We’ll have to take that up another time. Its getting late here (not sure which time zone you’re in).
Have a good one.
1 Like
You too my friend.
1 Like
I see what you did there: you made a funny! It’s rare to see a progressive liberal with a sense of humor, so good for you!
1 Like
We’ve covered quite a bit of this before in other threads, but I reckon I’ll wade in on the issue (and apologies, I’d didn’t read each post in detail, so I may be duplicating):
-
There’s no constitutional right to rebel against a tyrannical government. That’s a natural right that isn’t “permitted” by a constitution.
-
The original intent of the FFs was not to create a universal individual right to keep and bear. They could have, they didn’t. They (and the states, more specifically, since the BOR were amendments) created a 2A designed to restrict the federal government with respect to certain gun rights. The BOR did not apply to the states. The states were left to do as they saw fit, and the 2A did not protect any individual right from state infringement. Had the FFs and the states wanted a universal individual right, they wouldn’t have set it up this way.
-
The 2A was not about self-defense: that was already well-established in common law at the state level, and no one seriously feared that states were interested in doing away with self-defense rights so the right needed to be enshrined in the supreme law of the land. The 2A was also not about hunting.
-
The 2A was about preventing the federal government from disarming states that served as a bulwark against a federal government threatening to overwhelm the states (along with restrictions on standing armies). And since no universal individual right was established (see above), it makes more sense that the 2A applies to the state militia as opposed to the individual - meaning, each state was given carte blanche to allow it to permit citizens to keep and bear arms to be ready for militia service, and also regulate in the name of public safety, in any manner that state saw fit - the point being, the feds couldn’t interfere with their decision.
-
This is all true according to original intent, not some wild-eyed left-wing theory. Of course, our “originalist” SCOTUS members - who believe originalism is the North Star everyone should follow - conveniently cast aside originalism when they nationalized gun rights in McDonald.
(And let’s be clear - Good God, did they muck up gun law jurisprudence. It’s a individual constitutional right right (based on self-defense!) that we can deny someone who did time as a felon, because after serving his/her time, they’ve forfeited, what, they’re constitutional right of self-defense from violent criminals? You get nailed for tax evasion, and your constitutional right to self-defense evaporates?)
Now, I think there is a way conceptual way to an individual constitutional right to keep and bear, but it has to set aside sticking with the “we must stick to original intent”, which right-ringers insist we must not do. But, you can’t be an original intent guy and believe it was the original intent of the FFs to create a universal individual right. Doesn’t work when you unpack it.
And full disclosure, I say all this as a 1) multiple gun owner and 2) someone who doesn’t support “assault weapon” bans.
5 Likes
They did. There’s a reason vetos, 2/3 majority, ratification of amendments and all the other things that make government inefficient exist by design were put there.
They wanted to make it really hard to oppress people with government.
1 Like
One other point to make - since the birth of the country, virtually every state has had some provision in its own constitution stating and defining the right to keep and bear arms (some actually are silent) and they have modified them over the course of time. If states in the Founding era/early republic believed that when they signed up for (and ratified) the 2A, the 2A was serving as the law upon that state’s citizens, those states wouldn’t have bothered setting up their own constitutional structure outlining rights and responsibilities re: firearms. Such laws would be superfluous and useless if the 2A was understood to govern a individual citizen’s rights on the matter.
States believed that such matters - providing for the state militia to protect against enemies without and within (ie., an overbearing federal government) as well as regulating in the name of public safety - were reserved to them.
This new theory that the 2A, when it was ratified, established an individual right that overrode everything the state could and did do at the keep and bear arms level is exactly that - a new theory.
2 Likes
If this is the case, why does the First amendment use “Congress shall make no law…” while the second uses, “…shall not be infringed”? The first amendment makes clear that it only applies to Congress, while it is nonetheless interpreted to govern the actions of state and local governments. The second uses what grammatically appears to be a much broader prohibition on infringement, but you are making the argument that it is only intended to apply to the federal government.
There are lots of reasons that a state constitution might include guarantees of rights that are guaranteed by the US constitution anyways, particularly when we talk about states that existed early on that did not necessarily see the US government as a permanent relationship with their state.
Foolproof may be considered general slang rather than rigorously defined here. However there are issues with it and it IS a fundamental principle that something relied on for personal self defense should be as reliable and robust as possible.
Here are some issues that may be pointed out with electronics governing guns. They deserve some thought.
It isn’t merely an argument - the BOR didn’t apply to the states. It’s isn’t up for chin-pulling rumination - it’s a fact.
If you think otherwise, take a look at the recent 2A cases that created the constitutional right to keep and bear - Heller and McDonald. If 2A enthusiasts that think the FFs established a universal individual right to keep and bear from the get go of ratification (because the right applied to both the federal government and the states), you’d only need one case (Heller) that says yes, the 2A creates a universal right. Not so. The McDonald case was needed because the BOR doesn’t apply to the states except through what’s called the “incorporation doctrine” via the 14th Amendment.
Meaning - the need for the McDonald case proves the FFs didn’t intend for the 2A to create a universal right that supersedes state law on these matters. You can only get to the universal right through the 14A.
Reminds me of the objections raised in the run-up to requiring cars to have seatbelts, and (later on) to having airbags.
I think origionalist doctorine is all well and good. But it creates interesting thought experiments.
Would the FF’s have interpreted Hustler magazine as “speech”? Would they have wanted that protected? Well… Jefferson probably would have, but not the rest of them.
Also the merc firms in the US own APC’s, helicopter gunships, small artillery. They could take a small nation if they had a mind to. So I think the in practice answer to ‘should private citizens own military hardware?’ They already do.
So state courts can compel people to testify against themselves? State police don’t need a search warrant? State courts don’t have to give speedy trials, jury trials, and are entitled to inflict cruel and unusual punishment?
Which parts of the bill of rights only apply to the federal government and not to the states? I can see the argument for the first amendment as it quite clearly calls out Congress as not being allowed to make a law. The other amendments are not so specific.
Ok, so how then do you arrive at an interpretation that the 2A creates a universal right when that wasn’t the original intent?
Generally, yep. Happy reading:
See the attached link.
Very interesting. I had always thought it odd that the Bill of Rights was generally applied in popular conscious to all governments although it appears to apply only to the federal government. Thanks for providing some context.
1 Like
I have to agree with thunderbolt, on this: the Bill of Rights was intended only to limit the federal government.
How strange that even cities have been told that they can’t have certain gun laws, while the majority of weapons prohibitions have come down from the federal government.
I think you exaggerate.
Not really. There were lots of strenuous objections to the mandated implementation of both of these safety features.
You would think that passive safety technology would be an avenue mainstream individuals on both sides of the gun issue could agree to pursue. And as the S&W debacle of the 90s made clear, passive technology will not be implemented unless doing so is mandated by law.
Having to actively be part of a militia is not a requirement of the amendment.
I addressed this. Please go back and read my posts.
Not when he is addressing the claim that “the founders wouldn’t be okay with X”. Without anyone making claims about what they would or wouldn’t think today, the 2nd amendment and military grade weapons for civilians stands as what they were in favor of.
One is far more educated on the issue than the other, the same one that is also factually correct. But that’s tangential since Crowler isn’t being hypocritical in the first place because he was still being comical.