Bye bye gun control

NY, Chicago, DC... are you serious... DC... "under control"
(The same DC that is constantly challenging the top spot as the per-capita crime and murder capital of the nation? ... "under control" indeed. )

As if the "gun free" zone of DC has worked out REAL REAL well, we've exported it all over the place... preventing trained people in public places from using their right to equitable self-defense. Those "gun-free" shooting ranges known as Columbine, VA Tech, the Post Office, in addition to the major urban left-wing utopias like Chi town, LA, NYC, etc. No one has a problem getting a gun in these communities... except law abiding people.

Decent, law-abiding people are wide open to criminal attack in those "under control" cities, and thus criminals have little to fear from victims. Ccriminal activity follows victim disarmament. If you were a criminal, wouldn'y you prefer the state protect your personal safety through making sure your targets could not resist you in a meaningful way? Compare the crime rates of concealed carry territories with these "keeping crime 'under control' through gun control" cities like DC. I'll take that Pepsi challenge any day. Gun control is not criminal control, quite the contrary.

What DOES control criminals is punishing them for breaking the law. Until we have 100%, hell, even 75% prosecution for criminal possession of guns, most of us evil "gun owners" have little interest in hearing that we need even more restrictions. It's back to that whole "enforce the fscking laws we have before we make more" of the illegal alien debate. Look at how many people try to buy a gun who are felons and get denied by the NICS system... and they are rarely prosecuted for the illegal attempt. Both Clinton and Bush have blown it in this area. It's not enough for them to be turned away, they need to be prosecuted. I mean, that is, if we are really about 'keeping guns out of the hands of criminals' and not just Feinstein's 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in' bullshit.

And BTW... the "bye to gun control" is not even on the table... it sounds great for emotional provocation, but even the most conservative Constitutional scholars agree that the state has an interest in regulating guns... this case will simply clarify that "individual" versus "collective right" debate we've been having for years and years. And the outcome on "Bush's Court" () is FAR from certain... it will probably come down to Justice Kennedy, barring any change in the court in the coming months.

[QUOTE=mydo;1175367


For years now major cities like New York, Chicago and DC have kept crime under control by limiting who could have a gun and what kind they could have. A federal appeals court broke with president and ruled it unconstitutional. I wonder what Bush's Court will do?[/QUOTE]

This is simply not true. These are tuff cities.

Psst: You mean "precedent." And you're wrong, because they are not talking about "gun control." They are talking about banning ALL ownership of handguns, for everyone...even in their own homes. In addition, shotguns and rifles would have to be kept under lock and key and disassembled...IN your home, even.

The USSC just took this case. They will decide whether "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means what it literally says, or whether it grants a federal right to own a firearm regardless of "militia membership."

I think it's good that they will rule on this finally. I just have this bad feeling that it's going to be 5-4, and I'm not even sure which way it will go.

What I'm curious about in these cases, is why it's only the 2nd amendment and the unclear (to some) wording of its text ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") that's at issue.

Why has the 9th amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") been ignored?

Even if the determination is made that the 2nd amendment implies that the right to bear arms is explicitly granted for the purposes of a "well regulated militia" and not for individuals, why doesn't the 9th give a blanket clause (at it quite clearly appears to do) that says, well...the right (of personal arms ownership) has not been explicitly denied so it must be "retained by the people."

This was exactly one of the concerns of some of those debating the Bill of Rights...that it would be interpreted so tightly and in such a limited way as if these were the only rights people had.

Also why do so many seek to interpret the 2nd amendment as not being an individual right, when every other right listed (up to the 10th) seem clearly intended as individual rights.

I also find it interesting that the same people who advocate a "looser" more "expansive" reading of various other amendments (and other elements of the constitution) often apply the strictest reading for this particular amendment. It's amazing to me that these same folks cannot find (in the "penumbras" of the 2nd amendment) the personal right to bear arms. NOTE: I don't actually think that a "strict" reading or interpretation gets you to the point of eliminating an individual right to bear arms, but some seem to.

Because states can pass criminal laws. The constitution also doesn't say that kicking someone in the nuts is illegal. Does the 9th amendment therefore protect nut-kicking? Or theft, or speeding, or any number of other things not mentioned in the constiutiton?

But I agree with you about the "expansiveness" issue. Liberals should believe in a broad interpretation of it (and I think most do). I think the problem is much, much deeper on the conservative side. They complain about expansive liberal readings of the bill of rights - expansiveness that 99% of the time means greater individual liberty. I really don't understand why conservatives want our individual liberties to be read as narrowly as possible. Who wants narrower rights?

Good lord, I cannot believe you made such an awful argument. Let me know when you have a better one. My goodness. You are equating the illegality of committing violence or theft against someone with the illegality of owning a specific item for the purposes of self-defense.

Dare I say that if more people did actually own guns for their defense, you probably wouldn't need any explicit laws against nut-kicking (assault) and theft.

