2nd Amendment
 

“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.”

Steven G. Bradbury
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

C. Kevin Marshall
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Read more here: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#1

I wonder what spin the anti-gun crowd will apply to this, if they acknowledge it at all.

Funny how they always leave out the "A well regulated Militia" bit.

I'm not against gun ownership, in general, but where do you draw the line as what is an acceptable firearm and what isn't? For example, in one state (Illinois?) they're talking about banning .50 sniper rifles. Do people really "need" such a weapon? How big/fast of a weapon is reasonable before some sort of legislation kicks in? The diehards want an Uzi in every trenchcoat and a glock in every belt; following the 'no restriction is a good restriction' mantra, why should I not be allowed to carry a rocket launcher in the gun rack of my pickup?

Rocket launchers aren't firearms. Need is not the question. Its a right just like free speech.
Troy

What always get me when politicians talk of banning firearms (Blagojevich and King Richard II are at it again). Do they not realize that most serious criminals don't get their weapons through the legal distribution channels? A ban has no effect on the people it is supposed to.

As long as the firearm is not used in a illegal manner, and all proper channels have been utilized in obtaining said firearm, a citizen has a right to own it--"need" has nothing to do with it.

Do people really "need" a Porsche?

So what is the techical definition of a firearm?

...expanding gases generated from the ignition of smokless nitrocellulosic-based or black carbon/sulfur powders forcing a projectile out the muzzle...

or something like that. A rocket launcher is of course, a rocket.
Troy

"Militia" and "military" are two different things. The modern anti-gun crowd has attempted (and unfortunately succeeded with far too many people) to blur the distinction, claiming that the 2nd Amendment provides the government a right to maintain a militia/military. None of the other nine article in the original Bill of Rights grants rights to the government; the whole document is an official acknowledgement by our government of our rights as citizens. To single one amendment out and claim it provides a right to that government is both historically innaccurate and, I believe, intentionaly missleading. The original meaning of "militia" was that of an armed populace, not officially conscripted for service by the government. They were to provide their own arms of their ownership; not being issued arms by the government. There was a seperate standing Army and Navy, conscripted by the government, and issued the arms and equipment necessary to their duties.

So common artillery shells would qualify, correct?

It always puzzles me as to why there is a "right" to own (literally any type of) firearms, but driving is a privelege.

Driving isn't mentioned in the constitution. Maybe we should start pushing for an ammendment?

No.
But a Howitzer would.
And is regulated by federal law as a 'destructive device'.
Go here...
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/index.htm

Yes, Thom, they would by that narrow definition I provided. What the intent of the Founding Fathers was limited to shoulder fired weapons, I believe.
Troy

Ah, so handguns are out then?
(Just having fun here, don't take it personal!)

Does the Second Amendment pertain to 'firearms' only?

Why does a 'right to bear arms' exclude rocket launchers? Maybe if it was a 'right to bear small arms'?

http://searchbox.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/arms

You too can own a rocket launcher, grenade launcher, Claymore, etc.
You just have to get the proper permits and pay the tax.

I know Thom. This is a good discussion and I'm happy to discuss it as long as we all stay civil.
I believe handguns are included in the Second Am. but in the days of the Constitution most citizens had long guns, not handguns. Easier to hit that fleeing dear for most people...
Troy

OOOOOHHHHH BOY...Here in Nevada I can OWN IT ALL YIPPPIEEEE.....

One comment ...The British Army marched on Lexington and Concord to DISARM an ILLEGAL Militia in their view...

I think Gun Control advocates know that they can not control peoples behavior, and due to the capricious nature of that behavior are afraid that it might get them killed if the instruments of their demise are available...This BTW is a very negative view of the human condition...

Nope; the Amendment says "...keep and bear arms..." -- "bear" implies "carry."

I'd argue that when you get into arms that cannot be "carried" by an individual you are pressing the limits of arms the Founders were thinking of when creating the 2nd Amendment.

Of course it is not the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment that "gives" anybody any rights -- which I suspect is the direction of your argument. What the Founding Fathers had in mind when writing the Constitution is superceded by more fundamental arguments about individual rights.

If a person has a right to his/her own life, it logically follows that they also should have the right to own tools that can protect that life. Firearms are extremely efficient tools one can use, with minimal training and practice, to defend against attacks against one's life, property and liberty. Without self-defense tools, those who are physically weaker are at a distinct disadvantage if attacked by a criminal. (Criminologist have conducted studies involving interviews of criminals and have found that criminals normally choose their victims very carefully; they look for those they expect to be able to physically overpower.)

