Right to Bear Arms

[LCBOY]

What are people's take on the Constitutional right to bear arms? I definitely like to hear people's views and perspectives. I was watching the TV movie 44 Minutes about the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. The two armed bank robbers were so heavily armed that they overwhelmed the police. There was a scene in the movie where an officer went to a gun store to get assault rifes and automatic weapons. The owner gave him various automatic weapons and sniper rifles. The officer was stunned and commented how people can just walk in and buy these weapons? I have no problem with the right to bear arms but the fact that someone can go into a shop and buy a high powered sniper rifle bothers me a little bit.

[corplinx]

It used to be we had like 5-8 concurrent gun control threads going on. Instead of rehashing all the old arguements, maybe someone could post a lit of the old threads.

[schplurg]

Hi there. I recently participated in a few discussions on this topic so I thought I'd reference those here for you...

Try this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=92070&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending)

I just did a search of the forum and these were the results. Hope this helps.

[Jude]

A lot of people like to call Dubya a fascist dictator. I don't agree but, well, what if they were right? What if tomorrow he outlawed elections and usurped power from all branches? Generally, the people who toss around the dictator insult are the same people who support gun control. How would these unarmed people topple Bush and restore democracy?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jude
A lot of people like to call Dubya a fascist dictator. I don't agree but, well, what if they were right? What if tomorrow he outlawed elections and usurped power from all branches? Generally, the people who toss around the dictator insult are the same people who support gun control. How would these unarmed people topple Bush and restore democracy?

Dubya is doing that right now. How about fighting an undeclared war for a start, in direct contradiction of the constitution. That sounds pretty serious to me.

Now, are you going to go out there and stop him?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Dubya is doing that right now. How about fighting an undeclared war for a start, in direct contradiction of the constitution. That sounds pretty serious to me.

Now, are you going to go out there and stop him?

Technically, that war started over a decade ago under a different Bush and was supported by the UN. It has been fought by 3 presidents. Finally, after all these years its over.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Dubya is doing that right now. How about fighting an undeclared war for a start, in direct contradiction of the constitution. That sounds pretty serious to me.




You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Jude]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Dubya is doing that right now. How about fighting an undeclared war for a start, in direct contradiction of the constitution. That sounds pretty serious to me.

Now, are you going to go out there and stop him?

Try to stay on topic, please. There are plenty of threads to vent your opinion of Bush.

[Tony]

I think the second amendment is fundamental and very important. We should have the right to own the firearms we want.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Technically, that war started over a decade ago under a different Bush and was supported by the UN. It has been fought by 3 presidents. Finally, after all these years its over.

And the US still runs the South Korean military because of a war that is still technically going but finished about 50 years ago. Do we get some sort of timeout effect on these things?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jude


Try to stay on topic, please. There are plenty of threads to vent your opinion of Bush.

I'm serious. What are you going to do about it? Because if you don't think that this is an issue worth fighting for, what is?

[Jude]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I'm serious. What are you going to do about it? Because if you don't think that this is an issue worth fighting for, what is?

It's obvious to me you have an axe to grind. I'm going to have to withdraw.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

their right to bear arms to protect the USA from subversives,

Opening Fire (http://www.thebrooklynrail.org/local/sept03/greensboro.html)


Killing the enemy (http://www.guilfordian.com/news/2002/11/15/Features/The-Greensboro.Massacre-325707.shtml)

[Elio]

What kind of arms are we talking about, here ?

Do you have the right to walk the streets with a loaded bazooka ?

Do you have the right to walk the streets with a plastic bomb strapped around your waist ?

If not, why ?

Elio

[Bearguin]

I fully support the right to arm bears. I just think it should be extended to Bearguins.

[Segnosaur]

I think we should have the right to bare arms, but only in the summer.

In the winter its too cold and I think we should wear long sleeves.

[crimresearch]

I fully support my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, its some of the the rest of 'the people' that I have a problem with

[Elio]

crimresearch,I fully support my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, its some of the the rest of 'the people' that I have a problem with What do you mean by that ?

Elio.

[Charlie Monoxide]

In the year or so I've been on JREF, this "Right To Bear Arms" comes up every other week or so. It's been a couple months for this thread.

