Gun Rights

[GCrites80s]

Yes, a 1977 Bronco is more likely to kill people than a 2020 (or whenever the

Member of well regulated militia kills his own son. Oh well, thoughts and prayers.  We don't want to infringe on the poor dad's right to kill his son. Seriously, this guy fired shots at a vehicle because he thought it was stolen.  I guess that's what responsible gun owners do.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/delaware-county-man-arrested-in-death-of-his-teenage-son/article_b3be173d-11df-5129-840d-8a0ef0b3ee3b.html

Tens of millions own guns while harming nobody. Why don't you post their individual stories?

Why should people be recognized for not hurting or killing someone else with a gun?  Kind of a spectacularly low bar you're trying to set.  Hey, I didn't run over anyone while driving!  That means there doesn't need to be any rules!

No, but it does generally mean we shouldn't ban cars just because vehicular homicides and fatal accidents do happen.

No one is talking about banning certain types of guns because of accidents, though, so you don't have any real argument. 

But there is talk of banning cars from core city centers due to automotive terrorism.

[Ram23]

No.  We don't ban cars but we heavily regulate them with licenses, insurance, registration and required safety features  That would be a good form of gun control too. 

You don't need a license, insurance, registration, nor safety features to own a car. In general, you need those things to operate a car on public roadways. The government heavily regulates how you use your car with regards to public safety, not the ownership of the car itself. 

[freefourur]

No.  We don't ban cars but we heavily regulate them with licenses, insurance, registration and required safety features  That would be a good form of gun control too. 

You don't need a license, insurance, registration, nor safety features to own a car. In general, you need those things to operate a car on public roadways. The government heavily regulates how you use your car with regards to public safety, not the ownership of the car itself.

Right, but with a car it is obvious quickly if it is not registered since you can't conceal a car.  Therefore, ownership of guns needs to be registered and licensed.

[Brutus_buckeye]

The key difference to keep in mind with cars v guns is that there is no right to drive a car that is enshrined in our constitution. It is not a property right. YOu can own as many cars as you want, but until you meet the government rules regarding operating a car, you cant drive it.

All laws regarding cars concern their operation. The Constitution does not recognize a right to operate a car, just like the Constitution does not recognize a right to fly on a plane or a host of other regulated activities.

The Constitution does recognize the right to own guns. Which means the government does not have the power to take these away and any such regulation cannot be of the sort to limit one's ability to rightfully obtain their firearm, which is a right granted to them by an authority higher than government.

Now, I think the legitimate argument comes into play as to some of the terms in the 2nd amendment. 1) what does bearing arms mean? Is it limited to owning the gun or operating it? There are legitimate questions to be answered there.

2) It is recognized that government can impose regulations that are reasonable on guns. WHat would be reasonable. The 2nd amendment says nothing about ammo? is that included in the right to bear arms? This is a question to be debated as well.  Just like cars, the government cannot take away your right to own a car (Right to life, liberty and property) but it can limit how you use that property.

[YABO713]

The key difference to keep in mind with cars v guns is that there is no right to drive a car that is enshrined in our constitution. It is not a property right. YOu can own as many cars as you want, but until you meet the government rules regarding operating a car, you cant drive it.

We are guaranteed the right to travel through the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

I'd expect a response to that is "we are not guaranteed the right to an automobile, though."

To which I would state that the 2nd Amendment does not stipulate firearms either, rather arms in general - which could also mean swords, knives, or even cannons (going to the opposite extreme)

[Brutus_buckeye]

You know as well as anyone that it is settled law that firearms have been read into the first amendment. At the very minimum, the court has upheld the right to own pistols and shotguns through case law. It also allows for the right to bear other arms too such as knives and such.

I think there is a legitimate argument as to the right to "bear" arms means. Does it stop at ownership. Which to me, this could be argued to be covered under 4th amendment protection. Or does "bear" include the right to use and discharge those arms in a legal manner. I don't know if this question has been legitimately addressed

[YABO713]

You know as well as anyone that it is settled law that firearms have been read into the first amendment. At the very minimum, the court has upheld the right to own pistols and shotguns through case law. It also allows for the right to bear other arms too such as knives and such.

I think there is a legitimate argument as to the right to "bear" arms means. Does it stop at ownership. Which to me, this could be argued to be covered under 4th amendment protection. Or does "bear" include the right to use and discharge those arms in a legal manner. I don't know if this question has been legitimately addressed

Bear has not, and is still read ambiguously and subject to textual / dynamic interpretations.

[freefourur]

The 2nd amendment does not specify which type of gun one can and cannot own.  The fact that limitations (automatic machine guns) already exist leads me to believe that specific types of guns can be outlawed outright.  The 2nd amendment does not say that registration and licensing cannot be implemented.  Regulations are not an infringement.

[Brutus_buckeye]

^ See, I think this is actually where the gun control people have the best way to achieve their goals.  Banning the AR-15 is not the way to achieve the goal. Regulating the ammo or the operation of the gun is a much better way to accomplish it.

