Posted: 2/26/2007 11:23:08 AM EDT
|
Assume you're the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing the majority opinion after striking down NFA, GCA 68, etc on constitutional grounds - ie the Second Amendment. You must provide a framework that defines the reasonable application of the Second Amendment, however, much as has been done for the First Amendment for public safety (crying fire in a crowded theater, defining pornography, etc). In particular define how you would allow government regulation, if any, of: 1) Keeping Arms (who can have arms) 2) Bearing Arms (how can arms be carried) 2) Machineguns 3) Silencers, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs 4) Destructive Devices (man portable - grenade launchers, RPGs, light mortars) 5) Military Ordnance (artillery, guided weapons, toxic gas, etc) |
|
I'd be perfectly happy with all small arms. All of them. I think cannon were privately owned back in the day, too, but as long as all individually carried small arms were completely legal then I'd say the 2nd Amendment is worth the paper it's written on. Until then, it isn't worth two toilet trouts nippin' at your sphincter. |
|
The only limitation I would consider to the RKBA would be restricting individuals and corporations from producing or stockpiling NBC arsenals. Partially for containment and public health reasons. As far as conventional weapons go, it's wide open. Murder is already illegal, so why waste time chasing around the legislation of the implements? Anything can be used to kill anyone, from a car to a gun to a fork. Proper penalties for murder make more sense. |
|
|
It all goes out the window as soon as the populace decides to take up arms against it's own government anyway, right? I mean, as far as I know, it's illegal to shoot government officials. If the people are ever willing to do that, where does a sily $200 tax fit into the scheme of things? "Hey, good job on the assasination. That SBR AK really did the job for us. There's just one thing though...you don't have enough U.S. parts on it, and the guys are telling me you didn't pay the tax, either. Shame on you." Just a thought. 
|
|
1) Keeping Arms (who can have arms) Anyone, excluding felons and the mentally handicapped 2) Bearing Arms (how can arms be carried) Anyone who can legality own a firearm can carry at anytime, open or not. If your trusted to own you should be trusted to carry. 3) Machineguns That might be best left to the individual states to handle 4) Silencers, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs That also might be best left to the individual states to handle 5) Destructive Devices (man portable - grenade launchers, RPGs, light mortars) I dont think thouse count as arms and should not be granted for privite ownership 6) Military Ordnance (artillery, guided weapons, toxic gas, etc) Also not arms. Also not granted. |
|
The Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own weapons for the purpose of acting as part of the militia, should this be necessary. The unorganized militia’s job is to act both as a stopgap law enforcement and military force until the official units can respond. It also includes assisting the military/law enforcement should this be necessary. This can include… A homeowner holding a burglar at gunpoint. A man defending himself (or innocent third party) from a violent attack. A storeowner defending his property after a natural disaster. A group of citizens who volunteer to assist police in keeping order during civil unrest. Citizens operating as a militia against potential invaders. To this end a person has the right to own handguns and shotguns suitable for police use and rifles suitable for use as an infantryman. This would (as of this writing) include weapons such as the M-16 rifle, M9 pistol, 1911 pistol, pump 12 gauge shotguns, etc. However, before banning any other firearm, the government must show that it presents some unique danger to the public that justifies banning it over other protected firearms. Therefore rifles such as the AK-47, FN-FAL, compact handguns, bolt action rifles, single action handguns, etc. may not be banned. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to ban any other weapons. Individual states may restrict ownership to crew served weapons, artillery pieces, tanks, explosive devices such as grenades, silencers, etc. Individuals may transport these items through states where they are illegal if they are moving from a state where the item is allowed to another one where it is allowed, provided all hazmat rules are followed. |
I like the idea of leaving it up to the states on weapons beyond small arms. |
|
|
the 2nd = that right that protects all the others. The right to have the means to defend yourself and your community from other citizens, from foreign invaders, from our own gov when necessary. as such I believe anything the military has the people should be able to own... up to and including Nukes. |
I guess I just don't understand this position. I mean the up to and including nukes part. I'm guessing that we both fundamentally disagree on the value of individual freedoms versus collective rights. |
In the framers day, "militia" was simply used to mean "group of armed citizens". Anytime they were talking about the a state commissioned military they said "military" or "standing army". "Well regulated" is what you have when you have laws governing how you should act with those firarms. We have laws that tell us we can't murder, mame, or rob with our firearms and if we do we get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. So, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees every citizens right to own any small arm they can afford so long as they use it responsibly. Any law that keeps me from buying and owning the same small arms I might face at the hands of criminals and our own troops or the troops of foreign countries is illegal and unConstitutional. |
|
If you can pick it up with your own two hands, you can have it. Excluding felons is wrong, for two reasons. If they have served their time, they should have their rights restored. If they are that dangerous, they should STILL be in jil, if you follow my train of thought. In other words, violent felons should not ever be released. anyone who is free is free because they don't pose a threat. We release people who still pose a threat to society all the time. Stop it at the source. Either execute them, or keep them in jail for life. Weapons are not the problem. Bear arms means exactly that, with no infringement. There is no such thing as concealment if you assume everyone is bearing arms. We have the right to, so assume we are exercising it. Since the right to bear arms is illustrated in the Constitution, they cannot be concealed. The most important document in history plainly informs anyone who wants to know that we have the right to bear arms. Thus, it can be assumed that we are bearing them, even if you don't see one. To conceal is to hide something. The second amendment makes no attempt to hide the fact that Americans are armed. Our Constitution is tantamount to wearing a sign everywhere we go that reads "I am carrying a weapon." The fact that the weapon is not visible does not constitute concealment when it can be reasonably assumed that people are armed, based upon their right to be armed. |
