Repeal the 2nd Amendment and permit our legislators to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.
3
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
It clearly says the Militia shall be well regulated, it then goes on to say
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
However, I do believe that we need to ban assault/automatic weapons.
It clearly says the Militia shall be well regulated, it then goes on to say
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
However, I do believe that we need to ban assault/automatic weapons.
2
Before dealing with solutions one should recognize several things. First, the Bill of Rights rights are not absolute. Freedom of speech famously does not allow one to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. Nor to slander or lie under oath.
The word "arms" conveys a notion today far different from what was conceivable by the drafters of the Constitution, in the days of bows and arrow, swords, and largely single shot muzzle loaders. When the Gatling guns introduced in the mid-nineteenth century, its inventor considered it so horrific that he hoped it would put an end to war. And aren't knives, hand-grenades, land mines, bazookas and all "weapons of mass destruction" also "arms," subject to common-sense limits? Does the Constitution allow us to bring them into airplanes, public offices, and school buildings? Aren't fists and sticks weapons when it comes to the laws of criminal assault and battery? This vague word begs for reasonable limits based on centuries of laws and behavior that restrict violent misconduct.
And third is the tie to the "militia". Do "militias" allow enlistees to bring their favorite gun?
The whole dispute is a shell game, funded by NRA and its fellow gun lovers, where the "Constitution" card is flashed, and the "arms" card is later substituted for it. No reasonable person has to abandon common sense just to honor a word in its two-century old, outdated meaning.
The word "arms" conveys a notion today far different from what was conceivable by the drafters of the Constitution, in the days of bows and arrow, swords, and largely single shot muzzle loaders. When the Gatling guns introduced in the mid-nineteenth century, its inventor considered it so horrific that he hoped it would put an end to war. And aren't knives, hand-grenades, land mines, bazookas and all "weapons of mass destruction" also "arms," subject to common-sense limits? Does the Constitution allow us to bring them into airplanes, public offices, and school buildings? Aren't fists and sticks weapons when it comes to the laws of criminal assault and battery? This vague word begs for reasonable limits based on centuries of laws and behavior that restrict violent misconduct.
And third is the tie to the "militia". Do "militias" allow enlistees to bring their favorite gun?
The whole dispute is a shell game, funded by NRA and its fellow gun lovers, where the "Constitution" card is flashed, and the "arms" card is later substituted for it. No reasonable person has to abandon common sense just to honor a word in its two-century old, outdated meaning.
8
I've always thought a reasonable stab at gun control would be to pass a law that people could possess guns on public property -- including any public thoroughfares like roads or sidewalks -- only if that same person would be permitted to carry that gun into the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court while that court is in session.
How could the justices object to that?
How could the justices object to that?
12
It never ceases to amaze me how legislators who purport to be morally upstanding representatives of the people and whose job is to preserve the well-being of the citizens they represent and that of the nation as a whole don't have the common sense and the moral courage to take a stand against rampant gun ownership. How to do that? Repeal the 2nd amendment or pass an amendment for that purpose. Remember the 18th amendment? It was repealed by the 21st amendment when it was found that Prohibition was basically unenforceable and led to disastrous consequences. I haven't checked the figures, but I don't think 30,000 people died annually as a result of Prohibition. However, that's pretty much the number of deaths resulting from legal or illegal gun ownership every year. The 2nd amendment dates from the 18th century. Gun advocates may not have noticed it yet, but times have changed. We really don't need vintage militias anymore and there aren't many Indians and bears our there that could endanger wagon trains trekking across America. Maybe legislators should wake up and bring this highly obsolete amendment into line with the 21st century by simply repealing it.
7
The effective regulations of firearms would be easier if the second amendment was amended to remove the vagaries that interpretations of it have produced over the many decades since it was composed and enacted. The amendment refers to private ownership of firearms being in the service of assuring for well regulated militias. That intent is clear to a well informed person in 1790 but only scholars of that time would have any notion of what it means. At that time, a standing national army was seen as a threat both to the independence of the states and of the continuing liberties of the people, so the intent was for militias to be the primary means of both national defense and protection against a tyrannical central government. The issues pertaining to both purposes have been resolved and both are no longer relevant to the needs of anybody. Which means the rights to have and use firearms have only relevance to the welfare of the people rather than to their political independence and liberties.
6
Overnight, gunrunning and other illegal arms trafficking would become easier to prosecute.
It is highly illegal already. It is illegal to transfrer a weapon to a person who cannot legally own one, to a habitual user of drugs or pot or booze. To an illegal alien, to a felon. A guy that buys guns and crosses state lines and then sells them in a city up north could be in the slammer for 30 years, if the feds actually cared, if the cities actually cared.
