Heller v. DC - Your Gun Rights Case

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

The most effective way of ending gang violence in the inner city would be to put regulations on the first amendment, not the 2nd.

If we could arrest people simply for wearing gang-affiliated apparel, using gang terminology or assembling together we could drastically reduce gang violence in the inner city. In fact the reduction in gang violence as a result of these policies would be an order of magnitude larger than any weapons ban as been.

Given my new understanding of the constitution based on the insights of this thread, I am now advocating “Free Speech Licensing” and reasonable regulations to protect the general welfare and health. No law-abiding citizen needs to wear gang-affiliated apparel, so it’s a common sense regulation.

Also, voting licenses. One must now pass an intelligence test and get a background check to prove you aren’t too retarded to vote and are not on the government blacklist. This will help prevent electing more idiotic presidents whose policies affect us far more than gun violence.

What you people fail to realize is that these rights are enshrined as sacred because they are not to be infringed upon, even if they endanger our “safety”. You simply cannot fathom a culture where liberty literally takes precedence over “safety”.

102

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The government’s job is to make this country safer.

Re-read your Constitution.

I should clarify-STATE governments jobs are to make us safer. State governments have plenary power to act for the general health and welfare. We’re talking about state regulations here. Not federal regulations.

State government can’t violate my enumerated constitutional rights, even under the guise of doing so in the interest of the “general health and welfare”. Fundamental Liberty takes precedence over safety.[/quote]

You’re right. They can’t. But regulations DON’T violate fundamental constituional rights if there is a compelling need and the means are narrowly tailored. That’s what the law says.

103

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Constitutional rights are not unlimited. They are circumscribed. We have liberty rights too. You FORFEIT those rights by committing crimes.

Strawman. That isn’t what I was arguing. You said:

jsbrook wrote:
For example, someone who is negligent and careless and leaves their guns laying around the house forefeits their right to be licensed.

Again, read your constitution. The 2nd Amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms, not to “be licensed”. There is no right “to be licensed”, only to keep and bear arms.

jsbrook wrote:
By the way, marriage is considered a fundamental right. You still have to get a marriage license.

No, you don’t. You can get married anytime and to anyone you please. No “license” necessary.

Now, if you want the government to recognize your marriage, you need a license. And you do not have a fundamental right to have your marriage recognized by the state. Just like you do not have a fundamental right to drive. That’s the second “fundamental” right you’ve created out of thin air.

jsbrook wrote:
Just because you have a right to something, doesn’t mean you can or should be able to do it absolutely in the way you want with no requirements and no strings attached.

Of course not. This is a strawman and has nothing to do with licensing. I have a right to keep and bear arms, but I cannot abuse that right in order to violate the rights of others.

jsbrook wrote:
Read your constitution. There is a fundamental need for gun licensing to make sure dangerous felons or the mentally incapacited can’t use guns. And I assure you it’s a good thing.

Show me where in the constitution I should be reading about “gun licensing”. There is no fundamental need for gun licensing. I have no license for my guns, and none is required. The world has not ended.

What does licensing a gun have to do with running a background check anyway? My background was checked to make sure I am not a felon, but that has nothing to do with me registering my firearms or obtaining any kind of license for them.

I think you’re confused about this issue. Licensing and registration of firearms is a separate issue from performing background checks.

[/quote]

The point is that fundamental rights get strict scrutiny. You’re right about marriage. I mispoke. I was thinking of procreation. The Supreme Court has ruled that that is a fundamental right. Now, it’s ruled that the right to bear arms is fundamental. That does not mean that gun ownership can’t be regulated. Any evaluation is just held to be very tough standard. A gun regulation will survive if it’s deemed necessary to serve a compelling government interest. The regulation has to be the least restrictive means of serving that interest. I don’t know whether or not licensing and registration of firearms would pass this test.

I think background checks certainly does. If there’s a compelling enough case made that licensing and registration makes things safer and keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, the test might be met if a state who had such a law could prove there’s no less restrictive and intrusive way to achieve this goal. I don’t know that this is the case. But we’ll probably see this issue come up in the next few years.

