Gun control/2nd Amendment

[David Floyd]

Ramo's definition of the terms of the 2nd Amendment are undoubtedly correct.

[Ramo]

Most application of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend Bill of Rights protections against actions by the states came out of the Warren Court in the 1960s.

I was under the impression that the legal basis for those decisions were cases in the late 19th century... I don't remember any of those cases off the top of my head though.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


I was under the impression that the legal basis for those decisions were cases in the late 19th century... I don't remember any of those cases off the top of my head though.

We can agree, I hope, that individual as opposed to state's rights are protected thru the 14th. Therefore, if the 2nd Amendment only protects states rights, the 14th amendment does not operate, and the State may regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

Ramo, there are many problems with your definition. It seems completely ad hoc and divorced from history. Have you read the 9th Circuit opinion? It gives a good deal of the history of the debate that lead to the 2nd Amendment. The concerns of the anti-federalist who were the source of the Bill of Rights was the preservation of State Militias against Federal power. There was a lot of debate on how the Feds could by indirection subvert that right. One way would be to be the sole source of arms.

Thus, the Second Amendment does guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement by Federal power. But it says nothing about States rights and it does not prohibit a State from regulating the right.

[Ramo]

Ramo, there are many problems with your definition. It seems completely ad hoc and divorced from history.

Not at all.

If you look at the Federalist Paper 29, Hamilton writes

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Clearly, in Hamilton's day, well-regulated as pertained to able-bodied men meant well-trained/disciplined. If you look at the etymology itself, due to the nature of governments power was more arbitararily enforced; i.e. there were fewer governmental regulations that standardized things. So it was used in the sense of "well-working" more than "using public authority."

As for militia, the US code descirbes it as

The militia of the United States consists of all ble-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except [for felons], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States...

Note that militias originally were not organized by the state in the US. Only in the 1870's, when the state began to fear public uprising, were there state-regulated (in the current sense) national guards and the like.

We can agree, I hope, that individual as opposed to state's rights are protected thru the 14th. Therefore, if the 2nd Amendment only protects states rights, the 14th amendment does not operate, and the State may regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

Yep. Although I don't think the state at any level has the justification to usurp the freedom to bear arms.

[Ned]

Well Ramo, the Constitution mentions Militias in several spots before the Bill of Rights. In all cases, they are talking about State Militias. From my understanding, State Militias were citizen armies who brought their own weapons with them when they were called up by the State. I hardly think that the 2nd Amendment meant Militia in a way different than the body of the Constitution.

Regardless, if I were to place a bet on this one, I would bet that the Supremes eventually decide that Militia means State armies composed of its citizens, and not disembodied armed citizens that had no connection to any government.

[Ramo]

Um.. the US Legal Code defined the militia as per the previous definition. There really is no argument.

And states didn't "call up" citizen armies organized by the state prior to the creation of the National Guard in the 1870's.

Well Ramo, the Constitution mentions Militias in several spots before the Bill of Rights. In all cases, they are talking about State Militias.

Care to cite those passages?

Regardless, if I were to place a bet on this one, I would bet that the Supremes eventually decide that Militia means State armies composed of its citizens, and not disembodied armed citizens that had no connection to any government.

The decisions of SCOTUS are often so far removed from the Constitution, what they say doesn't indicate anything.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by korn469
I agree in principle with pretty much all you said. However, I don't think that requiring a gun license will really solve any crime problems, and I think that the government would in practice use a simple thing like gun licenses to enforce other policies and that it would restrict overall gun ownership. I don't think that the government would implement things in good faith.

I think there is a very good argument for requiring citizens to take gun safety courses and even pass tests, as any schmuck can sit through a course. I think we can all agree that guns are dangerous items. I think we can also all agree that a gun in the hands of an irresponsible person or a person prone to violence is a danger to everyone around him. We can also agree that gun storage is an incredibly important point and a father who knows how to use his gun responsibly but fails to keep his firearms out of reach of his children is a hazard to his family and his neighbours. I don't think these laws would be a cure all for gun crimes, but to say they wouldn't have a marked effect on gun crimes in this country is denying the nose on your face.

I live in a rural area of Virginia which is a very pro gun state. Almost everyone I know has one or more firearms, and there are very few restrictions on owning them. However, the high number of guns coupled with a lack of gun regulations HAS NOT lead to a wave of murder or chaos. I haven't locked the doors at my house until recently, and that is simply because my landlord doesn't like to knock. I don't lock my car doors, and when a murder does occur it is almost a shock. Drugs are a really bad problem here, and there is a very real, very scary oxycotin culture which has destroyed many lives and has helped to increase crime, but armed robbery and gun violence in general is a very rare occurance. The system functions well enough here, and I don't see any need to introduce tons of new laws to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe it is very different in your area, but I doubt that even banning and trying to confiscate guns would control crime in the highest crime areas in america.