I don't think any of the "right to bear arms" discussion has changed anyone's beliefs one way or another. I know it hasn't changed mine. Not only that it doesn't contribute to the mission statement of JREF.

Charlie (feeling like it's Monday) Monoxide

[crimresearch]

If my personal take on the matter made any difference, I would start with allowing for a broad interpretation of the 'the right', of 'the people' to keep and bear arms, per the 2nd amendment.

I would also want to implement something to protect society at large from abuses, so it would be a right that one could voluntarily give up fairly easily, through a variety of deviant behaviors, like trying to shoot your neighbors for no good reason.

[Elio]

Well, I was hoping about a fruitful discussion about bearing arms.

But it seems that it has already been discussed... :)

Elio.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Elio
Well, I was hoping about a fruitful discussion about bearing arms.


Impossible, the bigots and dogmatic anti-gun/anti-individual rights people can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment does indeed give the people the right to bear arms. They believe otherwise despite the facts, much like religious fanatics around the world.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Impossible, the bigots and dogmatic anti-gun/anti-individual rights people can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment does indeed give the people the right to bear arms. They believe otherwise despite the facts, much like religious fanatics around the world.
Yeah, Tony. We all feel safer knowing that such a calm, non-judgmental person as yourself could be packing heat.

[Elio]

Tony,Impossible, the bigots and dogmatic anti-gun/anti-individual rights people can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment does indeed give the people the right to bear arms. They believe otherwise despite the facts, much like religious fanatics around the world. Really ?

So you assume that people who are against the 2nd amendment are bigots ?

Can you develop on that ?

Earlier, I gave a few examples why I think it is legitimate to restrain access to arms... :)

Elio.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Elio

So you assume that people who are against the 2nd amendment are bigots ?


No, people who can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment gives people the right to bear arms, are, by definition, bigots.

Earlier, I gave a few examples why I think it is legitimate to restrain access to arms... :)

Where?

[Elio]

Tony, No, people who can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment gives people the right to bear arms, are, by definition, bigots.
Well, so you assume that people who are against the 2nd amendment are bigots.... :)

Why ?

Earlier, I gave a few examples why I think it is legitimate to restrain access to arms...


Where?

Here...

What kind of arms are we talking about, here ? Do you have the right to walk the streets with a loaded bazooka ? Do you have the right to walk the streets with a plastic bomb strapped around your waist ? If not, why ?

Elio.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Elio
Tony,
Well, so you assume that people who are against the 2nd amendment are bigots.... :)


No, there's a difference. Being against the 2nd amendment (whatever that means) and thinking the 2nd amendment says something it doesn't are two different things.

Do you have the right to walk the streets with a loaded bazooka ?

I don't know, I'd imagine not, but I haven't seen a law against it.

Do you have the right to walk the streets with a plastic bomb strapped around your waist ?

By "plastic bomb" I'll assume you mean pastic explosives, correct me if I am wrong.

And no, I don't think people are allowed to walk around the street with a bomb.

If not, why?

Because it makes the police state uncomfortable (for a variety of reasons).

[Tricky]

From an old thread on this subject. Where do you stand on this scale from one to 100 on what you think it is acceptible for people to carry.

I'm about a 35

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky
Where do you stand on this scale from one to 100 on what you think it is acceptible for people to carry.


Is it a scale of what you think it's acceptable for people to carry or own? I didn't know you thought it was acceptable for people to carry hunting weapons.

[Elio]

Tricky,From an old thread on this subject. Where do you stand on this scale from one to 100 on what you think it is acceptible for people to carry. I would say :

Hunting weapons :

As long as you have a license and you don't carry your hunting weapons on the streets. And as long as it has been democraticly accepted you have the right to hunt...

Self-defense weapons :

As long that you actually have a need to have self-defense weapons... And as long as it has been democraticly accepted you have the right to have weapons for self-defense purposes...

Elio.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky
From an old thread on this subject. Where do you stand on this scale from one to 100 on what you think it is acceptible for people to carry.

I'm about a 35

That's a rather vague scale. If I had to answer I would say I am 55.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Is it a scale of what you think it's acceptable for people to carry or own? I didn't know you thought it was acceptable for people to carry hunting weapons.
I should have said "own" and I should have specified "what do you think people should be able to own."