Still, equating those two totally opposite ideas (the right to own something and defend yourself vs. the right to assault someone or steal their property)...wow.



I'd argue that so-called "liberals" often advocate for less individual liberty in many cases to. Like my signature says: They are in favor of choice and personal liberty...except when they're not. Lots of hypocrisy to go around on both sides.

My argument was just the logical extension of yours. You said that if it's not explicitly denied, then it must be retained. But the constitution doesn't explicitly deny hardly anything. According to your logic, all laws against criminal behavior should be invalidated because the Constitution doesn't list them. And you call my argument awful.

It was anything but.

Just remember if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

I was exactly that. You want to argue that the 9th amendment is relative here, insofar as gun ownership, having not been explicitly denied by the Constitution, must therefore be permitted.

Your response to BRussel merely restates your pre-existing attitude-- that guns are simply for "self-defense" and nut-kicking is a crime-- rather than making any effort to explain why some activities, not specifically excluded by the Constitution, would therefore be permitted, while others would not. Claiming that the distinction hinges on "being against the law", in this context, is tautological.

Consideration of the particulars requires societal judgments about the greater good, which is why a perfunctory interpretation of the 9th amendment doesn't do anything to settle the issue.

A 9th amendment argument is that the bill or rights is an illustrative (not exhaustive) list of rights.

That's it.

No it wasn't. It was an extension but certainly not a logical one.



I'm asking the question anyway. Nothing of value has been offered to answer that question. Determining that nut-kicking or theft should be prohibited does nothing to answer why gun ownership should be if for no other reason than they are categorically distinct acts.

Do you have an argument why gun ownership would not be permitted under the 9th amendment?



I simply pointed out the silliness of equating the violent act by one person against another with the ownership of something (a gun). That this equivocation is silly should be obvious even to casual observer.



The reasoning is based on the simple and obvious supposition that no one has any right to initiate violence, force or coercion against another person or their property. Under such a supposition, no one can have "rights" do do such things as nut-kicking (except in defense against an initial violent action). Gun ownership (and use for self-defense) does not fit into this category.



I agree.

The 2nd Amendment is vague and open to wide interpretation. It would be interesting to see where the justices draw the line...

"Arms" covers a lot of ground. What kind of "arms" can be legally possessed, and what would be the grounds for determining which type of "arms" may or otherwise be possessed legally/constitutionally?

Would you elaborate?

Do you agree that the 9th amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") is basically saying..."Hey...these are the ones we can think of and we deem important enough to explicitly state but there are certainly more so don't let this list make you think this all of them."?

First, let me say this: You're on the short end of the stick with adda and BRussell. The latter made a perfectly valid point. The 9th amendment does not mean that anything which isn't enumerated is automatically a federal right. It means exactly what Shawn said...it's not an exhaustive list, only an illustrative one. He couldn't have been any more clear.

You know, this may blow you away, but if I was asked what I thought it meant, I would say it was pretty clear that the framers of the Constitution meant that people should be able to keep and bear arms because they needed them for militia service, not personal protection.

That said, forming a militia would be the first thing that would cause the FBI to send tanks to your front door. Ironic, isn't it? We have people cruising through West Philly with glocks, shooting cops at Dunkin' Donuts, and yet if you actually formed a well regulated militia...well as I said.

.... I can feel myself winding up for one of my brilliant constitutional interpretations.....

We're ready, mid. Don't leave us hanging.

Also, it's dangerous to wind up without throwing the pitch. The mods could call a balk.

First, I never really said that. I merely asked even if a negative interpretation of the 2nd is arrived at vis-Ã*-vis individuals retaining the right, whether the 9th might still allow for it.

This is pretty simple.

The text: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Translation: "Just because it isn't listed doesn't mean it isn't a right."

This should lead us to the assumption that for someone to claim you don't have a right (from a constitutional perspective) it seems that there needs to be some reasoning other than it isn't listed in the Bill of Rights or that the Bill of Rights didn't spell it out completely and precisely.

Given that supposition it seems reasonable to assume that one has a right unless proven otherwise and that the burden of proof is on the right denier rather than the right claimer.

The problem in the gun cases, is that most (gun ownership) right deniers stop at the 2nd amendment with their interpretation of the text and say..."See it's only for a militia!" What I'm saying is that even if that's a correct interpretation of the 2nd, the 9th seems to plainly say that it still doesn't mean it isn't a right.


I don't think what ShawnJ said ("A 9th amendment argument is that the bill or rights is an illustrative (not exhaustive) list of rights.") conflicts with this at all though I'm not sure that his assertion the list (Bill of Rights) is illustrative is necessarily correct. I think that goes too far perhaps applying his own normative characterization, where the "not exhaustive" part is a fairly straightforward interpretation of the text.

The Founders appear to have wanted to err of the side of giving people more rights not less. In fact some were actually concerned with listing rights (the Bill of Rights) for exactly the reason we see today, that people would have a tendency to interpret the listed rights as the complete list. This is exactly why the 9th was added.