104

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
The most effective way of ending gang violence in the inner city would be to put regulations on the first amendment, not the 2nd.

If we could arrest people simply for wearing gang-affiliated apparel, using gang terminology or assembling together we could drastically reduce gang violence in the inner city. In fact the reduction in gang violence as a result of these policies would be an order of magnitude larger than any weapons ban as been.

Given my new understanding of the constitution based on the insights of this thread, I am now advocating “Free Speech Licensing” and reasonable regulations to protect the general welfare and health. No law-abiding citizen needs to wear gang-affiliated apparel, so it’s a common sense regulation.

Also, voting licenses. One must now pass an intelligence test and get a background check to prove you aren’t too retarded to vote and are not on the government blacklist. This will help prevent electing more idiotic presidents whose policies affect us far more than gun violence.

What you people fail to realize is that these rights are enshrined as sacred because they are not to be infringed upon, even if they endanger our “safety”. You simply cannot fathom a culture where liberty literally takes precedence over “safety”.
[/quote]

That’s because none exists. This society and basically every other civilized society has balanced liberty rights with safety rights. There are no civilization where you can do anything and everything you want. You can’t prevent someone from wearing an article of clothing. But there are plenty of regulations on speech. They just meet the same high standard. You can burn crosses. A private person can shout horrible racial slurs.

Marches by the ku klux clan are protected. What you can’t do is use speech to purposely incite violence. You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater (one of the classic examples). You can’t engage in blatantly false advertising. Just a few examples. I hardly thik that licensing and registering firearms is particularly burdensome or unduly infringes on the right to bear arms.

105

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
The most effective way of ending gang violence in the inner city would be to put regulations on the first amendment, not the 2nd.

If we could arrest people simply for wearing gang-affiliated apparel, using gang terminology or assembling together we could drastically reduce gang violence in the inner city. In fact the reduction in gang violence as a result of these policies would be an order of magnitude larger than any weapons ban as been.

Given my new understanding of the constitution based on the insights of this thread, I am now advocating “Free Speech Licensing” and reasonable regulations to protect the general welfare and health. No law-abiding citizen needs to wear gang-affiliated apparel, so it’s a common sense regulation.

Also, voting licenses. One must now pass an intelligence test and get a background check to prove you aren’t too retarded to vote and are not on the government blacklist. This will help prevent electing more idiotic presidents whose policies affect us far more than gun violence.

What you people fail to realize is that these rights are enshrined as sacred because they are not to be infringed upon, even if they endanger our “safety”. You simply cannot fathom a culture where liberty literally takes precedence over “safety”.

That’s because none exists. This society and basically every other civilized society has balanced liberty rights with safety rights. There are no civilization where you can do anything and everything you want. You can’t prevent someone from wearing an article of clothing. But there are plenty of regulations on speech. They just meet the same high standard. You can burn crosses. A private person can shout horrible racial slurs.

Marches by the ku klux clan are protected. What you can’t do is use speech to purposely incite violence. You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater (one of the classic examples). You can’t engage in blatantly false advertising. Just a few examples. I hardly thik that licensing and registering firearms is particularly burdensome or unduly infringes on the right to bear arms.[/quote]

Liscensing is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. When the people have to have all their firearms registered with the government it becomes very easy for the the authorities to show up at your front door one day with a list of what you have and demand you turn them over.

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they still had the memory of the pre-revolutionary period to draw upon. They deliberately did not want the government to be able to easily control the people. They had just fought many years of a bloody war to put an end to the tyranny of an over-controlling government.

The government having a detailed list of the arms that are held by the people would be a serious threat to civil liberty, that the founding fathers never would have supported.

106

[quote]Sifu wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
The most effective way of ending gang violence in the inner city would be to put regulations on the first amendment, not the 2nd.

If we could arrest people simply for wearing gang-affiliated apparel, using gang terminology or assembling together we could drastically reduce gang violence in the inner city. In fact the reduction in gang violence as a result of these policies would be an order of magnitude larger than any weapons ban as been.

