a total ban on all guns in some towns or states, and little if any regulation in others. And they could be contiguous. So how would that work? If I lived in New Hampshire, maybe I could own any gun I wanted. But if I cross to Massachusetts, I’d have to leave it behind. That doesn’t make sense to me.</p>
<p>I think the Court will uphold the D.C. Court of Appeals. The City Council will then probably draft more specific gun laws that do not have a total ban.</p>
<p>This is a tough question, and like most tough questions, there is some validity to the arguments of each side. As I get older, I find I agree more with middle solutions, as long as the balance of power is on the side of the people, rather than the state.</p>
<p>Actually, sjmom, that is the current state of the law. [Looking outside window, failing to see chaos.] The reason the Supreme Court took the case up is because it was the first time a Circuit Court ruled the other way. If the Supreme Court follows precedent I suppose the pro-gun faction could propose a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the first 13 words of the second Amendment.</p>
<p>This is the second time a circuit court has upheld A2 as a personal right. </p>
<p>The 5th Circuit in Emerson See: [United</a> States vs. Timothey Joe Emerson](<a href=“http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html]United”>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html) and [Brady</a> Center to Prevent Gun Violence](<a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1017-04.htm]Brady”>http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1017-04.htm)</p>
<p>The DC Circuit in this case</p>
<p>Of course, after Emerson the 9th Circuit promptly heard a firearms case and reinforced their view that only states have the “right” to have firearms. The circuits are currently in conflict over A2.</p>
<p>See also: [US</a> Courts](<a href=“http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/]US”>Federal Court Finder | United States Courts)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excellent point. I think many (including myself) have agreed to something other than what we advocate in order to reach a settlement. Legally, I find this to be unacceptable (“bending” the Constitution to please the political climate). I may reconsider some of my earlier points.</p>
<p>Are we discussing what we think will happen, what should happen under a strict constructionalist approach, what should happen in a judicial activist view, or our mixed approach views?</p>
<p>If we go for an “original intent” approach, I think the reason for having the 2A was to prevent the government from achieving a monopoly of force. Firearms were (and remain) the easiest way to prevent the government from obtaining such a monopoly. Under this argument, the “right to keep and bear arms” must not be restricted by the government. An activist approach (usually favored by the gun-control crowd) cites the increase in firepower and lethality and links that to gun-related deaths. They argue that the interest of public safety is a more important concern in today’s society. I disagree with this because I believe there is (or could be) an important stake in preventing a government monopoly on force (yeah, I like to prepare for the worst), and I do not think the public safety benefits outweigh the costs of restricting gun ownership.</p>
<hr>
<p>On the topic of the current research (for both sides of this debate), I have not found any scientifically irrefutable research that makes a solid argument. The correlation vs. causation issue is at the heart of many of the current studies. No research that I have seen has really tackled this issue. Has anyone found such a study? This definitely falls under the activist approach (which I usually distance myself from).</p>
<p>I just can’t get too worked up about these kinds of laws, because I think they are (1) unenforceable in the real world, and (2) unlike a small subset of unenforceable laws (like sodomy laws), they don’t have the secondary consequence of stigmatizing a huge group of people.</p>
<p>There are other 2d Amendment issues I’d get much more worked up over, like the unregulated manufacture & distribution of armor-piercing bullets. I’m aware of the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, but I just don’t believe that the people of Washington DC will be any safer or less safe because of the outcome of this case.</p>
<p>So, Ramius, that puts you in Mini’s camp - he argues that if the purpose of the second amendment is to allow the people to overthrow the government, it makes no sense to restrict its application to small arms - machine guns and RPGs should be included in the right to possess arms. Probably nukes, too. I have to say, there’s a lot of intellectual appeal to that argument, once you accept the premise.</p>
<p>How’s this for a wild case, folks: Recent discussion of the “true” meaning of the second amendment has focused on the number and location of the commas (which would be red-penciled in any current high school student’s essay, I’d note.) Through careful linguistic analysis, you get different interpretations depending on how many commas there are. Here’s the kicker: the version ratified by the states - a necessary step to adoption of the Bill of Rights - is punctuated differently than the version passed by Congress - another, equally necessary necessary step to the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution. So let’s say the Supreme Court determines that the commas are crucial to the determination of the meaning of the second amendment, and that differently punctuated versions - i.e., versions with significantly different meanings - were utilized in the two separate but necessary steps of the process - what happens next? If this were to happen today, the outcome would be to void the process and start over. So assume that the Supreme Court rules that no specific identifiable version of the Second Amendment was actually both passed by Congress and ratified by the states, and declares the second amendment to be void. What would happen next? (After the howls from the gun nuts died down, of course.)</p>
<p>Would an attempt to adopt a new amendment be launched? Could the pro-gun forces agree on what they wanted to have it say? (No more Militia business, you can be sure.) Whose version of “reasonable restrictions” would be adopted? And would it pass?</p>