This article is the kind of thing that drives law abiding gun owners crazy: the laws are there, they are not enforced. You know what the odds are of doing time for a gun offence in Baltimore? 15%, if you are convicted and then it will be for less than 4 months.
Why is the Times not asking why current laws are ignored?
It is highly illegal already. It is illegal to transfrer a weapon to a person who cannot legally own one, to a habitual user of drugs or pot or booze. To an illegal alien, to a felon. A guy that buys guns and crosses state lines and then sells them in a city up north could be in the slammer for 30 years, if the feds actually cared, if the cities actually cared.
This article is the kind of thing that drives law abiding gun owners crazy: the laws are there, they are not enforced. You know what the odds are of doing time for a gun offence in Baltimore? 15%, if you are convicted and then it will be for less than 4 months.
Why is the Times not asking why current laws are ignored?
17
universal background checks just as registration requirements are practically unenforceable simply because you have no way to measure compliance !
2
Just like your right to property doesn't prevent the government from making you register your car and record home ownership, there is nothing in the constitution that makes guns immune from licensing and tracking. As for the paranoia about some imaginary evil dictatorship taking over, gangs overwhelming neighborhoods and pseudo military thugs seizing public property seem to be far greater and more immediate threats to our democracy that any looming reincarnation of King George. Tens of thousands are really getting killed and wounded every single year, while the need for armed intervention against a rouge government is a solution to a non-existent problem. All of you Clive Bundy fans better start getting a grip on the fact that if you don't like the policies of your constitutionally elected officials, you don't get to take over government at the point of a gun. You wrap yourselves in the constitution, as ego and delusional thought processes drive you to embrace behavior that directly undermines it.
9
"The Second Amendment therefore means that all who exercise firearms rights should be “well regulated.”"
No, that's not what that means. It means exactly what it says: A MILITIA should be well-regulated. It doesn't say anything about citizens being well-regulated, whether they possess firearms or not.
And there is good cause for their wording, and for this clause: having just freed themselves from a tyrannical government that trampled on their rights as individuals, the FF's wanted to preserve the ability of the People to defend themselves from tyranny, even from their own government. In that light, wouldn't building and maintaining a database of gun owners be seen as a threat to liberty? Many will call this idea paranoid, but they would do well to remember the warning of Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew."
Don't be so quick to yield the rights of others, because one day it may YOUR rights being attacked.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
No, that's not what that means. It means exactly what it says: A MILITIA should be well-regulated. It doesn't say anything about citizens being well-regulated, whether they possess firearms or not.
And there is good cause for their wording, and for this clause: having just freed themselves from a tyrannical government that trampled on their rights as individuals, the FF's wanted to preserve the ability of the People to defend themselves from tyranny, even from their own government. In that light, wouldn't building and maintaining a database of gun owners be seen as a threat to liberty? Many will call this idea paranoid, but they would do well to remember the warning of Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew."
Don't be so quick to yield the rights of others, because one day it may YOUR rights being attacked.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
12
why can't we just spell that carrying smaller arms with limited ammo is allowed and ban anything more than 10 ammo is banned in civilian society like ours.
I believe we are being pulled into our greed to bear one some daya dn blaming the gun lobby for our own greed.
I though the Dems had majority in the capitol for over 6 years and they did not do anything for this greed ( and of course the money form the gun lobby ) and they should be held accountable too!
I believe we are being pulled into our greed to bear one some daya dn blaming the gun lobby for our own greed.
I though the Dems had majority in the capitol for over 6 years and they did not do anything for this greed ( and of course the money form the gun lobby ) and they should be held accountable too!
As a law abiding gun owner I have no objection to background checks and competency requirements. What I cannot abide are the myriad laws that restrict me and do NOTHING to make the society safer. I have never once heard of anyone with a concealed carry permit committing a violent crime...have you? I cannot understand why people in states like California and Massachusetts cannot use and buy the same handguns and magazines available nation-wide. I cannot see why "assault" rifles are banned while "hunting" rifles with the identical function are not. I want laws that make sense...not laws that just make some people feel better for no rational reason. Gotta go clean my Glock which I will NEVER use to commit a crime but which makes me and everyone around me safer.
34
While the registration of handguns would craete a new class of criminals - those possessing unregistered firearms - it would do little by way of stopping gun crimes and deaths.
