GeorgiaDon 340
Recommended Posts
I has a lot to do with rights being subject to reasonability. Look at it this way – the Second Amendment has been around for a couple hundred years and just now the SCOTUS got around to saying it’s an individual right. Hence, all of the stuff that has been going on beforehand was chipping away at an individual right that was never found to be an individual right.
The Heller challenge was a good choice. In Heller, they took Chicago’s rule that banned guns outright in its effect. Completely and totally. In doing so, Alan Gura could avoid the arguments regarding what reasonable regulations are. There’s no way that a court is going to think that possession of tactical nukes is protected under the Second Amendment. The Heller case was chosen because of its absolute ban.
In the coming years/decades, it will be determined what sort of regulation is acceptable. It is acceptable to ban a gun on the basis of its color, for example? What are the limits to ammunition, i.e., may Congress or States ban Blammo Ammo? Armor piercing rounds? Frangibles? I can see regulations out there banning frangible ammunition because law enforcement could have trouble identifying it, running ballistics, etc.
What about other improvised weapons? When I was spending a lot of time in Downtown Los Angeles and its outskirts I would carry a claw hammer in my trunk to carry to an ATM (nobody fucked with me, that’s for sure). Would that be acceptable?
It will come down to creations of tests to determine what laws are acceptable. What will be the legal standard for gun laws? Will they be reviewed under a “rational basis” test?
The future is tomorrow and the period after. (Prove me wrong on this point. I dare you.)
My wife is hotter than your wife.
The Heller challenge was a good choice. In Heller, they took Chicago’s rule that banned guns outright in its effect. Completely and totally. In doing so, Alan Gura could avoid the arguments regarding what reasonable regulations are. There’s no way that a court is going to think that possession of tactical nukes is protected under the Second Amendment. The Heller case was chosen because of its absolute ban.
In the coming years/decades, it will be determined what sort of regulation is acceptable. It is acceptable to ban a gun on the basis of its color, for example? What are the limits to ammunition, i.e., may Congress or States ban Blammo Ammo? Armor piercing rounds? Frangibles? I can see regulations out there banning frangible ammunition because law enforcement could have trouble identifying it, running ballistics, etc.
What about other improvised weapons? When I was spending a lot of time in Downtown Los Angeles and its outskirts I would carry a claw hammer in my trunk to carry to an ATM (nobody fucked with me, that’s for sure). Would that be acceptable?
It will come down to creations of tests to determine what laws are acceptable. What will be the legal standard for gun laws? Will they be reviewed under a “rational basis” test?
The future is tomorrow and the period after. (Prove me wrong on this point. I dare you.)
My wife is hotter than your wife.
GeorgiaDon 340
Yep. That's why the question is interesting, I think. Since the phrase about "a well-regulated militia" has been essentially discarded, we are left with a right to "keep and bear arms" that applies to individuals and is not restricted by any stated definition of what is meant by "arms". If the court goes to "original intent" and concludes that that intent included the ability of the "people" to resist an oppressive government, is there anything in the language of the amendment to deny to the people arms that are available to the government?QuoteI has a lot to do with rights being subject to reasonability. Look at it this way – the Second Amendment has been around for a couple hundred years and just now the SCOTUS got around to saying it’s an individual right. Hence, all of the stuff that has been going on beforehand was chipping away at an individual right that was never found to be an individual right.
Agreed.QuoteThe Heller challenge was a good choice. In Heller, they took Chicago’s rule that banned guns outright in its effect. Completely and totally. In doing so, Alan Gura could avoid the arguments regarding what reasonable regulations are. ...The Heller case was chosen because of its absolute ban.
Well sure, the courts will come up with tests, and all we can say for sure is some people will complain that they are unconstitutionally restrictive, and others will complain they are too permissive.QuoteIn the coming years/decades, it will be determined what sort of regulation is acceptable. It is acceptable to ban a gun on the basis of its color, for example? What are the limits to ammunition, i.e., may Congress or States ban Blammo Ammo? Armor piercing rounds? Frangibles? I can see regulations out there banning frangible ammunition because law enforcement could have trouble identifying it, running ballistics, etc.
There’s no way that a court is going to think that possession of tactical nukes is protected under the Second Amendment.
It will come down to creations of tests to determine what laws are acceptable. What will be the legal standard for gun laws? Will they be reviewed under a “rational basis” test?