Given my new understanding of the constitution based on the insights of this thread, I am now advocating “Free Speech Licensing” and reasonable regulations to protect the general welfare and health. No law-abiding citizen needs to wear gang-affiliated apparel, so it’s a common sense regulation.

Also, voting licenses. One must now pass an intelligence test and get a background check to prove you aren’t too retarded to vote and are not on the government blacklist. This will help prevent electing more idiotic presidents whose policies affect us far more than gun violence.

What you people fail to realize is that these rights are enshrined as sacred because they are not to be infringed upon, even if they endanger our “safety”. You simply cannot fathom a culture where liberty literally takes precedence over “safety”.

That’s because none exists. This society and basically every other civilized society has balanced liberty rights with safety rights. There are no civilization where you can do anything and everything you want. You can’t prevent someone from wearing an article of clothing. But there are plenty of regulations on speech. They just meet the same high standard. You can burn crosses. A private person can shout horrible racial slurs.

Marches by the ku klux clan are protected. What you can’t do is use speech to purposely incite violence. You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater (one of the classic examples). You can’t engage in blatantly false advertising. Just a few examples. I hardly thik that licensing and registering firearms is particularly burdensome or unduly infringes on the right to bear arms.

Liscensing is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. When the people have to have all their firearms registered with the government it becomes very easy for the the authorities to show up at your front door one day with a list of what you have and demand you turn them over.

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they still had the memory of the pre-revolutionary period to draw upon. They deliberately did not want the government to be able to easily control the people. They had just fought many years of a bloody war to put an end to the tyranny of an over-controlling government.

The government having a detailed list of the arms that are held by the people would be a serious threat to civil liberty, that the founding fathers never would have supported. [/quote]

It’s an entirely different world today. One the founding fathers couldn’t even imagine. I agree that it would be completely unjust for the government to come and seize all your guns. But that’s hardly the logical consequence of licensing and registration. The prohibition against any such action would still be absolute. The government is entirely capable of illegally searching a house right now and seizing any weapons that they find. But they’d be breaking the law. Just like coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would against the law.

108

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…I hardly thik that licensing and registering firearms is particularly burdensome or unduly infringes on the right to bear arms.

I do. It IS an infringement.

My federal and state constitutions say I have the right to keep and bear arms. I do not have to license or register any of my numerous guns. That’s not just what I think; that’s what is.[/quote]

Registration always precedes confiscation. Hitler first had everyone register their guns before he took them away.

110

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
It’s an entirely different world today. One the founding fathers couldn’t even imagine. I agree that it would be completely unjust for the government to come and seize all your guns. But that’s hardly the logical consequence of licensing and registration. The prohibition against any such action would still be absolute. The government is entirely capable of illegally searching a house right now and seizing any weapons that they find. But they’d be breaking the law. Just like coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would against the law.[/quote]

Legally owned firearms were seized in post Katrina. Many never had them returned. Do you think something like this couldn’t happen again, on a much larger scale? First comes registration, then comes confiscation.

Make no mistake, the second amendment is in place to protect the citizens from it’s government. If you think that the anti-gunners don’t have an agenda that means to disarm the citizenry, then you’re a fool.

111

I’m just sayin’…

112

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sifu wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Moriarty wrote:

Marches by the ku klux clan are protected. What you can’t do is use speech to purposely incite violence. You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater (one of the classic examples). You can’t engage in blatantly false advertising. Just a few examples. I hardly thik that licensing and registering firearms is particularly burdensome or unduly infringes on the right to bear arms.

Liscensing is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. When the people have to have all their firearms registered with the government it becomes very easy for the the authorities to show up at your front door one day with a list of what you have and demand you turn them over.

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they still had the memory of the pre-revolutionary period to draw upon. They deliberately did not want the government to be able to easily control the people. They had just fought many years of a bloody war to put an end to the tyranny of an over-controlling government.

The government having a detailed list of the arms that are held by the people would be a serious threat to civil liberty, that the founding fathers never would have supported.