[mu2010]

As Chris Rock once said:

[taestell]

The Constitution does recognize the right to own guns.

Does it? I thought it only recognized the right to "keep and bear arms". What if the government owned all the guns but citizens were allowed to rent them from the government (the same way that in some states citizens buy alcohol directly from the state)?

[Brutus_buckeye]

^ Yes it does. Case law has settled this already. To the varying degree and type of guns, that may be still open to question which is why we are having this debate, but the debate about whether people can or cannot own a gun is settled (See Heller for most recent example).

Government could set a program like this, but again, people still have a Constitution right to individual ownership too.

However, the Constitution says nothing about ammo. This is the argument about owning/operating cars. You can own the car, but you have to have a license to drive it. Could there be a back end regulation where you own the gun, but the right to buy the ammo to operate it is highly regulated.

[YABO713]

^ Yes it does. Case law has settled this already. To the varying degree and type of guns, that may be still open to question which is why we are having this debate, but the debate about whether people can or cannot own a gun is settled (See Heller for most recent example).

Government could set a program like this, but again, people still have a Constitution right to individual ownership too.

However, the Constitution says nothing about ammo. This is the argument about owning/operating cars. You can own the car, but you have to have a license to drive it. Could there be a back end regulation where you own the gun, but the right to buy the ammo to operate it is highly regulated.

Brutus is correct. It's pretty well settled, too.

[327]

A right to guns without ammo is silly.  I believe there's a middle ground somewhere but not down that road. 

[Ram23]

A right to guns without ammo is silly.  I believe there's a middle ground somewhere but not down that road. 

Right, I think even a moderate Supreme Court like the one we have now would see this as an end-run around the Second Amendment. In such a hypothetical situation, the government would be telling people that they could keep guns, but not the means to actually use them. It's like saying you can have the right to free speech, you just can't use words.

[DarkandStormy]

^ Yes it does. Case law has settled this already. To the varying degree and type of guns, that may be still open to question which is why we are having this debate, but the debate about whether people can or cannot own a gun is settled (See Heller for most recent example).

Government could set a program like this, but again, people still have a Constitution right to individual ownership too.

However, the Constitution says nothing about ammo. This is the argument about owning/operating cars. You can own the car, but you have to have a license to drive it. Could there be a back end regulation where you own the gun, but the right to buy the ammo to operate it is highly regulated.

Brutus is correct. It's pretty well settled, too.

Case law gets overturned all the time.

[freefourur]

^ Yes it does. Case law has settled this already. To the varying degree and type of guns, that may be still open to question which is why we are having this debate, but the debate about whether people can or cannot own a gun is settled (See Heller for most recent example).

Government could set a program like this, but again, people still have a Constitution right to individual ownership too.

However, the Constitution says nothing about ammo. This is the argument about owning/operating cars. You can own the car, but you have to have a license to drive it. Could there be a back end regulation where you own the gun, but the right to buy the ammo to operate it is highly regulated.

Brutus is correct. It's pretty well settled, too.

Case law gets overturned all the time.

Not if it's been decided by SCOTUS.  That is rare.

[YABO713]

^Stare decisis yo

[freefourur]

^Stare decisis yo

I didn't pass the bar but I know a lil bit...

[Brutus_buckeye]

A right to guns without ammo is silly.  I believe there's a middle ground somewhere but not down that road. 

Right, I think even a moderate Supreme Court like the one we have now would see this as an end-run around the Second Amendment. In such a hypothetical situation, the government would be telling people that they could keep guns, but not the means to actually use them. It's like saying you can have the right to free speech, you just can't use words.

That is true, an outright ban on all ammo would likely be seen as an attempt to chill the 2nd amendment rights but there are a lot more avenues to regulate ammo (since not a constitutional right) than outright regulate guns, imo.

[jonoh81]

^ See, I think this is actually where the gun control people have the best way to achieve their goals.  Banning the AR-15 is not the way to achieve the goal. Regulating the ammo or the operation of the gun is a much better way to accomplish it.

The NRA folks and many gun rights advocates are also against any regulations on things like ammo because they treat it just as you do with the AR-15, as a slippery slope that will lead to full bans.  These arguments are designed to ensure that the status quo, bare minimum, is maintained.

[jonoh81]

^ Yes it does. Case law has settled this already. To the varying degree and type of guns, that may be still open to question which is why we are having this debate, but the debate about whether people can or cannot own a gun is settled (See Heller for most recent example).

Government could set a program like this, but again, people still have a Constitution right to individual ownership too.

However, the Constitution says nothing about ammo. This is the argument about owning/operating cars. You can own the car, but you have to have a license to drive it. Could there be a back end regulation where you own the gun, but the right to buy the ammo to operate it is highly regulated.

Brutus is correct. It's pretty well settled, too.

I've never been of the viewpoint that any law is truly "settled", not in the indefinite sense that's being used here.  It may last a long time, but only so long as society deems such laws useful and reasonable.  There is no reason to believe that they won't change at some point, and I think the 2nd, or at least laws pertaining to its implementation, is a prime candidate for that to happen.