|
I think traditionally, in colonial times, individual weapons were kept at home, and what we would call crew served weapons like the Canon of the day were stored in magazines. So that means to me M4s 203s and maybe SAWS should be kept at home while heavy Machine guns, mortars, tanks, and etc. ought to kept in militia magazines. |
|
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. def. An armed force, of a non(directly)governmental organization def. Any able bodied citizen, defined as being of sound mind and noncriminal history. def. Any weapon, or item intended to augment or support a weapon, being able to be carried and operated by an individual. always been my take on it. |
|
jBullfrog pretty much covered it, the problem is, all of the concealed carry permits and permits to purchase or own firearms are unconstitutional if they arent voluntary. This is the reason the SCOTUS doesnt want to touch this with a ten foot pole. Heaven forbid the people figure out they only have the rights that they are willing to individually defend, with force if necessary. |
Powder stores and shot. IIRC their orders specified removal of all the powder and shot, then as many weapons as they could manage. Their small boats wouldn't have been suitable for moving canon. (They rowed across the harbor.) |
|
To really get a grasp I think you need to go back to the concept of the state of nature which permeated the natural law philosophy of the founding fathers. The idea (most clearly expressed in Locke) is that the purpose of government is to accomplish collectively those things which we are unable to accomplish on our own in a state of anarchy. We delegate those rights which are necessary in order for society to function, while retaining those rights necessary to preserve and enjoy our own liberty. As an example, in the state of nature if you have a property dispute with your neighbor, you retain the right to enforce your claims via any means necessary. Obviously, society wouldn't be very functional if we did this because each person is naturally biased towards themselves, so we delegate that right to a court system which is to be guided by a respect for everyone's property within properly described rules. Yet we do not fully delegate our property rights because our liberty depends upon them. So, for instance, the government cannot take your land except through the proscribed methods of the courts or, if for its own benefit, through eminent domain (i.e. proper eminent domain, not Kelo crap). This same concept can be applied to the RKBA, which is part of the larger right to self-defense, which itself is part of the larger right to life (in Lockean philosophy, all rights were part of three general rights, Life, Liberty, and Property). We need to retain those rights necessary to our own self-defense and the defense of our liberties, while giving up those rights which would be overly destructive to society. Looking back at the era of the Founders, the weapons 99% of the population had were ordinary infantry weapons such as swords, muskets, rifles, etc. There really wasn't an issue with "superweapons" because the only real superweapons of the day were Ships of the Line, which were so extraordinarily expensive that nobody other than European superstates could afford them. The occasional person might have had a cannon, but weapons with that kind of destructive power were by in large unwealdy and did not present the kind of issue that an RPG would today. Today, of course, you can have weapons which are incredibly destructive, many of which are small enough for a single person to use effectively. As such, while our Founders may not have needed to explicitly address the issue of superweapons, we must, while being true to the spirit of the rights which they were pronouncing. We do this by going back up to the principle's of delegated rights outlined by Locke and others and simply apply them to modern weaponry. Thus, the Second Amendment protects those weapons which are necessary in order that we may protect ourselves from all threats, including criminal, bandits, and even up to and including a tyrannical government, while relinquishing those weapons which would be utterly destructive to the survival of our society (e.g., nukes). With that principle in mind, here is how I would draw the lines. (1) non-automatic pistols, rifles, shotguns, and other non NFA items - any citizen may own so long as they are not incompetent (i.e. not a felon, not insane, not a minor). The right to bear these weapons must either be unfettered, or only regulated in minor ways such as a CHL with liberal shall-issue provisions. (2) Silencers, Short-barreled weapons - same as above. (3) All other NFA items except those listed in (2) - Must pass detailed background check (the only useful part of the NFA). No registry, stamp tax, or other restrictions. (4) Heavy Weapons (i.e. tanks, nukes, etc.). Cannot own. Right delegated to government. Now some might say that one cannot defend onesself from a tyrannical government without RPGs to counter the modern state's tanks. Admiral Yammamoto disagrees. Heavy Units such as tank formations are severly limited in numbers and are inadequate vis a vis a whole population armed with rifles. One cannot conquere or tyrannize a population when there is "a rifle behind every blade of grass." Thus, so long as the populace retains the right to own effective (i.e., semi-auto) pistols, rifles, and shotguns, we can adequately protect our rights from all threats. Stronger weapons need heavier regulation due to their destructive nature. |
That makes sense. Still they were not going to go house to house asking for musket and rifle. Was powder made in the colonies or did it have to be imported? |
|
happycynic - well thought out and well said! I really don't think that even ships of the line fit the definitions of "super weapons" that exist now. but that's a minor quibble. There are only two things I disagree with: 1) it uses the NFA definitions as cutoffs and guidelines - I personally believe the NFA to be fundamentally flawed and 2) it's a little too concrete - it leaves very little in the way of wiggle room (or compromise) in legislation |
Muskets ran on powder and shot so they probably figured if they were efficient enough taking the powder and shot muskets wouldn't much good for long. |
It would include those weapons used against me when attempting to save the Constitution from those who want to destroy it. |
|
From the wording of the 2nd Amendment... It does not give citizens the right to keep and bear arms. They already have that right. The 2nd Amendment forbids anyone, not just the city, or country, or state, or even the federal government, or anyone else, such as the KKK, or a gang of thugs, from infringing your and my rights. Anyone who disarms you is violating your civil rights. |