Gun folks: a modest proposal.

[trof]

I own guns.
But even if I didn't, what would be wrong with an individual gun license? Like a driver's license.

I don't have to necessarily OWN a car to have a driver's license. I just have to have the license if I want to drive a car. My car, a rental, my sister's car, whatever.

To get the license I have to demonstrate at least a modicum of ability, knowledge, and responsibility. What would be so wrong with applying the same criteria to guns that we use with cars? Both are potentially deadly weapons.

We're not REGISTERING guns, not taking down serial numbers. I don't even have to tell you if I own a gun. They don't ask you if you own a car.

Ok, what's wrong with this?

[lcordero]

1. the answer is still NO!

A law-abiding citizen should not have to ask the government for permission to own a gun or have to license a gun.

BTW...when a convict finishes paying their debt to society they should be regarded as law-abiding citizens.

[trof]

2. Do you also object to driver's licenses?

[lcordero]

5. Do I use a car to protect myself? No I don't

[Fescue4u]

6. I don't but it accomplishes little

Auto licensing is simply a taxation method. Any test that is good for 90 years isnt effective.

[DoNotRefill]

21. Please cite the constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right...

to keep and drive cars.

[FeebMaster]

31. here.

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

[DoNotRefill]

33. Well, the courts....

have continuously ruled that driving is a privilege, not a right.

[FeebMaster]

34. Well,

the courts are never wrong.

[DoNotRefill]

35. The role of the courts...

is to interpret the law. Can you name a SINGLE case, either at the trial or appellate level, where driving was ruled to be a right protected by the US Constitution in any way? There's what, over a hundered years of possible jurisprudence to choose from. Surely there must be ONE case in all that time where it's been held to be a right?

[FeebMaster]

40. I doubt there is a case.

That doesn't mean it isn't a right. Let's say the supreme court decides tomorrow that there is no individual right to own guns. Are you going to say, well, the role of the courts is to interpret the law?

[DoNotRefill]

75. If it's the US Supreme Court, then yes.

That doesn't mean I'd obey the law.

[iverglas]

44. and is there someone here who would seriously argue

Please cite the constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right..."
to keep and drive cars."

... that a government in the US could just up and ban the possession and driving of cars?

A Q for U, DNR.

Please cite the constitutional amendment that guarantees a woman's right to terminate (or hell, continue) a pregnancy.

Or, as I am so fond of asking, please cite the constitutional amendment that guarantees your right to cross the street. Do you think that the government could make a law prohibiting the crossing of streets? What right might you invoke against such a law? The twenty-fifth amendment: the government shall make no law denying the people's right to cross streets?

A government that attempts to interfere, without justification, in people's exercise of any rights, including the right to liberty, is violating the constitution.

A government that demonstrates justification for interfering in the exercise of a right is not violating the constitution.

Everybody has a right to liberty -- but people who commit homicide, for instance, get their liberty taken away from them. Because the government can demonstrate justification for doing that: it can demonstrate justification for depriving certain people of their liberty, in the interest of public safety.

Just as it can demonstrate justification for requiring that people wishing to drive cars prove their competence (and continue to prove their trustworthiness by not driving drunk, for instance), and is not required to let anyone with the yen to roam do it behind the wheel of a car. But the government could *not* demonstrate justification, say, for taking away the driver's licences of people who wear glasses.

And if somebody seriously wants to argue that a government may not in any way ever interfere in the right guaranteed by your second amendment -- if we assume for the sake of argument that it guarantees an individual right to possess firearms for some purpose other than the common defence -- then I expect to hear that same person agree that there can be no prohibitions on convicted violent criminals possessing firearms after their sentence has ended, no prohibitions on the mentally ill possessing firearms, no restrictions on where anyone may tote his/her firearm, no prohibitions on the possession of any type of firearm at all, etc. etc. etc.

And, of course, I'd expect to see *somebody* putting his/her money where his/her mouth was and funding a challenge to such interferences.

In the meantime, I expect an explanation of why a demonstrated need to protect the public, for instance, would not be just as much justification for limiting the exercise of that right as it is for limiting anybody's exercise of his/her liberty rights, e.g. by requiring that s/he demonstrate competence to drive, or cross the street only at the lights.

.

[DoNotRefill]

77. Ok...

"Please cite the constitutional amendment that guarantees a woman's right to terminate (or hell, continue) a pregnancy."

