2nd Amendment

[Jeff Higgins]

“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.

[widebody911]

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?

[JTO]

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

[legion]

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.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by widebody911
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?

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?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by JTO
Rocket launchers aren't firearms. Need is not the question. Its a right just like free speech.

So what is the techical definition of a firearm?

[JTO]

...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

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by widebody911
Funny how they always leave out the "A well regulated Militia" bit.

"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.

[widebody911]

So common artillery shells would qualify, correct?

[Moneyguy1]

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

[legion]

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

[dhoward]

Originally posted by widebody911
So common artillery shells would qualify, correct?

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

[JTO]

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

[widebody911]

Originally posted by JTO
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.

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

[ubiquity0]

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

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

[dhoward]

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

[JTO]

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

[tabs]

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...

[competentone]

Originally posted by widebody911
Ah, so handguns are out then?

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?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by widebody911
Ah, so handguns are out then?
(Just having fun here, don't take it personal!)

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"?