Obviously, I don't think you should be able to carry hunting weapons everywhere, say, like not into a bank, for example.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Elio
Tricky, I would say :

Hunting weapons :

As long as you have a license and you don't carry your hunting weapons on the streets. And as long as it has been democraticly accepted you have the right to hunt...

Self-defense weapons :

As long that you actually have a need to have self-defense weapons... And as long as it has been democraticly accepted you have the right to have weapons for self-defense purposes...

Elio.

Is your support for slavery dependant on whether it is "democratically accepted"?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That's a rather vague scale. If I had to answer I would say I am 55.
I know. It was the best I could do. Last time I posted it, I got all kinds of "gun experts" asking me to define what "military style" meant, and the conversation degenerated from there.

But I think most people (like you) can select a reasonable rating based on my admittedly uninformed categories.

[Tony]

I'd say I would be somewhere between 80 and 100 but closer to 80.

[Elio]

Tony,Is your support for slavery dependant on whether it is "democratically accepted"?

You mean my acceptance ?

Yes.

I would take the chance...

What's the alternative ?

Elio.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Elio
Tony,

You mean my acceptance ?

Yes.

I would take the chance...


You'd accept slavery as long as it was democratically accepted? How the hell can that be justifiable?

[Elio]

Tony,You'd accept slavery as long as it was democratically accepted? How the hell can that be justifiable?
Justifiable to who ?

It is possible that a dictator might come up with laws that are more respectful towards human rights than the majority of people.

Again, I'm ready to take the chance...

the more democratic a society is, the more abiding it is towards human rights....

Again, what is the alternative ?

Elio.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Elio

Justifiable to who ?


To yourself. How can you justify accepting slavery?

It is possible that a dictator might come up with laws that are more respectful towards human rights than the majority of people.

It's possible.

Again, I'm ready to take the chance...

Willing to take a chance with slavery? Really, what are you talking about?

Again, what is the alternative ?

The alternative to slavery? I dunno, freedom perhaps?

[Mr. Skinny]

I don't usually take part in gun threads. This may be my first and last. :)


Originally posted by LCBOY
What are people's take on the Constitutional right to bear arms?
I'm glad we have the right to own guns. I'm unhappy with the way some people choose to handle them.

I definitely like to hear people's views and perspectives. I was watching the TV movie 44 Minutes about the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. The two armed bank robbers were so heavily armed that they overwhelmed the police. There was a scene in the movie where an officer went to a gun store to get assault rifes and automatic weapons. The owner gave him various automatic weapons and sniper rifles. The officer was stunned and commented how people can just walk in and buy these weapons? I have no problem with the right to bear arms but the fact that someone can go into a shop and buy a high powered sniper rifle bothers me a little bit.
I think that a police department the size of the LAPD should have equipped their officers with automatic weapon and other tools which would allow them to meet most reasonably expect threats.

Bank robbers with body armor and automatic weapons, though out of the ordinary, should have been forseeable, but considered unlikely based on previous experience (zero occurences).

Unfortunately, it was probably not within budget constraints to properly equip all their officers with the proper protection and weaponry (I admit, I'm just guessing here). The risk/benefit analysis doesn't seem to flesh out very well, IMHO.

I think there were likely lots of bad decisions made by the LAPD also. Similar to a high speed auto chase, they could have just let them escape rather than risk the lives of more citizens and officers, but, having been a police officer myself years ago, I can understand the emotion involved in trying to "get the dirt bag who just shot my fellow officer".

Bottom line........I'm not sure there is a "right" analysis of this incident, nor is there one for the overall gun control argument.

Thanks for listening though. :)

[Elio]

Tony,Originally posted by Elio : Justifiable to who ? To yourself. How can you justify accepting slavery?
Personally, I don't justify slavery at all....

Now, who decides whether slavery is justified at all ?

The majority of people, or somekind of fascist power ?


I'm ready to take the chance... Willing to take a chance with slavery? Really, what are you talking about? I'm willing to take a chance with the majority of people taking the right decisions... It seems to work...

The alternative to slavery? I dunno, freedom perhaps?

The alternative to letting people decide what is good for them..