What I am curious about is where people think the line should be drawn, and why. I'm just motivated by curiosity, I don't expect anyone to forecast the future and I'm not interested in any sort of silly "gotcha" games. In particular, I'm curious where those people who consistently and strongly defend gun rights fall on the question of what arms should be permitted? If the 2nd trumps the state's interest in public safety with regard to guns, does it also trump public safety regarding Stinger missiles? If the public should not be allowed to keep and bear missiles, how can that be justified?
Lawrocket, in other threads you have eloquently argued against prior restraint on free speech. Let people say what they will, and then accept the consequences of that speech. In general, the right to speak freely has benefited society, as ideas can be sifted and ultimately accepted or rejected. But, free speech is a fundamental right that doesn't have to be justified by the potential usefulness of the ideas that are expressed. Speech can be limited only in very limited cases where great harm to the country would result.
If we take this as a model for the 2nd amendment, maybe tactical nukes could be banned because there is no way to use them without causing widespread collateral damage. But, is it "reasonable" to ban a weapon because it could be used to kill a few hundred people (say, by taking out a plane)? How about 20 or 30 people? Conventional firearms can, and have been used to do that. Should potential body count even be part of the discussion? What do people think is "reasonable"?
You've got me there.QuoteThe future is tomorrow and the period after.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
QuoteThe 2nd Amendment was written with the idea of allowing the people a way of "defending" themselves against foreign invaders or "defending" themselves against a repressive government.
well, that doesn't fully answer his question. Stinger missiles worked great for the Afghans defending themselves against the Soviet attack choppers.
I thought the Miller decision talked about a standard of being suitable for infantry use. Miller had a sawed off shotgun. A concluding element was that Miller was entitled to a new trial to argue that said shotgun would have military application (it certainly would), but he was dead by then.
Tactical nukes are hard even for the military forces to justify - the same problems seen with chemical weapons and biological agents or landmines.
Isn't it legal to own a tank? Driving it on public roads is a different matter. The mass of the vehicle is terrible for the road and then there are the other requirements (size, signals, etc) needed for safe interaction.
QuoteBut, free speech is a fundamental right that doesn't have to be justified by the potential usefulness of the ideas that are expressed. Speech can be limited only in very limited cases where great harm to the country would result.
If we take this as a model for the 2nd amendment, maybe tactical nukes could be banned because there is no way to use them without causing widespread collateral damage. But, is it "reasonable" to ban a weapon because it could be used to kill a few hundred people (say, by taking out a plane)? How about 20 or 30 people?
Indeed. And this is why there may be considered to be a different test. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but claymore will do more. Because of the potential harm I can see restraints on bearing arms being easier to uphold.
Guns are different. I can see some mimicking of tests from the speech. Or from racial issues.
One thing that I can see is that there may be a serious challenge to the Slaughterhouse Cases, in which the SCOTUS found (in the Reconstruction Era) that the Privileges and Immunities Clause applied to all states US Citizens, but not conferring the Privileges and Immunities of the citizens of one state to another. In McDonald v. Chicago, Justice Thomas was the only member of the SCOTUS to argue that the Slaghterhouse cases should be overturned.
Note - there isn't a legal scholar out there who doesn't think that Slaughterhouse Cases were good law, and only Lochner is more derided in legal circles.
It's kinda exciting from a legal standpoint. What are they going to do with it?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
mnealtx 0
Because missiles, tanks and nukes are not personal arms.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
DanG 1
QuoteBecause missiles, tanks and nukes are not personal arms.
My copy of the constitution must be faulty. It doesn't have the word "personal" between the words "bear" and "arms". I'll contact the printer immediately.
- Dan G
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteBecause missiles, tanks and nukes are not personal arms.
My copy of the constitution must be faulty. It doesn't have the word "personal" between the words "bear" and "arms". I'll contact the printer immediately.
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
Note the mention of "gun" vs. cannon. The document isn't faulty, just your comprehension/interpretation of it.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
SkyDekker 1,122
Sounds like Jefferson was the whimpy kid picked last in gym.
DanG 1
QuoteNote the mention of "gun" vs. cannon. The document isn't faulty, just your comprehension/interpretation of it.
Your Jeferson quote has absolutely nothig to do with the 2nd Amendment.
Who's to decide what a "personal" weapon is or isn't? If the framers wanted that restriction in place, why didn't they say so? The language is quite plain, "the right to bear arms." Why are you trying to restrict that right? Why are your restrictions okay, but you'll rail all day about kallend's?