The right to privacy, unenumerated, but there, according to SCOTUS. Also, there's a long line of common law stating that a patient cannot be compelled to accept unwanted medical treatment. Of course, if SCOTUS reversed Roe, it could very well disappear.

"Or, as I am so fond of asking, please cite the constitutional amendment that guarantees your right to cross the street."

There's a right to travel. NOT drive, but travel. The Government can and DOES make laws about crossing the streets. "Jaywalking" is illegal in most big cities. They could NOT pass a law forbidding crossing ALL public streets at any point, but can say "no crossing except at designated crosswalks" or "no pedestrians on the interstate" under the police powers. These are routinely upheld as constitutional. BTW, they routinely deny blind people driver's licenses, along with people with seizure disorders, et cetera.

Regarding the felon bit, people convicted of felonies lose a great many civil rights by virtue of their conviction, including the franchise, the right to keep and bear arms, and in some cases the right to travel freely (for example, parolees)

[Township75]

37. No, because the right to drive isn't covered in the Bill of Rights...

driving is a privelege unlike owning a gun.

[w4rma]

3. Politically damaging, IMHO. Slippery slope? Maybe. (n/t)

[Fescue4u]

4. Auto licensing is a joke

You take a test at 16 and you are good to go for a lifetime. In reality licensing is simply a taxation scheme that does nothing to keep bad drivers off the road.

Besides, I cant think of a single that that gun licensing would solve.

Criminals intent on commiting murder will not care one whit about having a gun license.

[SlainteMhath]

7. As long as they do it for knives, fists, feet and other deadly weapons

No problem. What defense does a 110 lb woman have against rapists while going to her car to drive home? Do the macho rapists need to register their strength and weight against her?

[Eureka]

10. Not being obtuse, but does that occur often?

(Aussie Alert :-)

We have very restrictive gun regulations here, although it's not hard to get them and if you can't get what you want there is always the black market - often cheaper too - and the issue of self protection is my main sticking point with the regulations.

So, does it happen often that people use guns to fend off rapists etc? I don't want to judge your culture based only on what we see on tv (where of course all americans are armed to the teeth 24x7 :-), but I personally haven't seen anyone use a gun for protection, or spoken to anyone who wished they'd had one with them at any point.

I guess my question is, is it dangerous enough in the US that people would carry a weapon with them for self defence (with a reasonable expectation of needing to use it?

(Repeating my disclaimer, I'm not flame baiting, I'm anti-too-much-regulation, but I'm interested in the reality of the situation from real peoples perspectives)

[SlainteMhath]

13. I don't have any reliable statistics

I can't help but believe that a smaller person could dissuade attackers if they brandished a firearm. I, myself have stopped an assault against my partner and I in NYC while just dropping off a friend in Harlem on the way up North to Maine. It was 3:00 AM and a band of thugs decided our carrying suitcases from the car to an apartment was an invitation to harass us. I pulled my non-legal .44 out and told them I was just helping a friend and would soon be on my way. All five turned around and ran back up a dark street.

It does not have to be like this.

[Eureka]

15. Thanks

Thats was sortof what I was after, actual experiences that 'required' the use of some protection.

You're right, it doesn't have to be like that, and I'm lucky because it's not like that here.

A few minor incidents have led to heaps of restrictions, and of course, you can still get whatever you want 'out the back of the pub' if you really want it anyway.

Incidentally, this is an overview of our current situation...

1. Need to have a reason to own a gun (40 acres or more, or written shooting permission from someone who has 40 acres, or be a member of the Sporting Shooters Assn, so its not that hard to qualify)

2. Must have completed a gun safety course.

3. Must have an approved gun safe for storage (ammo separate, mine is in a safe within the safe)

4. No assault weapons/semi-automatics

5. Handguns effectively limited to only stuff you could use in organised competition (olympics type stuff)

Of course, the 'outlaws' still have guns, and so do people that want them legitimately. I think the only people who don't have them are the ones who wish they did, but aren't motivated enough to do it legit or deal in the black market.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Stats

One of the problems about gathering statistics on gun useage is most folks don't report cases where they might threaten to use it but don't fire the weapon.

Add to it, this is a hot issue and the government is not immune to gathering stats it wants.

[anakie]

20. G'day mate

I have to disagree with your last line

"I think the only people who don't have them are the ones who wish they did, but aren't motivated enough to do it legit or deal in the black market."