When you are looking at types of weapons that should be legal and those that should be prohibited from individual ownership, I believe that one should take into consideration the usefulness in personal defense of the weapon. Today, especially when considering the importing laws on firearms, "sporting purposes" is more important than "self-defense" uses.

I think the more fundamental issue in the gun debate is that many who are "against guns" are also against the idea of people having a "right to self-defense" -- which always leaves me wondering what sort of mad world such people desire to live in?

Well, swords are "out". A concealed carry permit in most states (getting a "permit" to excercise a Constitutional right is another whole issue...) allows the carry of a concealed firearm, but not any kind of edged weapon. Why isn't there any kind of National Sword Association fighting for this one? I'm sure that was a commonly available and used arm at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Yes, the line is pretty blury now as to what citizens should be allowed to "bear"; whether only concealed arms can be borne in public, long arms vs. handguns, etc. The strictest interpretation would be any arm whatsoever. Is that still reasonable, in the face of modern arms development? Is anyone really comfortable with allowing our lawmakers to decide what is suitable for us to "bear"?

One of my greatest fears is if any one ever succeds in banning gun ownership in america is that the poor souls who are charged with collecting the evil "illegal guns" will be targets. Im sure many will turn their weapons in without incident but many more will fight back. Many on both side will lose the liberties and their lives. Everyone hates an oppressive goverment, not just peace loving liberals but everyone.

Then we will have a gun free utopia where everyone will love each other and we will all smell like strawberries and smile. Oh except for the crackhead on the corner or the gangbanger who will still gun down people in there homes for nothing. Gotta love a gun free utopia.

My favorite line is "gun banning nutjob" Ted Kennedy has killed more people than any of my guns. Maybe we should ban poloticians from driving.

Very eloquent MR Higgins

...and pretty much everything else as well.

Wouldn't poloticians be on horseback?

Thom, a .50 caliber sniper rifle, I would venture, is no more dangerous than many other weapons, and rather, even less dangerous than many other guns. A "sniper rifle" is going to be bolt action, so it will be slow to load in comparison with semi-automatic weapon. Also, the gun will be long and heavy, and to be stereotypical, it will have a high powered scope. It will be slow to find and zero in on targets. It will be hard to carry and move. It would be clumsier to use than something like a 30-30, 30-06, or even .22 Hornet. So there is no reason to really outlaw .50 caliber "sniper rifles" because they wouldn't be widely used, rather, they would just be impractical even to some lunatic who might decide to become a sniper.

EDIT: I'd also guess the velocity of the bullet is lower than a comparable smaller caliber rifle, so it may even be less powerful (recall KE=mv^2).

Well, a .50 BMG cartridge produces something like 3200 fps with a 750 grain projectile. So the energy is astronomical. But, I agree with your conclusion that banning them because they are more dangerous than some other weapon is nuts. I can't swing the $3000+ price tag, they are indeed heavy (20+ pounds) and aren't used to commit crimes.
troy

This is an issue I follow fairly closely. The real issue is whether the "right to bear arms" in the 2nd Amendmanet is whether that confers a Consitutional right upon the individual or whther it confers a right upon the States. If the latter, the States would have a right to regluate an individuals rights to gun ownership.

It also doesn't make any sense in relation to the "militia" language in the second part of the sentence. If the States can regulate its people then there is no way for the people to raise a militia against the State governement that controls the rights of its citizens. This would necessarily result in tyrany at the State level. This is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to protect against by including the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights.

My .02

Hum, I always thought the 2nd was there because of the fear of a federal goverment being tyrannical and that the right of individual states to raise a armed militia was so the people in the state could defend themselves against an organised federal force.

So, from that perspective, yes I would argue that states can regulate which arms individuals can own. We control the state by the election process, not by an armed rabble attacking your state national guard.

So which guns do I think individuals can't have. Assault weapons, machine guns and handguns.

Those to keep. Hunting rifles, shotguns. For self defense, nothing quite like a good shogun

Of course, here in AZ, the legislature says it is now OK to wear a sidearm into a bar. Go figure.

Before the state militias were federalized and became the National Guard, the states did have this sort of check on the federal government.

Remember, no one really needs the sort of personal freedoms we enjoy. Most countries lack them in fact. The 2nd Amendment goes to the core of what makes the US experiment in democracy "different". The people granted the government its powers not the other way around.

A handgun is a much better self defence weapon than the other firearms listed. It really isn't practical for a battered woman to defend herself with a long gun while commuting. Even in NH you'd get some strange looks carrying a shotgun in the supermarket. :D

I think a large part of one's views depend on one's culture.
I grew up with sharp knives in the kitchen and I never feared some sort of slasher incident.
I grew up with chainsaws in the back of everyone's pickup and I never was afraid of a chainsaw massacre.
I also grew up with firearms and I have a respect for them like I would any powerful tool or toy that could be misused.
If these things were absent from one's culture and one's only exposer was slasher, chainsaw movies and TV it would only be reasonable to have different feelings about them.