Elio

[Ladewig]

I, too, am having a hard time with the scale. I am going to call myself 55, with the assumption that "military style" refers to fully automatic weapons.


As for the LA incident, my opinion is that this very rare type of situation shows the need for non-lethal weapons to be issued to specialized response teams and perhaps police in general. I'm thinking about experimental weapons that shoot a stick foam to incapacitate an armed threat, or the guns that shoot the real slippery stuff, or sonic weapons and such. I have no problem with police killing people who are shooting at them, but this case seems like some other kind of weapon would have saved more officers' lives.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Tony
I'd say I would be somewhere between 80 and 100 but closer to 80. Another way of saying this might have been 85, which in itself would have been provocative.

The constitution draws no such line. Why shouldn't a militia of law-abiding, patriotic (licensed?) Americans be allowed to possess >85?

That's because most everyone understands that a line must be drawn. Despite there being no mention in the 2nd amendment.

So much for scrict literalism, which incidentally is an attribute in common with fundamentalism.

[Hutch]

You know, what always gets me in these back and forth gun arguments is that NOBODY ever mentions the first half of the Amendment, which says:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State...."

A well regulated militia Today we call that the Reserves and National Guard. If I was allowed to interpret the Second (thank Ed I'm not) I would allow those who have performed military service or are members of the Guard/Reserve free access to weapons up to and including military. For those who are not part of a well-regulated militia, I would put in restrictive codes, not denying them weapons but making it harder for them to obtain them.

Of course that wouldn't end gun violence..there are some wackos in the mill-a-tree as well as anywhere else. But at these those who actually have taken on the responsiblity for the defense of the nation would be the ones entrusted with the guns.

Of course, it would never work...

[Mr. Skinny]

Sorry, Hutch, but the "well regulated militia" thingy gets brought up in every gun argument I've read.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
Sorry, Hutch, but the "well regulated militia" thingy gets brought up in every gun argument I've read.

Hmmmm..must be that I never get farther than *_(*&)*(^&*(^&*^Richard G is a )()(&**^&&* :D

[tedly]

Wow, this is wierd.

I've argued on other threads against the idea of 'self-defense' weapons. But, in the mid '60s a friend and I used to hitch out to the large-bore range outside Winnipeg carrying an SMLE (Long branch No4 Mk1*), ammunition, poncho and spotting scope. The rifle was slung, but out in the open - no case, no money. We'd stop at the A&W first, and if we didn't get a lift we'd take the city bus. So I guess I support ownership of 'military' personal weapons.
So that makes me a bare 60.

That's one part of the '60s I wish I could have back again. The bus rides and the Parker-Hale sight off that SMLE.

edited to clarify.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by LCBOY
.........The officer was stunned and commented how people can just walk in and buy these weapons? I have no problem with the right to bear arms but the fact that someone can go into a shop and buy a high powered sniper rifle bothers me a little bit.

I do not know if the actor portrayal of the police commenting on the rifles available at the gun store was accurate or just liberal Hollywood anti-gun propaganda, but it does make that individual look like a control freak.

Just what about the availability of sniper rifles bothers you? You do know what a high-powered sniper rifle is, right?

Ranb

[Tricky]

Thanks to everyone who has rated themselves on my very unscientific scale. (And please don't stop doing so.)

The whole purpose was to illustrate the point that there is not an absolute polarization on either side of the arms issue. Everyone, even Tony and I seem to agree there is a line. We disagree where to draw the line. People seem to think there is no common ground for gun control advocates and gun freedom advocates, but this shows very clearly that there is. We don't have a single person at either extreme. Seems like we could work out a compromise instead of calling each other names.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony
I'd say I would be somewhere between 80 and 100 but closer to 80.
So why are you not a bigot for denying people the right to wander the streets packing the things that are outside your acceptable range.
why are you not a gun control freak? Why can't you accept your 2nd ammendments clear statement that people have the right to own nuclear weapons?

[JSFolk]

I'd also rate myself in the 50's.

I support the rights of citizens to own and carry weapons for hunting, target shooting, personal defense, etc.

