The only authoritative voice on this is the United States Supreme Court which, in United States v Miller in 1939, ruled that Congress can't constitutionally limit a state's right--not a person's right--to bear arms.Yes, the Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," but that conclusion is explicitly limited to "a well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free State."
[...]
Whoever moderates the May 3rd MSNBC debate among the Republican presidential candidates should ask, say, Rudy Giuliani, this question: "Mayor Giuliani, after the Virginia Tech shooting, you said, 'Obviously, this tragedy does not alter the Second Amendment. People have the right to keep and bear arms and the Constitution says this right will not be infringed.' Now, since you're a lawyer, you must be aware that the U.S. Supreme Court since 1939 has ruled that only state militias, not individuals, have such a right. So why have you intentionally misstated the law? And if the Court said this 68 years ago, doesn't it qualify as 'settled precedent'? Aren't you and all your rivals undermining constitutional law to politically appease the NRA?"
So, apparently it's the State's right that shall not be infringed, and not the individuals. I have no idea what to make of this, but I'd imagine that there's just a whole lot of people interested in talking about it.
I for one, believe in the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, like the Constitution says. I hope that my expression of this belief is in no way deemed insensitive to the grieving people around the VT community. It is not intended to be at all.
I do believe in that basic right. I like checking to see if a person is batshit crazy or a criminal or not before letting them buy a gun. The SOB who got hold of a gun legally and shot up our beloved Hokies is just the kind of person we should be checking for.
Instead the Bush Admin, law and order types that they are, have undercut the ability of law enforcement to catalog and make access to, such records as restraining orders, court orders of incompetence insanity ect. These are the mechanisms that need vast improvement.
As a southerner and hunter and follower of politics and policy, the gun control debate has vexed me greatly. On one hand I love hunting and just going out and shooting cans for instance. On the other hand, I have little use for assault type weapons. They are useless in real hunting and forget about handguns, I can't hit shit.
I don't really have any good statements or arguments to make here. Just those observations.
The idea of mental screening for gun purchases is tough though. I mean, where do you draw the line? If you have a death in the family and seek counseling does that put a big alarm on your background check? Who owns the database? Does your mental health suddenly become a number like your credit score that can effect your ability to buy a house?
too many questions
This is a really tough question. The only thing I've realized so far is that all of the simple answers appear to be wrong.
Still, a 68 year old precedent would seem to be compelling. I wonder how many guns owners are actually members of an organized local militia.
Wouldn't it make sense to have some sort of state-licensing for militias and make membership a requirement for gun ownership?
Also, my sense is that there will be no sudden gun-control effort put forth in Congress. Democrats are much more interested in trying to rebuild the middle class and respect the will of the people on the war in Iraq.
Anyway, carry on, but please do continue to be respectful of the current emotional state of affairs. My position on this is still forming, and I do appreciate reading the opinions of the folks here.
Come on, surely you can do better that John Lott? Give me a break? Wait a second...Detcord...is that you, John? It wouldn't be the first time, now would it?
"A frequent writer of opinion editorials, Lott has become most well known outside of academic econometrics for his involvement in gun politics, and his arguments regarding the beneficial results of allowing Americans to freely own and carry guns."
Interestingly, it appears that there's no evidence one way or the other regarding the impact of "right-to-carry" laws on crime.
What I despise most about gun nuts are 1) how they throw their hands up in the air "oh well, madmen will be madmen, we can't do anything" and just say existing laws need to be better enforced or 2) even worse, the NRA types who say we need our teachers, students, pets and babies to have guns, more guns for everyone everywhere! Iraq seems to have plenty of guns but are they better off? I also hate NRA's rhetoric: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well maybe but if Cho had a knife then would he have killed 30 people? And if your young child shoots himself on accident with the gun then what can you say?
Look, I know you can't stop madmen like McVey or the 9/11 hijackers from committing evil deeds but if more safety and regulatory measures are taken and that saves just one life then it'll be worth it.
Maybe a 43,200 vehicles deaths per year versus a 1,500 gun deaths per year is one reason? With all the driver training, all the police, a license, and all the laws and we still lose ten times the number killed in Iraq in four years EVERY year with vehicles. Why is it our society "accepts" this?
Source: http://www.soyouwann...
What the caselaw reference says is that it's "unclear" (regarding the Second Amendment interpretation and application) and has rarely been tested in court. I suspect because no one wants to touch it knowing it would be political suicide.
I also go to Wikipedia now and then but have a hard time using them as a source once I found out how easy it was for anyone to post something there with no validation or review for factual accuracy.
We'll never sort this one out here and might as well grab some popcorn and watch the show as the comedians in Washington pretend to try and sort this out.
Sorry but your logic makes no sense. Since the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution in 1787 (that's more than 200 years ago) there has NEVER been a case that gave individual citizens the "right to bear arms". If the U.S.Supreme Court and more than 200 federal and state appellate cases have failed to say that this is an individual right, it makes no sense to imply that you somehow have this right by default. That is simply not the way the law works in this country. You cannot say "we have this right until someone says we don't".
That said, I believe that the two references cited are unbiased and offer a great deal of information on the history and background of the Second Amendment to the Constitution for those readers of this blog who have an open mind on the subject.
Furthermore, since you maintain that you do have a "right to bear arms", I'd like to ask you what limits you think should be put on this "right" and what responsibilities do you have in order to earn and keep this right? If you look at every other right outlined in our Constitution, there are corresponding responsibilities and limits. Freedom of the press does not give a journalist the right to write any story that he or she chooses regardless of whether it is based in fact. If that were the case we would have no libel cases. We have the right to vote but it is limited to those who are 18 years of age (I remind you it used to be 21 not too long ago), we have to register to vote a set number of days before an election, etc. Currently, convicted felons cannot vote in many states. And, of course, our right to free speech does not allow us to scream "fire" in an open theatre.
Also, if the Second Amendment gives individuals the "right to bear arms" where in that amendment does it say that this "right" allows you to purchase ANY and ALL weapons including fully automatic assault weapons? Why is this "right" seen as unlimited? Why are people who believe they "need" a gun so reticent to admit that there can and should be any restrictions? As the saying goes, "Your right ends where my right begins." Proponents of gun rights cannot continue to argue that they have unlimited rights when we see our young innocent people killed. There has to be some compromise and the American people will be demanding it.
I never said and don't believe this right is unlimited and neither do the states. Nor have gun owners ever argued for "unlimited" gun rights and that's a mischaracterization of their position. You can't selll or use Uzi's , bazooka's, RPGs, Mach 10's, etc and different states have different laws governing clip sizes, ammo (I.e., "cop killer" bullets) and barrell lengths so there's a massive amount of governmental restriction on that simple little Constitutional phrase "bear arms."
The genius of the Constitution is that you have unlimited rights and freedoms in this country unless and until government takes them away from you or puts restrictions on them, therefore your original premise is not accurate.
Very simply, if the right to bear arms for the individual does not exist, precisely what are the panoply of state gun laws designed to restrict and enforce? I believe the existing massive amount of gun laws are already the "compromise" you're looking for and have only to be tweaked a bit here and there to make up for a few weaknesses from state to state.