-Chris

Have any of you read the "Militia Act of 1792" (www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm)? It is still the law of the land.

Militia means ALL citizens between 18-45 yrs of age. Not included in the Militia, are members of the standing army (this includes the National Guard) and postal employees, custom officers and ferrymen that worked on "post" rds.

-You are required to register with the local commander (draft board sound familar?) at age 18, provide yourself with a rifle of the same caliber (now .223 or .308) used by the standing army and have 24 rounds of ammo, etc.

-The States were responsible for the running and training of these militias.

-The National Guard was created in 1903 by the Dick Act, because the state militias had turned into social clubs and were no long training (in 1792 the word "regulated" meant "trained") its members in the use of firearms and military drilling of the quality that the Federal Goverment needed if it was to have to call them up.

-The 2nd Amend. covers ONLY those firearms that have a military, police or self defence use. This was made clear in the "United States v. Miller" case in 1939?.

- Hunting rifles are NOT protected. This is why the anti-gunners are trying to get all of the firearms left in the publics hands classified, by their owners, as "hunting" firearms. Once that line is drawn, and all non-hunting firearms are gone then they have the legal grounds to outlaw "hunting" firearms using the gun owners own words against them. So stop trying to protect you firearms by saying they are used for hunting. Thats what they want you to do.

Sorry for the history lesson. Sometimes I get tired of listening to those who have not done their research. Make your decisions based on all of the facts, not just what you here on the tv or read in the newspaper.

Terry Hastings

Chris,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Thanks,
Troy

Never knew there was an ulterior motive to wanting assault weapons banned. I think you are looking for a conspiracy that is not there. I want those types of weapons banned because it is the untrained, undisicplined person who kills many innocent people with them.

With this country's rich heritage of hunting, I can not see how anyone could construe you can not own a hunting rifle.

Maybe we should let local populations decide. Country people can have all the guns they dem necessary and we in cities can bann all the ones we want.

[sarcasm] Yea, that's right, the 2nd Amendment is about hunting! [/sarcasm]

In these times you would be a fool not own a firearm.....

My comment was in regards to the post indicating that hunting rifles are not covered by 2nd amendment and that he belived the anti-gunners wanted to get everything banned under 2nd and then go after hunting rifles. I do not think that is the case. As I said maybe we should extrapolate the 2nd down from a states' rights to local governance.

Bu thanks for your well thought comment as always.

What gets me is how every story, unfortunate as it may be, of a child finding a gun in their home and hurting or killing someone or themselves makes it all over every paper in the land. A properly registered gun owner thwarts a robbery, stops a rape, defendes themselves with their gun and it makes it in no paper whatsoever. I did a indepth research paper on this in college useing the most powerfull search tool offereed, Lexus/Nexus. I quickly realized that the numerous reports of people succesfully defending themselves with firearms equalls a 2 sentence blurb and the one kid per year in any city who shoots himself accidently is huge front page news. That is a serious unbalance if you ask me. And, typical unfair play by the liberal media.

I did not make that determination about what is covered by the 2nd amendment, The Supreme Court of the U.S. said in the Miller case,

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less then 18" in lenght" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficieny of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarentees 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 ita use could contribute to the commom defence."

So don't laugh at statements until you can prove them wrong. Thats the first step of sticking your head in the sand.

Do the research!

Terry

Some states already have that -- like New York and Illinois. The cities, like NY City and Chicago have banned nearly all firearms and yet their crime rates are substantially higher than not only the surrounding communities that haven't banned firearms, but also substantially higher than other major cities in other states without similar firearm restrictions.

Of course what is always really interesting to consider is that prior to 1968 there were very limited laws governing firearms -- for example, anyone could buy virtually any legal rifle, handgun, or shotgun through the U.S. mail. No licensed gun dealer, no background check, just send a check or MO to the gun manufacturer or distributor and they would ship you the gun.

Consider the crime rates now compared to those pre-1968. It's substantially higher today -- even with Federally licensed firearm dealers, tons of paperwork, FBI background checks, waiting periods, etc. All the restrictions on the availability of firearms would appear to have no influence on reducing crime rates -- kinda makes one wonder why people keep trying to argue that more laws restricting guns will somehow reduce crime?

The media's pandering for the ratings dollars have lead to the 'if it bleeds, it leads' scenario. 'Good' news is a thing of the past.