I'm also for the idea that their should be some sort of mandatory competency testing to be able to exercise this right, given the potential consequences of incompetence. If it weren't for the fact that I don't trust the rabid anti-gun folks an iota, I would think it would be a dandy idea to have a national firearms license (like a driver's license), with different categories available to allow you to legally do various things with guns. You would have to pass a test of some sort to go from a "hunting only" license up to a "concealed handgun carry" license.

But what do I know?

[crimresearch]

"I'm also for the idea that their should be some sort of mandatory competency testing to be able to exercise this right, given the potential consequences of incompetence.
If it weren't for the fact that I don't trust the rabid anti-gun folks an iota, I would think it would be a dandy idea to have a national firearms license (like a driver's license), with different categories available to allow you to legally do various things with guns."


Well, the 'Earn your rights by passing a test' idea was tried with voting, and some folks seemed to have a problem with it.
And I'm sure that it comes as a surprise to many people to find that we have a national driver's license on which to model gun licensure.

On the other hand, we do have a time honored, and court approved notion that people can voluntarily agree to forfeit their specific Constitutional rights, by taking certain actions, or signing certain agreements.

So I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that those who object to being included under the 2nd amendment should sign a contract with their local DA, agreeing to forfeit their rights under that part of the Constitution. This sort of contract is already available for those who wish to forfeit their 4th amendment rights.

And I wouldn't be too unhappy if forfeiture of various Constitutional rights ensued from the performance of certain criminal offenses.

But given that those two options are already on the table, as it were, I am puzzled by certain claims that those who haven't committed any such crimes, and who are required by law to be part of the militia, should be summarily exempted from the entire 2nd amendment.

OTOH I do find it equally problematic to support a strict interpretation of the use of the word 'arms' in the Constitution.
Given all the care that went into crafting that document, and the fact that the Framers, having just been through a war with one of the greatest military powers in the world, could have easily chosen a less all encompassing term, it seems likely that they *wanted* the average citizen to have full military weaponry laying about the house.

And I have a slight problem with letting just any old body keep and bear military hardware today.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Jude
A lot of people like to call Dubya a fascist dictator. I don't agree but, well, what if they were right? What if tomorrow he outlawed elections and usurped power from all branches? Generally, the people who toss around the dictator insult are the same people who support gun control. How would these unarmed people topple Bush and restore democracy?
I see two rather large holes in your reasoning; first of all you seem to presume that the military would accept that Bush's coup which is a rather absurd assumption. Secondly since your example assumes that the military would side with Bush, you're assuming that an armed citizenry would be capable of defeating the most well equipped army in the world. I think that's questionable, even if you had weapons up to 80 on Tricky’s scale. Still depending if the military was reluctant to slaughter to many people it might be possible to defeat them, but since there's no way the military would side with Bush in the first place that is irrelevant.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by The Fool

So why are you not a bigot for denying people the right to wander the streets packing the things that are outside your acceptable range.
why are you not a gun control freak? Why can't you accept your 2nd ammendments clear statement that people have the right to own nuclear weapons?

Even though this comment was not directed at me, I would like to say something about limits. It is my opinion that the 2nd amendment allows the unlimited right to keep and bear arms up to and including nuclear weapons. It is this crazy? It sure is. The line has to be drawn somewhere. But ignoring the Constitution by saying is anachronistic is the wrong approach. The 2nd amendment needs to be repealed and replaced with something more appropriate for this day and age. I would like to see law-abiding Americans continue to enjoy their right to keep small arms for any ethical (hunting, defense, and recreation) reason. Other than that, I am not sure where to draw the line.

Ranb

[crimresearch]

Well, I for one, am not going to participate in another round of discussion about what Miller meant, but I would like to point out that we have a mechanism in place to revamp and refine various parts of the Constitution that the Framers hadn't left explicit wording to cover...i.e. the Judicial branch.

So rather than a repeal and rewrite, or more amendments, I'd prefer to see the USSC make some definitive rulings as to why we can't use the literal meaning of 'keep and bear arms' today.

Yeah, I know, wishful thinking...

[Tony]

Here is an excellent post by a member I haven't seen in a while (i forgot his name, he is the guy with the SpiderMan avatar)






I have been reluctant to post in this thread, as these Second Amendment rights debates tend to get bogged down in so much political rhetoric and persons attacks.