You seem very lucky. I live in NYC. I was also held hostage with 30 other classmates by a maniac with a registered high powered rifle in Albany a few years ago. He claimed he had a microchip implanted in his penis by the government that made him do bad things (I remember wondering if holding a classroom hostage would be categorized under 'bad things'). I can't prove to you that I was there or that this happened (SUNY Albany a few years ago, you might find it in a search) so I won't put too much emphasis on this, personal experience isn't very useful as an arguing point anyway. The point is, there is nothing that I know of to restrict any person from legally owning a gun in this country. Violent behaviour, previous offenses, unstable personality, whatever. It might not make a difference in high crime areas, I personally don't know, but I am certain that it would make an enormous difference in certain categories of gun crime throughout the country.

I know that crime underwent dramatic drops in New York City and other urban areas, yet I do not credit tough new anti gun laws for those drops. Besides making law enforcement of the existing laws more effective, it appears that improving socioeconomic factors led almost all of the decrease. I think that gun licenses are a solution in search of a problem, and that it is just another oppertunity for government to intrude on people's lives. The Pentagon decided that hey we have the money, we have the technology, lets track every aspect we can for average americans. I have no trust in bureaucracies.

The drop in crime in NYC has to do with tough policing, not much else.

Crime and incarceration rates in Europe and Japan are much lower than in the US, and I think it has little to do with guns. Maybe it is the culture, norms, and mores. I don't know,but I think we should find out what it is, before a bunch of well meaning politicians go off half-cocked and implement tons of new laws that don't work. Everyday we lose a little bit of freedom if we just sit back and let the government do what it wants.

...and you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that its a lot harder to own or procure a gun in these countries?

[gsmoove23]

I think the nitpicking is only necessary if you want to ban guns altogether. Its certainly within the federal government's rights to regulate firearms if it can provide and adequate argument that unregulated availability of firearms is a danger to US citizens. The second amendment quite clearly protects the peoples right to bear arms to the point where that right infringes the rights of others. Life, security, etc... Just as free speech is protected to a point.

[David Floyd]

Its certainly within the federal government's rights to regulate firearms if it can provide and adequate argument that unregulated availability of firearms is a danger to US citizens. The second amendment quite clearly protects the peoples right to bear arms to the point where that right infringes the rights of others. Life, security, etc... Just as free speech is protected to a point.

The act of owning a gun NEVER endangers anyone. The act of pulling a trigger does. Try to separate the two.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The act of owning a gun NEVER endangers anyone. The act of pulling a trigger does. Try to separate the two.

If the gun is left loaded and easily accessable to someone not responsible ( child, drunk, schizophrenic, druggie, etc. ) then the act of owning a gun does indeed endanger someone.

[korn469]

I think there is a very good argument for requiring citizens to take gun safety courses and even pass tests, as any schmuck can sit through a course. I think we can all agree that guns are dangerous items.

agreed

I think we can also all agree that a gun in the hands of an irresponsible person or a person prone to violence is a danger to everyone around him.

i disagree, there is no way to prove if a person is responsible or not without a massive invasion of privacy, and i want you to define prone to violence, i'm not a nascar fan, but i have heard on the news about tony stewart getting mad and what not, yet i don't think he should have any restrictions on his gun ownership, if you mean people convicted of violent felonies i agree, if not then i would probably disagree

We can also agree that gun storage is an incredibly important point

agreed

and a father who knows how to use his gun responsibly but fails to keep his firearms out of reach of his children is a hazard to his family and his neighbours.

not so fast, it all depends on what the person has taught his children about guns, my grandfather left a loaded rifle on a gunrack in the hall to shoot ground hogs, but he taught all of his grandchildren to have the utmost respect for the gun, and to never touch it unless an adult was around to supervise them, i think you are too hasty to lump people into criminal categories, but in the end it all comes down to passing laws on what people can or can't do

I don't think these laws would be a cure all for gun crimes, but to say they wouldn't have a marked effect on gun crimes in this country is denying the nose on your face.

i don't think that these laws would have much of an effect at all on gun crimes, because determined criminals will still purchase guns illegally, but it would probably help to decrease gun accidents which is a good thing, as long as it doesn't involve too many intrusions on our civil rights

You seem very lucky. I live in NYC. I was also held hostage with 30 other classmates by a maniac with a registered high powered rifle in Albany a few years ago. He claimed he had a microchip implanted in his penis by the government that made him do bad things (I remember wondering if holding a classroom hostage would be categorized under 'bad things'). I can't prove to you that I was there or that this happened (SUNY Albany a few years ago, you might find it in a search) so I won't put too much emphasis on this, personal experience isn't very useful as an arguing point anyway.