It’s an entirely different world today. One the founding fathers couldn’t even imagine. I agree that it would be completely unjust for the government to come and seize all your guns. But that’s hardly the logical consequence of licensing and registration. The prohibition against any such action would still be absolute. The government is entirely capable of illegally searching a house right now and seizing any weapons that they find. But they’d be breaking the law. Just like coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would against the law.[/quote]

Really? It’s a different world today?!?! That is so ignorant. How is the world different? Has the human genome changed in two hundred years? NO! Has human nature changed in any way in the last two hundred years? NO!

With the exception of some technology, the world toady is no different from the one the founding fathers lived in. There is still greed, averace, predjudice, tyranny, hatred and ignorance. It is super ignorant to think that our nature has been changed by our inventions. There is nothing new under the sun. Especially when it comes to the course of human events. We have thousands of years to look back upon and see a very consistant pattern.

The government showing up to search your for the unknown would not be anywhere as productive as it would if they showed up with a comprehensive list of what you have. Searches are highly labor intensive take a lot of time and still may not yeild anything. Registration would be a great expedient to disarming the people because all the authorities would have to do is show up and demand what is on the list then move on to the next house. Then once they have all the registered arms they can come back and do searches.

113

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…I hardly thik that licensing and registering firearms is particularly burdensome or unduly infringes on the right to bear arms.

I do. It IS an infringement.

My federal and state constitutions say I have the right to keep and bear arms. I do not have to license or register any of my numerous guns. That’s not just what I think; that’s what is.

Registration always precedes confiscation. Hitler first had everyone register their guns before he took them away. [/quote]

Hitler also registered all the Jews before he took them away. Hitlers most important accomplace in the registration of the Jews was an American company International Business Machines. Without IBM’s census database technology it would have been much harder for Hitler to be so thorough.

114

[quote]Sifu wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…I hardly thik that licensing and registering firearms is particularly burdensome or unduly infringes on the right to bear arms.

I do. It IS an infringement.

My federal and state constitutions say I have the right to keep and bear arms. I do not have to license or register any of my numerous guns. That’s not just what I think; that’s what is.

Registration always precedes confiscation. Hitler first had everyone register their guns before he took them away.

Hitler also registered all the Jews before he took them away. Hitlers most important accomplace in the registration of the Jews was an American company International Business Machines. Without IBM’s census database technology it would have been much harder for Hitler to be so thorough.[/quote]

Yeah, I read that book. My great aunt sat on the board of IBM for awhile and knew Thomas Watson personally.

115

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…I agree that it would be completely unjust for the government to come and seize all your guns. But that’s hardly the logical consequence of licensing and registration.

But licensing and registration is the most likely precursor to government coming and seizing all your guns. Agreed?

The prohibition against any such action would still be absolute. The government is entirely capable of illegally searching a house right now and seizing any weapons that they find. But they’d be breaking the law. Just like coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would against the law.

And the government NEVER breaks the law, does it? It is omnipotent and omniscient and omni-benevolent, right? It (a government that would do the above) is not something to be feared, right? Governments have no history of such reprehensible actions, right?

So if “coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would be against the law” why bother registering them? Why build a registry? What’s the purpose? Tell me.[/quote]

To make sure that all guns are in the hands of registered users and not criminals. And make unregistered guns easier to find and unlicensed users easier to prosecute.

116

[quote]Sifu wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sifu wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Moriarty wrote:

Marches by the ku klux clan are protected. What you can’t do is use speech to purposely incite violence. You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater (one of the classic examples). You can’t engage in blatantly false advertising. Just a few examples. I hardly thik that licensing and registering firearms is particularly burdensome or unduly infringes on the right to bear arms.

Liscensing is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. When the people have to have all their firearms registered with the government it becomes very easy for the the authorities to show up at your front door one day with a list of what you have and demand you turn them over.

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they still had the memory of the pre-revolutionary period to draw upon. They deliberately did not want the government to be able to easily control the people. They had just fought many years of a bloody war to put an end to the tyranny of an over-controlling government.