Nevertheless, I must state that I find Supercharts' and Kodiak's understandings and statements of the issues most persuasive.

In the United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) case others have mentioned, the issue was whether possession of a saw-off shotgun was guaranteed a citizen by the Second Amendment. The court decided the question in the negative on the ground that such a weapon was not one that had been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id. at 178. In doing so, the court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional. It is interesting to note that this case was decided during a historical period when the expansion of federal powers under the Commerce Clause was unprecedented and virtually unchecked.

I wonder if the case would be decided the same today, especially in light of the court's momentus decision in the opposite direction in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), which struck down the Gun Free Zones Act of 1990. The relevant portion of that act forbade "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone." Amazingly, and contrary to the wholesale trend in constitutional law in the 20th Century, the more conservative Supreme Court in 1995 struck down the statute on the ground that it was an unconstitutionally excessive exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, which had previously been used in the 20th Century to justify federal intrusion into nearly every aspect of daily life. Basically, the court said that regulating where persons may exercise the right to possess a firearm on private, state or public property is exclusively within state control.

A more recent case, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98 (1997), has touched upon the Second Amendment, albeit only tangentially. That case, its majority opinion authored by Justice Scalia, struck down certain provisions of the so-called Brady Act, also known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968, this country's most substantial federal legislation regulating the distribution of firearms, and by extension the lawful possession of them.

In rejecting the minority's view, Scalia relied upon the "Necessary and Proper" clause of Article I, Section 8, which allows Congress to enact laws that, among other things, carry out the execution of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Again, Scalia found the Printz case to be a Commerce Clause case, and held Congress exceeded its authority in mandating that state and local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) carry out certain duties imposed upon them by the Brady Act. Basically, in a very convoluted opinion, Scalia said that Congress cannot commandeer state and local officials and press them into federal service for the enforcement of federal law and regulation.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he stated his belief that Printz is really a Tenth Amendment case. He opines that because the federal government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers, it cannot regulate purely intrastate matters. He believes the sale of firearms in purely intrastate, point of sale transactions, is one of those matters beyond the scope of Congressional authority. Thomas remarks in a footnote that in the Miller case cited above, "The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."

Thomas also expresses apparent support for the notion that the right expressed in the Second Amendment is a personal right, as the NRA contends. Here is his second footnote, in its entirety, from the Printz concurring opinion:


Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right. See, e.g., J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo American Right 162 (1994); S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984); Van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 Duke L. J. 1236 (1994); Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 1193 (1992); Cottrol & Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L. J. 309 (1991); Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 637 (1989); Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983). Other scholars, however, argue that the Second Amendment does not secure a personal right to keep or to bear arms. See, e.g., Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1365 (1993); Williams, Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 551 (1991); Brown, Guns, Cowboys, Philadelphia Mayors, and Civic Republicanism: On Sanford Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 661 (1989); Cress, An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms, 71 J. Am. Hist. 22 (1984). Although somewhat overlooked in our jurisprudence, the Amendment has certainly engendered considerable academic, as well as public, debate.


These are the last words of Justice Thomas' concurring opinion, which I find interesting and provocative:

Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries §1890, p. 746 (1833). In the meantime, I join the Court's opinion striking down the challenged provisions of the Brady Act as inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.



The Justice Story he mentions is Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the United States Supreme Court at age 32 by President James Madison, and who essentially founded the Harvard Law School. Justice Story wrote the majority opinion in the famous case involving the Amistad. At the time of his death, Story was considered to be our country's greatest jurist.

Other comments on the Second Amendment by Justice Story:
quote:


One of the most influential early commentators on the U.S. Constitution was Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833), he has the following to say about the Second Amendment:

"§ 1889. The next amendment is "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.

"§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time ofanding armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. [FN1] And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. [FN2]

"§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the [English] bill of rights ofll of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." [FN3] But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege."

Footnotes:

1.

1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App.300; Rawle on Const. ch.10, p.125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219,220.
2.

It would be well for Americans to reflect upon the passage in Tacitus, (Hist.IV ch.74): "Nam neque quies sine armis, neque arma sine stipendis, neque stipendia tributis, haberi queunt." Is there any escape from a large standing army, but in a well disciplined militia? There is much wholesome instruction on this subject in 1. Black.Comm. ch.13, p.408 to 417.
3.

