Ah! Gun Control. The original hot topic button.

Here's where I piss off the liberals: I believe everyone has the right to own a gun.

"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."

Simple, forthright and the I believe it's the only amendment that contains a qualifying clause, ie, "...being necessary to the security of a free State...".

I believe the amendment intends that each State (with a capital "S") has the right to create a militia of citizens to help maintain the security within it's borders. However, over the past 235 years the States have allowed the Federal government to assume the security of the collective States, thus making the amendment's qualifying clause moot. More so, in matters of defense the Federal govt has authority over determining what is and what isn't "well regulated". Washington can decide that a few scattered survivalist bunkers don't conform to its definition of a well regulated militia and it has established a uniform military code for the state's national guard organizations.

So, if I sat on the SupCourt I'd rule that the right to bear arms is inviolate as long as each gun owner is also considered to be a member of the militia of the state he/she resides in. Under this presumption ALL members of the militia are subject to military law with regards to the possession & use of his/her gun.

Use a gun to commit a felony and you get a lifetime of hard labor. Lose your gun and you get 3-5 years. And so on. Whatever you do with your gun do it right because under my ruling you'd automatically forfeit a right to a trial by a jury of your peers and would instead be tried by a panel of military officers in a courts martial.

I'm gonna try to be there!

the supreme court decided recently in District of Columbia vs Heller that the right of the people specifically applies to individuals, not well regulated militias or any other military organization.
There are quite a few lawsuits making there way up the judicial system that might modify aspects of this decision, but it is unlikely that the supremes will reverse themselves so soon when those suits make it up to them.

My understanding is that the SupCourt ruled only on the definition of "the people" and that their deliberations considered no other aspect of the amendment. My feeling is that the DocC should have brought the appeal based on the qualifying statement and not the definition of "the people".

This issue will go before the Court many more times and continue long after we're gone.

gs - I agree - it will go before the court many times more - but for right now - the SC has ruled that people have the right and they don't have to be in the "militia/military"

We can talk about clauses and commas and parse until the cows come home.

You can never find your way around the final statement:

.....the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,......

Rights are absolute.

In fact if the left interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way they interpret the 1st Amendment we'd all not only have to own a firearm, but we'd have to carry it at all times.

Rights are whatever 5 out of 4 SupCourt justices say they are. There's no getting around that, despite what any article or amendment says.

gs,

I think you meant say 5 out of 9.

OOPS!

Darn Math!

It's worth noting that the U.S. Supreme Court decided UNANIMOUSLY that the 2nd Amendment protected an INDIVIDUAL right, and rejected the theory by gun-control proponents that it was protecting a collectivist right of states to form militias.

Of course the four justices who voted against overturning the District of Columbia's draconian anti-gun law tried to assert limitations on that individual right (e.g., a "balancing test") which effectively would eviscerate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And even though these liberal justice might succeed in future cases in narrowing the scope of the Heller decision, the fact remains that all nine Supreme Court justices acknowledged the underlying meaning of the 2nd Amendment. That precedent is now established and will not be easily overturned.

Most gun control laws, even those that have wide public support, seem to be an infringement on gun owners rights. How do we keep reasonable gun control laws while protecting the meaning of the 2nd amendment?

Brian,

Most laws against unpopular or offensive speech and writing and art, even those that have wide public support, seem to be an infringement on free expression rights. How do we keep reasonable laws against unpopular or offensive speech and writing and art while protecting the meaning of the 1st amendment?

dp,

There are gun control laws you support, yes?

Are they infringements on the right to keep and bear arms?

Brian,

There are laws against unpopular or offensive speech and writing and art which you support, yes?

Are they infringements on the right of free speech?

dp,

I don't support laws banning speech just because it is unpopular. There must be other reasons to restrict speech that is usually settled law. I would rather have clarification on the 2nd amendment that isn't dependent on the members of the Supreme Court at any given time. I agree the 2nd amendment should be understood to apply to individuals.

I left a link to your blog. Any plans to update it?

Ron, dp, KoeJoe, GS, thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.

Brian,

My blog has been pretty moribund for awhile. If I get around to doing some updating and adding some posts, I'll put in a link to your blog.

Like you, I don't support laws banning speech just because it is unpopular. Similarly, I don't support laws banning guns just because they are unpopular.

As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on those people who propose various gun control laws. It's up to them to explain why a specific proposal is justified, not only within the context of the 2nd Amendment, but as a restriction on the freedom of other individuals.

I'm willing to listen to reasonable, fact-based arguments to that effect, albeit with a somewhat skeptical bias. Similarly, I'll listen to reasonable, fact-based arguments in favor of limits on speech and writing and art, albeit with a somewhat skeptical bias.

But I have no particular interest in proposing such restrictions myself, nor in trying to invent justifications for hypothetical restrictions.