The government having a detailed list of the arms that are held by the people would be a serious threat to civil liberty, that the founding fathers never would have supported.

It’s an entirely different world today. One the founding fathers couldn’t even imagine. I agree that it would be completely unjust for the government to come and seize all your guns. But that’s hardly the logical consequence of licensing and registration. The prohibition against any such action would still be absolute. The government is entirely capable of illegally searching a house right now and seizing any weapons that they find. But they’d be breaking the law. Just like coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would against the law.

Really? It’s a different world today?!?! That is so ignorant. How is the world different? Has the human genome changed in two hundred years? NO! Has human nature changed in any way in the last two hundred years? NO!

With the exception of some technology, the world toady is no different from the one the founding fathers lived in. There is still greed, averace, predjudice, tyranny, hatred and ignorance. It is super ignorant to think that our nature has been changed by our inventions. There is nothing new under the sun. Especially when it comes to the course of human events. We have thousands of years to look back upon and see a very consistant pattern.

The government showing up to search your for the unknown would not be anywhere as productive as it would if they showed up with a comprehensive list of what you have. Searches are highly labor intensive take a lot of time and still may not yeild anything. Registration would be a great expedient to disarming the people because all the authorities would have to do is show up and demand what is on the list then move on to the next house. Then once they have all the registered arms they can come back and do searches.[/quote]

Come on DUDE. There are millions of instances where we don’t follow the exact intent of the founder fathers. The founding father ALWAYS balanced absolute liberty against restrictions needed to keep this country safe and running. Sometimes rightly. Sometimes wrongly (Alien & Sedition acts anyone?).

What’s necessary today is not always the same as what was necessary a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, irrespective of changes in human nature. And the fact that something makes it EASIER for the government to misbehave doesn’t mean it should be be prohibited if there are valid and important reasons for it. MANY laws make it easier for the government to misbehave but they exist and rightly so because they serve important or compelling purposes. I’m not saying that all of the regulation schemes for guns are appropriate or should be upheld. But the general principle that you have the right to own and use a gun in whatever manner you wish without any restrictions whatsoever irrepective of any societal consquences is patently ridiculous. And it departs from the way this country has operated since its infancy. And such a stance would elevate the right to bear arms above every single right we recognize, fundamental or otherwise.

Constitutionally-guaranteed or not. This includes rights of free speech, right to exercise freedom of relgion, and freedom of relgion. All rights that are HIGHLY but not absolutely protected. And that give way for other fundamental interests. The Right to Bear Arms is not and should not be any different.

117

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
It’s an entirely different world today. One the founding fathers couldn’t even imagine. I agree that it would be completely unjust for the government to come and seize all your guns. But that’s hardly the logical consequence of licensing and registration. The prohibition against any such action would still be absolute. The government is entirely capable of illegally searching a house right now and seizing any weapons that they find. But they’d be breaking the law. Just like coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would against the law.

Legally owned firearms were seized in post Katrina. Many never had them returned. Do you think something like this couldn’t happen again, on a much larger scale? First comes registration, then comes confiscation.

Make no mistake, the second amendment is in place to protect the citizens from it’s government. If you think that the anti-gunners don’t have an agenda that means to disarm the citizenry, then you’re a fool.

[/quote]

I have NO doubt the ‘anti-gunners’ have such an agenda. Nor am I naive enough to think government doesn’t ever act wrongly. Of course it does. BUT the power vested in police to make lawful arrests makes it easier to make unlawful ones. The power to engage in lawful search and seizure makes it easier to engage in unlawful. The power to use necessary force makes it easier to use unjustified force. The power to restrict speech that is directed to and highly likely to incite a riot makes it easier to restrict speech that should not be censored. That doesn’t mean that it’s safer and better just let the chips fall where they may. It means we have to vigilant and make sure limits are highly circumscribed and harshly punish abuse that occurs.

118

So, let’s try this instead…forget about licensing and registration. What, if any, regulations do you guys think are acceptable?

120

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
So, let’s try this instead…forget about licensing and registration. What, if any, regulations do you guys think are acceptable?[/quote]

No WMDs.