Gun control/2nd Amendment

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by 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.

Yes, but at the time of the Spanish-American War the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government's right to federalize the state militias into the National Guard. This decision effectively passed control, and there by ownership of the state militias to the Federal government. At the time opponents to the formation argued that the formation of the National Guard effectively torpedoed the 2nd amendment. Proponents argued that without unity in training, equipage, and command the state militias were nigh unto worthless in modern warfare and hence their prior condition, i.e., as seperately trained, equipped and led state armies, was in fact detrimental to their mission as expressed in the 2nd amendment, guarding the security of a free people.

Prior to the Spanish-American War whenever the United States had gone to war the bulk of its army units had been state militia units. There had been problems with standardization and quality of training, equipage, and command. Those who knew the truth behind the headlines during the war understood that these problems nearly cost the United States humiliating defeats at the hands of a smaller, less wealthy, less industrialized country, Spain.

So what I'm saying is that the states no longer have the right to have their own militias. In fact, the second amendment was quietly overturned at the beginning of the twentieth century. Let me also assure you that if Mr. Heston wants a doctor in attendance at his death bed he bloody well better drop that d**n gun first because there is absolutely nothing in the Hypocratic oath that requires me or my kind to render aid under such conditions!

[Ned]

Dr. Strangelove, do you have a cite or case name for that opinion?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Dr. Strangelove, do you have a cite or case name for that opinion?

Nope, I read about it a long time ago. That's the curse of approaching senior citizenship. Try searching the history of the National Guard.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rasbelin

Come on, people! You're not supposed to be lurking at home with an arsenal of weapons, right?

We're not lurking, we're posting!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I see the first part of that sentence as a qualifying term. It is no longer necessary today and I see no justification for blocking practical legislation regulating firearms.

It's an explanatory phrase, not a condition or a qualifying term. There is no question in the author's mind that this is true, nor any suggestion that this could change. There is no "If".

Also, to those who think that States are free to ban private ownership of arms (Ned), why? Can states constitutionally outlaw other freedoms which are guaranteed to the People in the U.S. constitution?

[Capt Dizle]

I haven't read this thread. It's too long and there is bound to be some Floyd in it I can do without.

American citizens have to retain weaponry in order to defend itself against the Federal government. As well as State and local governments.

The definition of Police State is a nation with its citizens unarmed.

Remember that Hitler came to power with a minority of the popular vote and quickly suspended democracy. He was able to do so because his brownshirts had control of the streets.

Americans must remain capable of denying tyrants control of the streets. And we are very nearly unable to do that now.

[korn469]

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.

United States 41.0% 62.4 29.1
Northern Ireland 8.4% 35.5 ?
Belgium 16.6% 8.7 336.8
Finland 50.0% 8.7 15.4
Canada 26.0% 6.0 3.2
Australia 16.0% 5.6 2.5
France 22.6% 5.5 109.3
Switzerland 27.2% 4.6 176.8
Norway 32.0% 3.6 14.0
Netherlands 1.9% 2.7 386.9
New Zealand 20.0% 2.2 14.5
Germany 8.9% 2.1 233.2
Spain 13.1% 1.9 79.4
United Kingdom 4.0% 1.3 244.2
Japan 0.6% 0.3 336.1

here is the table organized by gun homicide rates from highest to lowest, the first number is gun ownership rates, the second number is gun homicide rates, and the third number is population density from this site:

http://www.hhs.se/personal/suzuki/o-English/po02.html

if someone has a statistics program, maybe they could make two scatter plots, both of them using gun homicide rates as the independent factor, the first one would be gun homicides and gun ownership rates, and the second would be gun homicides and population density, but out of the top five it looks like only belgium has a high population density

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 don't get the idea of a 3 day waiting period at all, if you can do all of the checks you need in an hour why make the person wait 3 days? if you are planning on killing someone then you going to take the waiting period into account, if you are killing somebody in the heat of passion you aren't going to goto the gun shop to begin with

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.

possibly, but i bet if we did some research on gun ownership percentages, and accident rates on the frontier from like 1860-1900 i bet that even with lots of unsecured loaded guns around, that accident rates probably weren't that much higher, because the children were accustomized to the weapons, i was really young when i shot my first shot gun and after that any enthusiasm i may of had to go grab a gun was certainly curbed, when handled in a proper way guns are no more dangerous than cars

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.

that proves my point exactly! all of the gun crimes committed by non determined criminals are gun crimes in which the person could possess the weapon in a legal way, so short of basically banning guns, gun control has no effect on these crimes, and like you said gun control laws have no effect on determined criminals, so basically gun control doesn't stop any type of criminal at all, and that is why gun control is a failure to me

according to the fbi these are the factors in crimes

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/contents.pdf

Population density and degree of urbanization.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial,
judicial, correctional, and probational).
Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

so it seems like there are many ways of reducing crime without turning to gun control laws which are questionable both from a constitutional stance and a an actual effectivness stance

double the number of police officers would probably have a much greater impact on crime than the same number of police officers enforcing twice the number of laws

[Capt Dizle]

I think its' just ignorance that feeds the gun control fire. People really do seem to think that guns are manufactured with some hidden attribute that enables them to override the will of their human owners.

[korn469]

I think its' just ignorance that feeds the gun control fire. People really do seem to think that guns are manufactured with some hidden attribute that enables them to override the will of their human owners

i agree, i mean if your stupid there is all kinda of ways of killing yourself accidently with everyday household items besides guns

[Capt Dizle]

Hmm, well, a few accidental deaths and some limited shooting sprees are small prices to pay for the freedom of an entire country.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Hmm, well, a few accidental deaths and some limited shooting sprees are small prices to pay for the freedom of an entire country.

How is it that gun ownership makes the entire country free?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sikander


Also, to those who think that States are free to ban private ownership of arms (Ned), why? Can states constitutionally outlaw other freedoms which are guaranteed to the People in the U.S. constitution?

Sikander, the Bill of Rights does not automatically apply to the states. To the extent that a right protected by the Bill of Rights is an individual right, it may apply to state actions through the Fourteenth Amendment. There are a number of Supreme Court cases that have addressed individual of the Bill of Rights and have decided that those rights are protected by the Fourteenth amendment. Among these of course the rights protected by the First and the Fifth Amendment's.

If the Second Amendment is a fundamental right of the people and not a right of the states, I believe the Supreme Court will eventually hold that it applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It would then limit the right of the states to ban the keeping and bearing of arms. But no case that I know of has held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through Fourteenth Amendment.

If in contrast, the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right of the states to form Militias, it would not apply to Fourteenth Amendment because it is not an a fundamental right of the people that has to be protected against infringement by state action.

As I have said before, I believe the amendment's purpose is to protect the right of the states to form Militias. For this reason, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. States can, therefore, ban the keeping and bearing of arms.

I would be interested in reading the case cited by Dr. Strangelove, as it seems to equate "State" in the amendment to the "United States" and not to the "States." This is a fundamental point and quite at odds with the history of the Second Amendment cited by the Ninth Circuit.

[Ned]

This from Presser v. State of Illinios, 1886, cinches my argument -- at least until the Supremes decide whether the right is the right of the states or of the people.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' "

[Ned]

From the same case:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. "

[Ned]

From US v. Miller (1939)

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."