[Brutus_buckeye]

^ From a legal standpoint, it is settled.

From a standpoint of trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, anything is possible I guess, but I would put my money on winning the Powerball Jackpot over repeal of the 2nd amendment.

[jonoh81]

^ From a legal standpoint, it is settled.

From a standpoint of trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, anything is possible I guess, but I would put my money on winning the Powerball Jackpot over repeal of the 2nd amendment.

I'm not even talking about full repeal.  Given time and changing sentiment, nothing in law is really settled forever.  Would conservatives say legal abortion is settled law, for example?

[GCrites80s]

One major difference between the car companies and gun manufacturers is that car companies welcome regulation as a chance to sell the public on how "safe" and "green" the vehicles are while gun manufacturers get super emo at regulation proposals instead of using it them as an opportunity.

[Ram23]

Ammunition taxes, regulations, etc. would have no effect whatsoever on gun crime (much like most of the regulations routinely put forth by the left). No one who is committed to shooting another person is going to rethink it because each bullet costs 50 cents instead of 30 cents. The only people this would impact are recreational shooters who frequent gun ranges, and routinely pour through hundreds or even thousands of bullets. Those are not the people who commit gun crimes.

The NRA folks and many gun rights advocates are also against any regulations on things like ammo because they treat it just as you do with the AR-15, as a slippery slope that will lead to full bans.  These arguments are designed to ensure that the status quo, bare minimum, is maintained.

Given that a growing number of liberals, including a former Supreme Court Justice, openly admit to the fact that they want to eliminate the Second Amendment, it's perfectly rational to treat most regulations as slippery slopes. If you believe that in an ideal world, there wouldn't be any guns in the United States, any regulation you suggest is an incremental step towards that goal.

[freefourur]

Ammunition taxes, regulations, etc. would have no effect whatsoever on gun crime (much like most of the regulations routinely put forth by the left). No one who is committed to shooting another person is going to rethink it because each bullet costs 50 cents instead of 30 cents. The only people this would impact are recreational shooters who frequent gun ranges, and routinely pour through hundreds or even thousands of bullets. Those are not the people who commit gun crimes.

Citation needed

[Brutus_buckeye]

^ From a legal standpoint, it is settled.

From a standpoint of trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, anything is possible I guess, but I would put my money on winning the Powerball Jackpot over repeal of the 2nd amendment.

I'm not even talking about full repeal.  Given time and changing sentiment, nothing in law is really settled forever.  Would conservatives say legal abortion is settled law, for example?

The informed ones would say it is settled from the fact that Roe V Wade guarantees the right to privacy and Casey allows for abortions to be regulated by states after viability and that reasonable restrictions may be imposed by states.

The battle currently is over what is a reasonable restriction by the states. The left wants to essentially ignore some of the provisions of Casey and act like it does not exist while the right wants to overreach in its attempts to regulate.

Even as opinions ebb and flow on this issue, and it stirs passions of those on both sides, the key deciding points are settled, just as the 2nd amendment's right to own a handgun is settled.  That right will not go away. No matter what opinions may be, you will not be able to get rid of the right to own a gun, however, you can use other means to limit the availability and appeal of the gun. THat is where the battle will be fought.

[Gramarye]

^ From a legal standpoint, it is settled.

From a standpoint of trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, anything is possible I guess, but I would put my money on winning the Powerball Jackpot over repeal of the 2nd amendment.

I'm not even talking about full repeal.  Given time and changing sentiment, nothing in law is really settled forever.  Would conservatives say legal abortion is settled law, for example?

On this point, I agree with you.  "Settled law" is even more a misnomer than "settled science"--and when you get deep enough into it, even the flow of time isn't completely settled science.

[327]

^ From a legal standpoint, it is settled.

From a standpoint of trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, anything is possible I guess, but I would put my money on winning the Powerball Jackpot over repeal of the 2nd amendment.

I'm not even talking about full repeal.  Given time and changing sentiment, nothing in law is really settled forever.  Would conservatives say legal abortion is settled law, for example?

The informed ones would say it is settled from the fact that Roe V Wade guarantees the right to privacy and Casey allows for abortions to be regulated by states after viability and that reasonable restrictions may be imposed by states.

The battle currently is over what is a reasonable restriction by the states. The left wants to essentially ignore some of the provisions of Casey and act like it does not exist while the right wants to overreach in its attempts to regulate.

Even as opinions ebb and flow on this issue, and it stirs passions of those on both sides, the key deciding points are settled, just as the 2nd amendment's right to own a handgun is settled.  That right will not go away. No matter what opinions may be, you will not be able to get rid of the right to own a gun, however, you can use other means to limit the availability and appeal of the gun. THat is where the battle will be fought.

A professor of mine had what he called a Tinkerbell theory of law.  In Peter Pan the audience has to applaud or Tinkerbell dies.  She lives because people want her to live.  Similarly, law persists because we want it to persist, because enough people in the audience keep clapping.  If they don't...