5 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. p.110; 1 Black.Comm. 143, 144.

And now some commentary from the late 20th Century:

Story's passage on the Second Amendment supports the proposition that the phrase "well regulated" militia does not mean regulated as not mean regulated as we, citizens living under the omnipresent regulation of the post-New Deal federal government understand "regulation." Instead, "well regulated" in this context, means "properly functioning" and "uniformly equipped." Note how Story laments Jacksonian America's growing indifference and hostility to maintaining a well regulated militia -- not on political or philosophical grounds, but rather because Americans were getting lazy! In fact, I'd say he was prescient, in respect to the last sentence of § 1890. As for § 1891, history repeats itself, as we in the US have allowed our RKBA to become undermined under various pretenses, such as "the war on crime," or the specious argument that of all rights of "the people" enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment alone applies to states, not individuals.



Commentary Copyright 1998-2000 David S. Markowitz

from David Markowitz' Page

I have to agree with Supercharts that "well regulated militia" clearly meant at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights the entire body of able bodied men (at least the white men of the time) between the ages of 18 and 45. This is confirmed by the enactment by Congress of The Militia Act of 1792. It required all able-bodied men, ages 18-45, to enlist in the militia of their respective home states. Each man was required to supply his own musket, bayonet, belt, and cartridges. It served as the pathway to the creation and preservation of the military reserve and guard units we know today.

I find it odd that given the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in Miller, the Second Amendment would seem to support the right of individuals to keep and maintain their own private military arms, such as M-16s, AK-47s, M-60 machine guns, SAWs, handgrenades, and all sorts of other small arms that constitute "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."

This is completely at odds with the anti-gun rhetoric which is often debated on the House and Senate floors denouncing the private ownership of so-called "assault rifles." The strawman argument they most often use is that hunters do not use M-16s to hunt deer. They ignore that the Second Amendment was never intended to protect the rights of hunters engaged in hunting. It is and always was intended to protect the citizenry from foreign invasions and domestic threats, including military coups and other tyrannical abuses of a centralized government.

I have to side with the "gun nuts" and the kooky private militia people on this. They happen to be right on principle. Gun murders and accidental shootings are absolutely beside the point.

Freedom is never free. All rights come with costs. As has been so ably demonstrated elsewhere in this thread, the private ownership and use of automobiles, since their introduction, has been a far greater threat to the lives and safety of citizens of the U.S., both those culpable in bringing about their own harm, and the completely innocent, than private ownership of guns has ever been. I've never heard anyone attempt to argue seriously that automobiles should be banned.

How many times must the mantra "Guns don't kill people, people do" be repeated? Substitute "cars" for "guns" and the argument becomes equally valid. The most often heard counterargument, that cars are not designed primarily to hurt or kill people, but guns are, misses the point. The lawful use of guns is not to hurt or kill innoncent people; it's to deter harm or to stop it from being committed on innocent victims of violence. Both automobiles and guns may be used unlawfully to seriously injure or kill persons. The negligent or reckless use of either may result in serious bodily harm or death to others. So?

[Ladewig]

Well, the 'Earn your rights by passing a test' idea was tried with voting, and some folks seemed to have a problem with it.
And I'm sure that it comes as a surprise to many people to find that we have a national driver's license on which to model gun licensure.

The problem with poll tests of the past was that when the white guy walked up to vote, his question was, "is freedom of speech protected by the Consititution" and when the black guy walked up to vote, his test was, "define 'inalienable' to my satisfaction."

[crimresearch]

Quite true, and I beg your pardon for stretching your analogies to fit my points...you can have them back, and I hope they aren't permanently damaged...
;)

But, more recently, and more to the point, the issuance of permits to keep and bear arms was up to the equally arbitrary and capricious whim of various politicians, such as sheriffs.
And again, some folks weren't happy because no matter what, they couldn't pas the 'test' for ownership, while others breezed through.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
From an old thread on this subject. Where do you stand on this scale from one to 100 on what you think it is acceptible for people to carry.

I'm about a 35

I'm about a 60.

I can always make 80 type and 100 type items in wartime if need be...