Personally, and just about everyone I know has no desire to possess a firearm. It is just such an alien concept. Why would I need a weapon; I don't hunt and I am not afraid despite my government telling me to be.

On a recent trip to America people would express their disbelief that I refuse to hold a weapon and had never even fired one. Others on learning I was an Aussie asked me about the government taking my guns off me, refering to the gun buy back. Again, people I know were not affected by it and agreed with it. Who needs a semi automatic weapon?

People who wish to own firearms legally go through the above stages and they are not really that hard. Great.

But I no answer to the criminal element aquiring guns

[Eureka]

24. Yeah, it was unclear

(and while I was responding the post was moved, so I had to retype, bugger)

"I think the only people who don't have them are the ones who wish they did, but aren't motivated enough to do it legit or deal in the black market."

I was referring only to people who actually want them, not the general population.

I think our regulations do a good job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who, for example, might want a gun to show off to their mates, that sort of thing. People who need them (for instance, I breed horses and cows, and get quite a few foxes) can get them, and the crims would get them no matter the legislation (I have been offered many guns on the sly, most of them at about 25% the legit secondhand price)

BTW.... Eumundi..... Mapleton :-)

[DoNotRefill]

23. I've used a gun for self defense.

So has my wife. We're not armed to the teeth 24/7, but it's a rare trip out that at least one of us is not carrying a handgun.

We expect that 99.999% of the time we will not need a gun. But the sad truth is that if you need a gun, you need it RIGHT THEN, and not having it can cause your death. It's not like you can call "time out!" to go and fetch your sidearm if you need it.

When we drive, we carry our insurance cards. We don't reasonably expect to have an accident, but it might happen, so we're prepared. Same deal with the fire extinguishers and spare tires and road flares in our car trunks. We hope that bad things will not happen, that we'll not be in a car wreck, or see a fire, or have a flat, or be attacked, but "just in case", we take simple precautions to deal with unforseen occurences.

[Eureka]

29. Bet you're glad you had them then!

I can't fault the 'in case of emergency' logic.

I often hear that used here as a reason for less stringent regulation but in all my days I've never known anyone who would have needed to put it into practice. (thats why I asked if anyone 'over there' has)

I've lived in the bush all my life, but have never seen a weapon used as part of an argument. It's hard to get my simple mind around the concept of living where there was a threat of gunplay around the corner, but I would most likely arm myself too if I did.

[DoNotRefill]

30. We're alive and not a statistic.

That, in and of itself, is a victory.

[alwynsw]

32. I have used a firearm for protection. A 1911, .45 ACP

It was in my own home when I lived in a city of greater than 1,000,000 population. I got a scar on my leg, the intruder got dead.

It still took the cops almost 15 minutes to respond after the 911 call that I'd killed the SOB. A few questions, no charges, a couple of "Attaboys" from the cops.

I'd do the same thing again in a heartbeat.

NO LICENSES! Quality training is a must. A week or more with a qualified instructor is definitely in order if one wants to become adept at self defense with a firearm. The proper mindset is even more important.

[religiousleft]

8. why not proof of liability insurance

for a particular weapon, ammo for the weapon or reloading supplies?
this would take the State out of the record keeping, ensure that people were responsible for the damage potentially done by their firearms and allow the market to set a price on those weapons most likely to produce claims.

[SlainteMhath]

9. Black Belts too?

Some don't need guns to attack or defend and kill.

[religiousleft]

12. No, but cars!

I own inherently dangerous pieces of technology, some of which I use in public spaces....this would include a Mazda van and a Browning Shotgun. Of course I could injure myself and others in other ways...but a gun and a car are both inherently dangerous, even without the intention to harm others there is a real possibility that I could. How I care for each of these items, the choices I make in their use and storage, the choice of what car I drive and what weapon I possess are all matters of reasonable concern to my neighbors. They should know that I am prepared to make good (as much as is possible) on any damage I might do.

[DoNotRefill]

26. What business is it of neighbors....

if I have a gun in my house?

[religiousleft]

41. When I lived in town

a "neighbor" had occasion to discharge his rifle. The round traveled through his wallboard, insulation, vinyl siding and came to rest in another neighbors ceder fence. Since it didn't pass through any flesh it was "no harm no foul"...but obviously I have an interest in lots of things my neighbors might do, pile up trash, light their fallen leaves afire, drive their cars up and down the streets, refuse to properly manage their septic systems, the list goes on.

All of these behaviors are somehow regulated, why must our guns be so sacred? Or do you suffer from the misapprehension that you can protect yourself from your government with them? Because if you do, be sure that Ashcroft knows where both of us are and Rumsfeld calls his Weapons of Mass Destruction "Shock and Awe."

[DoNotRefill]

78. Protect myself from the government? no.

Make it very expensive for them? Yes.

Guns aren't sacred, they're constitutionally protected. If you want to ban them, fine. Do it legally and repeal the Second Amendment. Otherwise, it means what it says: There's a right, it belongs to the people, and it shall not be infringed.

[KAZ]

14. Black belts do not fight guns...

unless they are wielded by some drunken freak. I can attempt a dis-arm with the the best of them, but will come up short .75/second slower than a trigger puller(on a good day). Talk, or run your way out of that.

[DoNotRefill]

25. Because...

it's prohibitively expensive. Don't poor people have the same right to defend themselves that rich people do? If not, WHY not?

[slackmaster]

46. I asked my homeowners' insurance provider about that

I asked two questions related to firearms:

1. Is my gun collection covered against fire loss? Yes it is, though they advised that if the collection is ever over a certain dollar value to itemize it and get a rider for it, which will cost a small amount of premium.

2. Does my liability coverage cover damages I might cause by a firearms-related accident? Yes.

It's important to note that the company does not charge an increased premium for liability for gun owners. The risk posed by guns in the home is so small that it's absorbed in the premiums paid by everyone. If it was worth costing out then surely some companies would offer "gun-free home" discounts, but none does AFAIK.

[lagniappe]

11. Republicans cannot be trusted, so I don't support gun licensing.

Given the Republicans' proclivity to make lists of people they don't like, I would be very uneasy with gun licensing. Do you really trust Ashcroft (a guy who cannot gaze upon a semi-nude statue lest he go blind) with this information? I don't.

Bush* has nothing but contempt for the average American. The less information and control this administration has about American citizens the better.

We are still a free society (although diminished somewhat with Bush*), and we need to work hard to keep it that way.

[Baclava]

16. What a fine idea!

Today, I can go to any private individual, car dealer or car show and buy any kind of car I like, for cash, credit, or trade. I don't
have to complete any background checks, endure any waiting period, undergo any police or government scrutiny before I can enjoy my new car. I can enjoy my private property rights with the purchase of a car.

I have no obligation to register, license or title a car unless I plan to use it on public property. If I were to buy a "Suburban Assault Vehicle" with 8 cylinders and the capability to go over 100 miles per hour, I could drive it on my private property, or the private property of my friends, with no license, permit or other government interference.

This exact same standard must be applied to all guns, of every
kind. We must be able to buy any gun we choose, store it in our homes, fire it on private property, carry it on private property with no need for licensing, titling or other regulation, just as we
can with cars, snowmobiles, boats, etc.

I urge the public to support this measure - license guns
just like cars.

[Columbia]

27. Precisely.

To add to that, I would support a measure that would let me carry any weapon I see fit anywhere I want after taking a simple written and handling test like driver's licenses. It would be recognizable in all 50 states too of course.

Although I don't agree with getting permission to exercise a fundamental right, I realize that practicality calls for an approach that requires small steps towards this goal.

[galadrium]

17. Guns

In order to buy a gun you already have to submit to a backround check. So I see little need for licensing. What would the license ensure? That one is not a criminal? Keep in mind criminals by definition don't obey laws, so adding more laws to keep them out of their hands will do little good.

The only new federal gun regulation we need is backround checks at guns shows... leave gun issues to the individual states.

[KAZ]

19. Ageed.

Yikes!. I'm in trouble now.
Hey, I'm coming from the perspective of "consent of the governed", and all that. OK?

[DoNotRefill]

28. Also...

don't forget that criminals are constitutionally exempt from registration schemes. Requiring them to have a license would violate the same constitutional guarantees.

what's the point of licensing them again?

[DoNotRefill]

22. So, instead of registering guns...

you're registering people. Nice.

[trof]

36. Most of you miss the point. Stay with me now.

1. I don't own a car.
2. But I have occasion to drive one.
3. I get a driver's license.
At least ONCE in my life I have to demonstrate the ability and knowledge to safely operate a motor vehicle. More and more states have periodic renewals now, especially for senior citizens. I'm a geezer, and I have no problem with that.

Even with no re-testing, we tend to cull ourselves through multiple accidents/inability to get insurance, DUIs and license suspension, even death for the worst drivers.

I would submit that license testing is NOT a revenue raiser. It's an attempt, and a pretty successful one, to insure that drivers simply know the rules of the road and how to safely operate the vehicle.

The registration of cars is a whole nuther thing. Yes it raises revenue. I'm NOT advocating gun registration. How did many of you jump right to that conclusion?

1. I don't own a gun.
2. But I may want to use one on occasion. Hunting with one of my brother's guns, target practice, skeet, whatever.
3. I get a gun "operator's" license.
At least once in my life I have to demonstrate the ability and knowledge to safely "operate" a gun. I can do this at the local police range, or wherever, under the supervision of a license examiner.

No one asks "How many guns do you have?", or where they are. Just as no one asked me if I owned the car I took my driving test in, or how many cars might be in my garage.

This seems pretty simple to me. Pretty much a no-brainer and not some nefarious plot to disarm the populace.

[alwynsw]

38. It still provides yet another list for future reference

Following the logic of an "operators license" for firearms, we could end up with similar requirements for any potentially hazardous activity. What would be next - an alcohol purchase license? a bow (archery)license? a knife license? power tools? ladders? rock climbing?

[Redneck Socialist]

43. "not some nefarious plot..."

"...to disarm the populace." I am sure I will get labeled as paranoid for this, but here goes. I agree that the government is not likely to start rounding up gun owners anytime soon. However I don't want to make that job any easier if that time should ever come. I realize that there are other lists that they could use, hunting licenses, gun dealer records etc, but this gun owner at least is not comfortable with the government, any government, having a list of gun owners however benign the original intent.

For those of you that think I am being overly paranoid please examine the recent actions of the bush-cheney cabal and ask yourself if you trust their good intentions and are comfortable with their level of regard for civil liberties. Are you happy with the Patriot Act? I'm not and that is why I don't want the government compiling lists.

[slackmaster]

39. As long as it's optional and allows me to carry concealed in all 50 states

I'm for it.

:toast:

Oh, and a license holder should be exempt from any waiting periods for gun purchases, one-gun-per-month laws, etc.

[Spoonman]

42. Simple answer to a simple question

Driving is a privledge granted to an individual by the state in which they reside. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the bill of rights.

[MrBenchley]

47. Not even close to true, as the courts have affirmed

time and again...

"Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.
"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,'' Walton wrote."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3626455,00.html

"The High Court's action leaves undisturbed an earlier ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Silveira v. Lockyer, upholding the California statute and ruling that the Second Amendment confers a right to possess and use firearms only in connection with state militia activities."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=230-12012003

[hansberrym]

48. I guess if Walton said it, it must be true?

Walton is "perplexed" by the word "keep". But with adobe software
and the ability to search documents for each use of a particular word
his claim to not know the meaning of the word keep in the second amendment strains credulity. Note that Judge Walton cites MIller and Aymette and both opinions contain the word "keep".

Does anyone really believe that Judge Walton is a straight shooter?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=33100&mesg_id=33459&page=

[MrBenchley]

49. Between you and Judge Walton

I'll believe Judge Walton...

[hansberrym]

50. You believe he is "Perplexed" by the word "keep"?

Do you believe that he does not have access to Adobe and is not able to do a simple word search?


Here is another hint: do a search for "state milita" in the US Constitution and Federalist papers. How many hits do you think you will get?


Silveira opinion 48 hits on "state militia"
Seegars opinion 30 hits on "state militia"



Judges Walton and Reinhardt base thier opinion on a phrase that is not even in the second amendment. Nor does history support thier contention that "A well regulated militia" is a reference to a "state military force" or to a "state militia".




Madison's draft of the second amendment read:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” The Complete Bill of Rights at 169 (quoting Congressional Register, June 8, 1789, vol. 1, p.427).

(if "well regulated militia" = "state militia" as judge Walton says, which state was it that defended a "free country" all by itself? Wouldn't all the states have thier own well regulated militias?, then why does Madison write "a ...well regulated militia..."?)

See also Federalist 29 for similar language and note the neither use of the phrase in Federalist 29 of "A well regulated miitia" has any reference to a "state military Force" but is related to civilian forces augmenting(and opposing if necessary) a standing army.



Note also the use of the phrase in the VA constitution:

Virginia COnstitution- 1788:
Sec. 13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

VIrginia Constitution-1776:
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


Note that in both Virginia constitutions "a well regulated militia" refers to civilian force as opposed to a professsional "standing army".



This is the distinction that the Supreme court in US v.Miller also
makes clear:

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."

[MrBenchley]

51. I think Judge Walton made a wise decision

and that the second amendment covers state militias, just as the courts have said again and again.

[hansberrym]

53. Do things become true if repeated over and over?

Not for rational people.


Is it wise to build an argument based on a phrase (i.e. "state militia") that is not in the text that one is supposed to be interpreting?

Is it wise to disregard the Supreme Court's ruling with regard to the meaning of the word "militia" in the second amendment?

It borders on the pathological to claim that the Supreme Court's definition of militia is mere dicta, but then to claim that the meaning of the entire amendment hinges on the word "militia".

[MrBenchley]

55. That seems to be your theory

but it's still hooey.

"Is it wise to disregard the Supreme Court's ruling with regard to the meaning of the word "militia" in the second amendment? "


The Supreme Court ruled:

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. "

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

If you want to pretend that doesn't refer to state militias, you can find some other playmate. Hell, you got the RKBA crowd sticking up for Mark David Chapman and Tim MccVeigh elsewhere. Clearly, they're the gang to talk to if you want to pretend reality and common sense doesn't exist.

[Withergyld]

59. You left out the next two paragraphs!

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Emphasis added

This is one of the reasons I claim the AWB is Unconstitutional. It prohibits members of the Militia from owning military type firearms. In US v Miller the interpretation is that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are useful militarily

[MrBenchley]

61. Yeah, and since then

the states have revised their statutes and now provide for the common defense with collectively owned guns. Or did you think the National Guard relies on weekend warriors bringing their own?

Otherwise it would seem you've got the individual right to own "a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen" but that only sergeants in the National Guard get to own a bullet mold.

[Withergyld]

66. selective reading again

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158. "

It would appear that if a sawed off shotgun WAS ordinary military equipment, the previous verdict would have been upheld and not reversed.

[MrBenchley]

67. Yeah, and if bullshit was bucks

the NRA wouldn't have a 100 million debt.

[Withergyld]

69. avoiding the issue again???

No answer to my post, so time for a distraction.

[MrBenchley]

70. No answer needed beyond that

[Withergyld]

72. is this an admission

that you cannot refute my statement??

Or are you calling the US v Miller decision BS because it does not support your view???

[hansberrym]

71. maybe he is just "perplexed".

Walton's pantload is no more honest than Reinhardt's pantload,

[DoNotRefill]

79. So, I take it you don't have a mortgage?

HAs the NRA had to shut down operations and give up their office space like the MMM?

[hansberrym]

62. We don't have to guess what SCOTUS meant by "such forces" do we?

They defined the term "militia" in the very next paragraph!

From Miller immediately following your citation:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces."


Nor does what you cite support the claim the "militia" refers to "state military forces" essentially under the control of the states as Walton?Reinhardt pretend.

(as you cited previously)
"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. " (my emphasis)

As the Supreme court has repeated held the "militia" is under the control of the congress (federal government).

Furthermore the National Guard was created by an act of the Federal Government and is subject to federalization (control) whenever the President call for it, so it can hardly be said to be "essentially" under the control of the state governments.

[hansberrym]

64. Judge Reinhardt takes the Ministry of Truth employee of the year award...

for the most outrageous rewriting of history.

Note the clumsy repalcement of the actual text in US v. Miller
below.

(From Silveira)
"The Miller Court also observed more
generally that “ith the obvious purpose to assure the continuation
and render possible the effectiveness of
the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end
in view.” Id. Thus, in Miller the Supreme Court decided that
because a weapon was not suitable for use in the militia, its
possession was not protected by the Second Amendment. As
a result of its phrasing of its holding in the negative, however,
the Miller Court’s opinion stands only for the proposition that
the possession of certain weapons is not protected, and offers
little guidance as to what rights the Second Amendment does
protect. Accordingly, it has been noted, with good reason, that
“he Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the scope of Second] mendment is quite limited, and not entirely illuminating.”
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693,"




Actual text of US v. Miller:

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.(end quote from Miller) (my emphasis)

[hansberrym]

76. adding parenthesis in place of brackets to make visable in HTML

Note that every use of {} below is actually a sqared off Bracket in the original. Since sqared off brackets cause words to be hidden by HTML I am substituting {}.

While the use of brackets within a quotation to insert commentary is an accepted practice, it is not acceptable to simply delete words from the original without indicating that this was done. In this case Judge Reinhardt deleted "such forces" and inserted "state militias" enclosed in brackets. This was much more deceptive than the average sleight of hand since it violated accepted practices for quotations and there was no need to insert commentary when the phrase "such forces" was described at length in the sentence and paragraph that immediately followed.

(From Silveira, note substitution of {} for squared brackets)
The Miller Court also observed more generally that “{w}ith the obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of {state militias} the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Id. Thus, in Miller the Supreme Court decided that because a weapon was not suitable for use in the militia, its
possession was not protected by the Second Amendment. As a result of its phrasing of its holding in the negative, however, the Miller Court’s opinion stands only for the proposition that the possession of certain weapons is not protected, and offers little guidance as to what rights the Second Amendment does protect. Accordingly, it has been noted, with good reason, that “{t}he Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the scope of {the Second} {A}mendment is quite limited, and not entirely illuminating.”
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693,
(end quote from Silveira)



Actual text of US v. Miller:

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.(end quote from Miller) (my emphasis)

[hansberrym]

54. Which argument of Judge Walton did you find most compelling? n/t

[MrBenchley]

56. Next ask me

whether I feel under any obligation to waste MORE time on this with you.

On the plus side, at least you've gone from denying the courts ever ruled the way they did to screaming that the judges are crooked. I guess that's some progress.

[hansberrym]

57. I don't blame you for not defending Walton's Pantload, but I wonder

why you refer to it as a wise decision ?

[MrSandman]

73. What did Walton intend for the rest of the BOR?

"He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state."

[Withergyld]

52. The 5th Circuit Court has ruled that it IS an individual right

See US v Emmerson.

<sarcasm>The second source is REAL credible since it is from the Brady Bunch.</sarcasm>
I might as well quote the NRA as a source.
:freak:

By the way, I am a member on the "Militia" as defined in Title 10 Section 311 USC.

Either way I have the right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

[MrBenchley]

58. That would be the conservative all-white fifth

that gun nuts like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, John AshKKKroft and Trent Lott have fought so hard to keep all white.

"See US v Emmerson."
Where after a whole bunch of babble about individual rights, they still took the nutcase's guns away.

"I might as well quote the NRA as a source."
And gun nuts do with monotonous regularity. They also quote Newsmax, Mary Rosh and a whole bunch of other horseshit.

[slackmaster]

60. Of course a circuit's decision carries more weight than a district's

So MrBenchley attempts to discredit the 5th by playing the race card.

Very, very sad.

[Withergyld]

63. hahahahahahah

I hope you can do better then feeble attempts to link gun rights and racism

[MrBenchley]

65. Why bother?

They go together naturally....

[Withergyld]

68. like

gun grabbers and pantloads
:dunce:

[-..__...]

74. All white, nutcase's and individual rights?

that gun nuts like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, John AshKKKroft and Trent Lott have fought so hard to keep all white.

"See US v Emmerson."
Where after a whole bunch of babble about individual rights, they still took the nutcase's guns away.

"I might as well quote the NRA as a source."
And gun nuts do with monotonous regularity. They also quote Newsmax, Mary Rosh and a whole bunch of other horseshit.

Note the source on these quotes.

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/31524155311.html


The Second Amendment

Do you believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms or a collective right that allows for state militias to be armed?

Carol Moseley Braun

I do believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution confers upon an individual the right to bear arms.


Wesley Clark

I believe in and support an individual’s right to own firearms under the Second Amendment. Like all rights, however, I do not believe that it is absolute.


Howard Dean

Law-abiding citizens should have the right to own firearms for hunting and other legitimate purposes, subject to reasonable restrictions related to gun safety.


John Edwards

I believe that the Second Amendment protects Americans' right to own firearms for purposes like hunting and personal protection, and that this right is subject to responsible limits like other rights.


Dick Gephardt

In my view, the Second Amendment enumerates the right for law-abiding citizens to bear arms. But I believe reasonable restrictions are necessary to protect our nation’s citizens from gun violence.


John Kerry

I believe that the Constitution, our laws, and our customs protect law-abiding American citizens’ right to own firearms.



Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich supports the individual’s right to bear arms under the constitution.


Joe Lieberman


I believe the Second Amendment does confer rights upon Americans who wish to own guns. Like most other rights, however, that right is not unlimited.


So, 8 (minus 2 former), candidates support the individuals right to own firearms. I guess they must be "pimping for the NRA"?

Yes, they all mention "reasonable restrictions" and/or "law abiding", but that's another issue alltogether subject to a differnt discussion. Once the indivuduals right is established, anything related as to what's "reasonable" is a matter of opinion. What those opinions are will vary with the mileage, but as far as this forum is concerned; time after time, pro-gun people here have never stated that the RKBA is an absolute right.

[MrBenchley]

80. Gee, aren't those the candidates

the RKBA crowd pillories as anti-gun?

There was a whole thread here not so long ago about how horribly anti-gun John Kerry was....and Clark is regularly compared to Himmler by the "enthusiasts" here.

Guess that throws gun nut lies into sharp perspective.

[-..__...]

81. Well, not really, Bob.

You need to learn to keep things in perspective. For right now (at least in this thread), is whether or not firearms ownership is an individual right or, or a collective one... you seem to have forgotten that.

Apparently, you disagree with the opinions of the Democratic candidates and the majority of the American public on that issue... I guess they're wrong by your estimation? Yes, or no?

While I fully support your right to express your opinions and beliefs, I find your blind faith in judicial rulings dis-concerning. This is the same judicial system that has ruled in the past the slaves are property and * is President. They've been wrong before, and on the issue of RKBA they're still wrong.

By my estimation, the baseline of individual .vs collective rights seems to have been established by the candidates (argue for or against that, if you can).

The only thing that remains, and differentiates them, is their position on what are "reasonable restrictions". By now, you should know what mine are.

[MrBenchley]

82. Yes, really.....

Clark is regularly compared to Himmler by the RKBA crowd, who seem only to mention Democrats to slur them. The thread that started out praising Russ Feingold for being pro-gun ended with screams in rage about how much gun nuts despise him.

But hey, if you want to peddle John AshKKKroft's lies about the Second Amendment, feel free.

I find it funny as hell that now that we've seen what the courts actually said, you want to snivel about "blind faith." Hey, maybe this unelected drunk will put another corrupt piece of shit like Scalia or Rehnquist on the Supreme Court and the RKBA crowd will get the dishonest ruling they want.

It's a bet they'll get an honest ruling if one of the Democratic candidates gets elected and fills the next Supreme Court vacancy. And the RKBA crowd is going to HATE that.

[-..__...]

83. Uhmmmmm, ok.

You seem more upset than usual.

Equal time and anger aside; you still forgot to fill in the blanks.

Here it is again:

Apparently, you disagree with the opinions of the Democratic candidates and the majority of the American public on that issue... I guess they're wrong by your estimation? Yes, or no?

This isn't like "Final Jeopardy" or anything like that... you can take your time if you wish. Just be sure and phrase your response in the form of a question (as along as the answer isn't "What is a pantload?) :)

[MrBenchley]

84. Just laughing my ass off at the fundamental dishonesty

It will take a Supreme Court justice as crazy and wretched as a Scalia or a Rehnquist to swing the Court the way gun nuts want it swung....somehow I don't think any of the Democratic candidates is going to appoint a scumbag like that.

[-..__...]

86. Man.....

I thought I had issues, and I own guns (scary, ain't it ?). Look... never mind. Forget about it. Nothing to see here, folks.

[MrBenchley]

87. Hey, I'd be the last to deny

the RKBA crowd seems to have serious "issues"...

Meanwhile, here's some facts about the Fifth Circuit Court's newest member. I'm sure the RKBA crowd will be cheering for him, since he's a racist and bigoted piece of shit and thus pro-gun all the way.

http://www.now.org/lists/now-action-list/msg00048.html

www.naacp.org/work/washington_bureau/Pickering093003.pdf

[MrBenchley]

45. Seems perfectly reasonable to me

[funkyflathead]

85. Since when do drivers licenses stop bad drivers

Drunk drivers, old folks, illegals ect.

Many folks drive without a license

[davidinalameda]

88. locking

getting out of hand