What this all means is that we may very well have a "right to bear arms" even if the 2nd amendment only spells out an aspect of such a right that relates to "a well regulated militia".

Here's a pretty decent treatment of the subject.

How asinine, sammi jo. What is vague about the People being the same People that are spoken of throughout the rest of the Bill of Rights? I know you're carrying the water here... but go read the Framer's words on an armed populace.

You do realize the quandary this presents for all of you that want to cherry-pick the US Constitution for a social agenda. If the "people" does not mean the people, then the rest of the places you see "people" are open to a collectivist interpretation. In short, be damn careful what you ask for.

Taken to a end, what if "people" DOES mean a collective "people"- not individuals. Go through the Constitution and just see if you can handle it. What if the assembly clause only meant the collective "People"- as in no assembly by anyone other than Congress... What about the 4th Amendment... you have no INDIVIDUAL right to privacy, only a nebulous collective right.

If people does not mean individuals, then how are you going to spin this regarding the 1st and 4th, specifically? I can't wait to see this. Are you against free speech and privacy for individuals (the people) as well?

OK. The problem with that is the right to bear arms is specifically addressed. It's not like it's been left out. There is nothing to assume because that issue is mentioned specifically. The problem is with that amendment's interpretation.

And the Ninth can be taken too far, just as BRussell points out. States have a right to make laws, certainly. You don't have a right to do anything you want because of it.

I don't think that's what she meant.

What did she mean by "vague and open to interpretation"

My suspicion is that she means the part about "a well regulated militia." Then again, it's sammi, so who knows.

Hmmm..... let's see....



Also, refer to the number of state Constitutions which recognize the RKBA as an INDIVIDUAL right. The VAST majority.

I'd imagine that's what she's going for, as well. Unless, of course, she's going for the idea that the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about shooting the arms you're allowed to bear.

So according to all you pro gunners I have the right to have an atomic bomb laying around in my cellar (to take it to the extreme), because hey, it's my individual right to bear arms?

Btw, the whole second amendment debate is a bit of a cop out (as is roe vs. wade). When you think of it it's pretty sad that a few non-elected but usually politically asigned judges can make policy with the excuse they are simply enforcing the constitution.

What do you mean by this?

Well, I'll have to admit that I'm not all too familiar with the US traditions of 'making' law and checking it against the constitution, however, none (or very few) who are debating this are in favor or against the right to bear arms because it is mentioned in the second amendment. The second amendment may have historical value, but the interpretation of it in this day and age is clearly a matter of policy, and not of law.

[QUOTE=SpcMs;1175837]Well, I'll have to admit that I'm not all too familiar with the US traditions of 'making' law and checking it against the constitution, however, none (or very few) who are debating this are in favor or against the right to bear arms because it is mentioned in the second amendment.

Totally disagree. The debate is nearly always about what the Constitution says.


May have historical value? It's the Constitution of the United States. Understated much, hmmm? And again I don't see where you are going. We're talking about law. Even the original D.C. plan was/is a law. The question is whether or not it conflicts with rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution, which is "the law of the land" as they say. It takes precedence over all other laws. It's merely the job of the USSC to interpret what it says, and make decisions as to the Constitutionality of other laws as a result.

And gun control is hitting your target center mass.

This is the laziest, most trite hyperbole in the history of the gun control debate. Please try again.

... and, please do realize, that rights to anything but manual and semi-auto operation have been completely restricted since 1934. Yep.. 1934. No "machine guns" or "automatic weapons" have been legally created since May 19, 1986, by federal dictate. These guns are registered with the government, it takes 2-3 months for the paperwork, and they cost about 10-100 grand a piece. Get caught without paperwork and pack your bags for Leavenworth.

I am an NRA instructor in multiple disciplines. I work with gun owners new and old on a weekly basis. I know these people, and I am one of these people... and no logical, sane person believes that the state does not have an interest in regulating arms. That has never even been part of the real debate.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is what we test all of our law against if there is a problem. The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and as much as that drives some around here nuts, its every much a part as any other amendment.

A question for everyone: Do the first and fourth amendments just exist for "historical value" as well? Should we put them in the Freak Show of Framer's Curiosities as you seem to think we should do with the RKBA?

And BTW, where are all of you that wail and sob over the "destruction of the Bill of Rights under Bush" when it comes to THIS amendment? Hmmmm? Is it that destruction of rights you personally disagree with is OK, especially when there is not political hay to be made?

We're right here. We don't think that "right" means what you think it means.

And now, I'm off to get the bajillion leaves my willow tree dropped last night up before my company comes over. How shall I get the leaves up? WITH A GUN.

Well, then middy... I guess we'll just see what we'll see next summer, eh?

Are you suggesting that I'll AGAIN be in the vicinity of, or damned nearly blown up in, terrorist attacks in the UK?