i'll take your word for it, and just add that this guy seems very unstable

The point is, there is nothing that I know of to restrict any person from legally owning a gun in this country. Violent behaviour, previous offenses, unstable personality, whatever. It might not make a difference in high crime areas, I personally don't know, but I am certain that it would make an enormous difference in certain categories of gun crime throughout the country

right now if you are convicted of any felony you cannot legally own a gun, that goes from arson to wire fraud, and it applies to felons who weren't even convicted on violent offenses

The drop in crime in NYC has to do with tough policing, not much else.

that might be true for NYC, but crime decreased throughout the united states in the 1990's and I know it wasn't from tough effective policing in every locality

and you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that its a lot harder to own or procure a gun in these countries?

nope, not at all...check out this table

the US has far higher rates of gun homicides than any other nation, and it doesn't even have the highest gun ownership rates...it is more than the number of guns, or the guns laws, i think it is the society, America has a violent society and i don't think that changing the gun laws would change that

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by korn469

the US has far higher rates of gun homicides than any other nation, and it doesn't even have the highest gun ownership rates...it is more than the number of guns, or the guns laws, i think it is the society, America has a violent society and i don't think that changing the gun laws would change that

Oh heck, there are places in Finland so sparesely populated it simply wouldn't be worth it to go find someone to kill!

I am curious. Among the countries that have a higher gun ownership rate than the US, how many have mandatory military reserve duty that requires reservists to keep their weapons at home? It would seem to me that would be a special case, since the gun owners are trained and probably required to live up to certain standards in the storage of their weapon.

[Ned]

I personally think the limit of Federal Power to regulate arms is limited by the States rights to raise Militia's from the populace. However, I can see the US Sup. Ct. holding that that the State may actually have to supply the weapon to the citizen soldier. If so, private ownership can be totally banned.

[korn469]

I am curious. Among the countries that have a higher gun ownership rate than the US, how many have mandatory military reserve duty that requires reservists to keep their weapons at home? It would seem to me that would be a special case, since the gun owners are trained and probably required to live up to certain standards in the storage of their weapon

Dr Strangelove

i looked up finland, and although it does have an active conscription program there was no mention of having reservists store their weapons at home, and in fact part of what i read talked about how finland's military budget constrained intensive training of their reservists

[gsmoove23]

I don't understand what that table proves. No one here is saying that gun crimes are solely because of the availability of weapons. It also seems to be affected by higher population densities, as most crimes are. That table shows countries with very low population densities having less crime. Understandable. Yet have a look at the UK and Japan. Highly urban, highly populated, yet look at the amount of gun crimes per million. The UK also has more then its share of determined criminals yet very low gun crimes. That table seems to prove my point. And the only country to have a higher percentage of gun ownership is Finland, c'mon.

right now if you are convicted of any felony you cannot legally own a gun, that goes from arson to wire fraud, and it applies to felons who weren't even convicted on violent offenses

Well thank God. I did not know that. However, the idea of a 3-day waiting period seems reasonable IF the amount of government intrusion allowed and the requirments for restriction are specified by the law and not left up to personal interpretation by authorities.

i disagree, there is no way to prove if a person is responsible or not without a massive invasion of privacy, and i want you to define prone to violence, i'm not a nascar fan, but i have heard on the news about tony stewart getting mad and what not, yet i don't think he should have any restrictions on his gun ownership, if you mean people convicted of violent felonies i agree, if not then i would probably disagree

I understand the concern but the aim isn't to prove that someone is responsible, but to make a basic cursory check for any obvious flags.

not so fast, it all depends on what the person has taught his children about guns, my grandfather left a loaded rifle on a gunrack in the hall to shoot ground hogs, but he taught all of his grandchildren to have the utmost respect for the gun, and to never touch it unless an adult was around to supervise them, i think you are too hasty to lump people into criminal categories, but in the end it all comes down to passing laws on what people can or can't do

I have to stress that your example seems extremely dangerous. To put something in front of a child and tell them not to touch it is asking them to touch it. While some children might be good and listen to this others will rebel or simply learn through their own mistakes instead of taking an adults word for it. I think this person was extremely irresponsible and simply blessed with sensible and intelligent children. A rarity.

i don't think that these laws would have much of an effect at all on gun crimes, because determined criminals will still purchase guns illegally, but it would probably help to decrease gun accidents which is a good thing, as long as it doesn't involve too many intrusions on our civil rights

A large amount of gun crimes are not committed by determined criminals. Many are crimes of passion, many are unplanned or happen in the spur of the moment, where procuring a gun illegally would be difficult to do within the time frame. Determined criminals will find guns certainly and even some not so determined criminals, but many others won't have the contacts the knowledge or the streetwise to find guns illegally.