- Dan G
GeorgiaDon 340
Well, dragging around a cannon would certainly make for a "strong body". Anyway, a personal letter from Jefferson to a correspondent, expressing his personal preference for the shooting sports over other forms of sport, hardly constitutes a binding constraint on the 2nd amendment. Since you brought up the issue of the cannon, it does seem that at the time the amendment was written a distinction could have been drawn between so-called "personal" arms and arms that would have been available to militias (such as cannons). Had the writers intended to limit the 2nd to arms that could be carried by an individual, wouldn't they have said so? I can see the tin-foil-hat brigade making an argument that they need SAM missiles to protect themselves/their homes against the black helicopters and blue helmets [that would be UN troops for those not familiar with American paranoiacs]. As long as they have not been legally found to be "nutters", I can't see anything in the plain language of the 2nd that would deny them that right.QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause missiles, tanks and nukes are not personal arms.
My copy of the constitution must be faulty. It doesn't have the word "personal" between the words "bear" and "arms". I'll contact the printer immediately.
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
Note the mention of "gun" vs. cannon. The document isn't faulty, just your comprehension/interpretation of it.
This is all just a mental exercise right now of course. Just curious about where things might go (and where people think they should go) with the 2nd as an individual right on par with free speach and freedom of religion.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteNote the mention of "gun" vs. cannon. The document isn't faulty, just your comprehension/interpretation of it.
Your Jefferson quote has absolutely nothig to do with the 2nd Amendment.
It has plenty to do with the point of view of the framers of the document.
QuoteWho's to decide what a "personal" weapon is or isn't? If the framers wanted that restriction in place, why didn't they say so? The language is quite plain, "the right to bear arms."
From the Militia Act of 1792:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Back to the books for you!
QuoteWhy are you trying to restrict that right? Why are your restrictions okay, but you'll rail all day about kallend's?
Lame troll attempt is lame.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteWell, dragging around a cannon would certainly make for a "strong body".
If you can carry ("bear") one, go for it!
Mighty slow on the reload, though. QuoteAnyway, a personal letter from Jefferson to a correspondent, expressing his personal preference for the shooting sports over other forms of sport, hardly constitutes a binding constraint on the 2nd amendment.
Agreed - it does show the mindset of the Founders, however.
QuoteSince you brought up the issue of the cannon, it does seem that at the time the amendment was written a distinction could have been drawn between so-called "personal" arms and arms that would have been available to militias (such as cannons).
An individual right would almost necessitate individual weapons vs. crewed weapons such as cannons, would it not?
QuoteHad the writers intended to limit the 2nd to arms that could be carried by an individual, wouldn't they have said so?
Why would they need to, if it was understood that an individual right necessitated individual weapons? Why would they need to, if it was understood that 'arms' meant individual arms suitable to be carried by infantry vs. artillery that would be served by a crew of gunners?
QuoteI can see the tin-foil-hat brigade making an argument that they need SAM missiles to protect themselves/their homes against the black helicopters and blue helmets [that would be UN troops for those not familiar with American paranoiacs]. As long as they have not been legally found to be "nutters", I can't see anything in the plain language of the 2nd that would deny them that right.
Why go to all the expense for a single use device? After all, didn't they say on the news that a .50 cal rifle could take down an airliner over a mile away?
QuoteThis is all just a mental exercise right now of course. Just curious about where things might go (and where people think they should go) with the 2nd as an individual right on par with free speach and freedom of religion.
Don
My interpretation (and that of the Congressional Committee that reported on it) is that it is an individual right to own and carry a firearm.
From the Congressional report: "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
quade 3
QuoteFrom the Militia Act of 1792:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Groovy. I guess we can ban your handguns now. I guess we can also ban a person from carrying more than 24 rounds at a time.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteFrom the Militia Act of 1792:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Groovy. I guess we can ban your handguns now. I guess we can also ban a person from carrying more than 24 rounds at a time.
Sure thing...right after we take away your computer and telephone and give you a quill and ink.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
quade 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteFrom the Militia Act of 1792:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Groovy. I guess we can ban your handguns now. I guess we can also ban a person from carrying more than 24 rounds at a time.
Sure thing...right after we take away your computer and telephone and give you a quill and ink.
Somehow, I think I'd adapt.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Don
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites