Right to bear arms?

[erdogs]

I suppose you are now going to tell everyone what a modern civilized society consist of. If you have your way and the average citizen becomes powerless against the enormous criminal eliment in our society, then you will see what anarchy is all about. Thankfully that will never happen.

[Lowerdeck]

Well, actually. Now that I think about it... what's not to say we in the future have a situation where we would need to set up private militias to help protect us?

[Justadude]

I suppose you are now going to tell everyone what a modern civilized society consist of. If you have your way and the average citizen becomes powerless against the enormous criminal eliment in our society, then you will see what anarchy is all about. Thankfully that will never happen.

[erdogs]

I can assure you that a modern civilized society does not consist of lunatics walking into public areas and randomly slaughtering dozens of innocent people. Your first sentence smacks of the talk-radio mentality that anyone seeking reform on this issue is insidiously trying to manipulate others rather than sensibly ensuring basic public safety. I hate to tell you this, but the crime rate is FAR lower in countries which restrict private citizens from toting firearms in an unorganized and poorly-monitored manner. The best way to ensure that the "enormous criminal eliment" (sic) keeps the general population in an indefinite state of fear is to allow them to purchase enough weapons from the local K-mart to singlehandedly wipe out a whole room full of people.

[erdogs]

People are no longer protected by firearms; if anything they are kept in an unending state of anxiety by the very real possibility that they could die at the hands of any random kook with access to a gun show.

[Gusterfell]

What you are doing is taking very isolated incidents and trying to lable all gun owners with it. Alcohol was once illegal as drugs are now. Neither have ever been difficult to get by those who would break any law to get them. Having gun ownership legal gives us a way to regulate and control it. It also gives the criminal something to think about before he invades your home, something you are much more likely to have happen to you than the random lunatic killing spree. If you ban guns home invasions will become even more common.

[Justadude]

What you are doing is taking very isolated incidents and trying to lable all gun owners with it.

[ChiefJoJo]

If you know how to read legalese, it is perfectly clear that the two parts of the sentence aren't two seperate points, but two clauses of the same point. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the "whereas" part of the statement, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is the "therefore."

You have to look at such laws in the context of the time in which they were written. In the aftermath of the revolutionary war, the "militia" was the only military force the US had. It was made up of individual citizens with private firearms, who could be called on to defend the country. The militia was not intended to protect anyone from the state, as it was itself the state's primary means of defense. The militia would cease to exist if private firearms were banned, so the second amendment was instated to protect that.

[Justadude]

^ The phrase "bear arms" in the 18th-Century context always referred to military activity. The original text of the 2nd Amendment, prior to the editing process, read as follows:

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.

[Gusterfell]

^Indeed, the phrase "bear arms" was a well known euphemism for military service in the 18th century, as can be demonstrated in literally hundreds of surviving letters and documents from the period. In the society in which this document was written the meaning of that phrase would have been perfectly clear. The right to "bear arms" was intended, quite simply, as the right to military service.

From a legal standpoint, the only ground the modern-day gun-rights crowd has to stand on is the inclusion of the word "keep and bear arms," as the meaning of "keep arms" is somewhat more ambiguous. Regardless, it is inescapable that the 2nd amendment specifies that these rights were intended to exist within the context of a "well-regulated militia."

Frankly, given two centuries' hindsight, I think that keeping the pre-editing wording would have saved us a lot of present-day confusion over this issue.

[ChiefJoJo]

Does the SC typically hear arguments over historical context like this? Losing the context--the two centuries old meaning of "bear arms"--it appears to be quite permissive. I wonder if the DC lawyers will approach this angle. Either way, it seems that upholding the DC law would not lead to some kind of nationwide state-by-state gun ban, even if it's Constitutional... it's just not politicaly viable.

(Constitutional law fascinates me... I was enthralled by the Bush v Gore arguments in '00).

[erdogs]

^Indeed, the phrase "bear arms" was a well known euphemism for military service in the 18th century, as can be demonstrated in literally hundreds of surviving letters and documents from the period. In the society in which this document was written the meaning of that phrase would have been perfectly clear. The right to "bear arms" was intended, quite simply, as the right to military service.

From a legal standpoint, the only ground the modern-day gun-rights crowd has to stand on is the inclusion of the word "keep and bear arms," as the meaning of "keep arms" is somewhat more ambiguous. Regardless, it is inescapable that the 2nd amendment specifies that these rights were intended to exist within the context of a "well-regulated militia."

Frankly, given two centuries' hindsight, I think that keeping the pre-editing wording would have saved us a lot of present-day confusion over this issue.

[Justadude]

^ Regardless of where the arms are stored, they are to be held in a military context. That doesn't square in any way, shape or form with frivolous uses such as gun collections or sport hunting. Congress has every right to restrict the possession of weapons in a non-militia context... there is no Constitutional right for an untrained civilian, unaffiliated with any militia, to possess a firearm for recreational purposes.

The actual location where guns are kept is a minor issue next to the fact that the gun lobby has redirected the discussion into territory that it was never meant to cover.

[erdogs]

The purpose doesn't matter. You are allowed to keep a weapon and when the time comes, you are to bear that weapon if the forming of a militia is needed. What you do with it in the time being, whether it is hunting, self defense or shooting at cans, is your choice as long as no one is affected. There is certainly nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that prevents such use. Don't tell me you think the authors were against any of the uses I mentioned.

[Justadude]

^ Now you're deviating from the text of the Constitution. Like the rights to free speech, free assembly, free press, etc., the right to possess a weapon is not, and was never intended to be, unlimited. Just like you don't have the Constitutional right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you don't have a Constitutional right to possess a weapon outside the context of militia activity. If the government, be it state or federal, chooses to leave that option open to you, fine... but it can rescind that right as well because it is not Constitutionally protected.

The words "well regulated" are not meaningless.

[Raintree21]

^ Regardless of where the arms are stored, they are to be held in a military context.

[erdogs]

^ Now you're deviating from the text of the Constitution. Like the rights to free speech, free assembly, free press, etc., the right to possess a weapon is not, and was never intended to be, unlimited. Just like you don't have the Constitutional right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you don't have a Constitutional right to possess a weapon outside the context of militia activity. If the government, be it state or federal, chooses to leave that option open to you, fine... but it can rescind that right as well because it is not Constitutionally protected.

The words "well regulated" are not meaningless.

[Justadude]

If they meant it to mean what you say, then there is no reason to include the word "keep".

[erdogs]

NOT to have a bunch of locked-and-loaded citizens running around administering vigilante justice. In modern America we are in the latter situation, largely because the NRA has spent many millions of dollars spreading disinformation about the meaning of the 2nd (and because we have a cultural fetish for vigilantism).

[Justadude]

^ The concept of keeping a weapon to use against criminals is vigilante by nature.

Today an insane woman shot her two children with a handgun and brought it to the University of Louisville campus where she was finally subdued; two people were injured by an unknown shooter in Virginia; two were shot dead and two injured in a hospital in Georgia; and two women in Charlotte are being charged with shooting a third in a murder-suicide pact. But hey, at least they all could have theoretically participated in a militia that doesn't exist.

[erdogs]

^ The concept of keeping a weapon to use against criminals is vigilante by nature.

Today an insane woman shot her two children with a handgun and brought it to the University of Louisville campus where she was finally subdued; two people were injured by an unknown shooter in Virginia; two were shot dead and two injured in a hospital in Georgia; and two women in Charlotte are being charged with shooting a third in a murder-suicide pact. But hey, at least they all could have theoretically participated in a militia that doesn't exist.

[Justadude]

^ Perhaps in the case of a murder-suicide there would have been other means.

But I really doubt that we would be reading the headline: "Two injured in mysterious highway knife-throwing incident". Many gun crimes are not logistically possible with anything other than a firearm.

[Rural King]

^ The concept of keeping a weapon to use against criminals is vigilante by nature.

Today an insane woman shot her two children with a handgun and brought it to the University of Louisville campus where she was finally subdued; two people were injured by an unknown shooter in Virginia; two were shot dead and two injured in a hospital in Georgia; and two women in Charlotte are being charged with shooting a third in a murder-suicide pact. But hey, at least they all could have theoretically participated in a militia that doesn't exist.

[Justadude]

The definition cleary states one has to have the intention to carry out justice as an self-appointed individual or as a member of an association, there is no mention of the use of armed force to deter unsolicited criminal harm directed towards a victim(s).

[ChiefJoJo]

Even if the SC ruled this DC law Constitutional, it would only apply to this case, as I understand it. So it's not like the govt would be seizing guns from millions of people's 'cold dead hands'. It would merely open the door for state and local govts to clamp down on personal gun ownership, presumably based on some guidance in the court's opinion. If not, it would be a major setback to gun regulation in the US.