Most gun deaths are suicides and registration would have no impact (might as well register bridges, tall buildings and your medicine cabinet). There are a vast amount of guns in the hands of convicted felons (felon in possession is already a serious felony) but they could hardly be expected to register and admit their crime. Now in order to prosecute a defendant for committing a crime with a firearm all you need is proof the guy possessed the firearm and committed the crime - the pedigree of the gun is of no use.
There is only one instance where registration might be of use: if the registered owner committed a crime with his own gun and was foolish enough to dispose of it. How many times would that happen? Certainly not worth the millions the government would spend to set up a registry, certainly not worth the inconvenience to law abiding gun owners and certainly not going to produce the miracle cure to the gun problem that the proponents urge.
The trouble with most gun control schemes is that they coalesce opposition from gun owners and the control advocates fall into this trap time and again because down deep they see no reason why anyone should own a gun.
Most gun deaths are suicides and registration would have no impact (might as well register bridges, tall buildings and your medicine cabinet). There are a vast amount of guns in the hands of convicted felons (felon in possession is already a serious felony) but they could hardly be expected to register and admit their crime. Now in order to prosecute a defendant for committing a crime with a firearm all you need is proof the guy possessed the firearm and committed the crime - the pedigree of the gun is of no use.
There is only one instance where registration might be of use: if the registered owner committed a crime with his own gun and was foolish enough to dispose of it. How many times would that happen? Certainly not worth the millions the government would spend to set up a registry, certainly not worth the inconvenience to law abiding gun owners and certainly not going to produce the miracle cure to the gun problem that the proponents urge.
The trouble with most gun control schemes is that they coalesce opposition from gun owners and the control advocates fall into this trap time and again because down deep they see no reason why anyone should own a gun.
8
A more effective system would require everyone who owns or acquires a gun to register it. Gun owners would also need a license that could be obtained by demonstrating they can use a gun responsibly, and passing a background check.
Any present day armed criminals will abide by this law how?
Any present day armed criminals will abide by this law how?
7
Donald Trump has said loudly and clearly that if elected he will abolish all "gun -free zones" on his first day in office. I presume he is including the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court in that statement. It seems only fair.
12
The author’s contention that the authors of the Constitution meant to say that the “right of well-regulated people to keep and bear well-regulated arms shall not be infringed so they can serve in well-regulated militias” is absurd. The adjective well-regulated modifies only militia. The sad truth is that the Second Amendment doesn't say what gun-control advocates wish it said; in fact it says the opposite. The remedy is an amendment or a constitutional convention. The danger of ignoring the Second Amendment is that if one of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights can be ignored, they all can be ignored.
8
Let's start with one sad fact: "Effective Firearm Regulation" is impossible. As demonstrated throughout history, where there is a demand, the product will disregard the law and find a way even if totally prohibited whether prostitution, illegal drugs, alcohol or, in effect, anything else people want. Why would we go down a road that never works? AS IN NEVER. As it happens, I am not a "gun nut" (but between the military and law enforcement I have been well trained) and have not fired a weapon in 40 plus years.. I just think that only the naïve and unthinking would start yet another "war" on something that is doomed to failure. There are better solutions
3
Many gun owners believe they are under some threat of government attack, like the Bundy family and the crazy militias. I wasn't aware that so many Americans gould graduate high school and know so little about this nation.
Instead of eliminating the Department of Education, we should be installing branch offices in every city with a school system.
Instead of eliminating the Department of Education, we should be installing branch offices in every city with a school system.
3
The paranoid fear that registration will lead to confiscation has been driving the arguments against any regulation. Of course the Neurotic Rifle Association plays up this fear every chance that they get. The government intrudes on individual rights when the greater good is affected and looking at the number of gun deaths in this country, it is obvious that something needs to be done. No one is forcing anyone to become a gun owner, but if you make that choice, then you need to accept responsibility not only for yourself, but for the rest of us.
9
The only way for good regulations of firearms to be established and maintained is to have the enthusiastic support of gun owners who are not careless nor inclined to commit crimes. Government regulation of firearms is constitutional and never has it been otherwise. The second Amendment is clear that it is based upon a collective use of force in the form of well regulated militias rather than an unalienable right like live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government has successfully outlawed private ownership of modern weapons and weapons systems. The problem is that the needs for regulation are not universal, the vary for a lot of reasons. Urban dwellers have a continuing problem with criminal use of firearms and little legitimate use of them otherwise, while rural areas have no great problem with the criminal use of firearms and a great variety of legitimate uses for firearms. This situation has created an urban based politically active movement of people who do not have any wish to have firearms, fear and hate firearms, mistrust and fear anyone who possesses firearms, and would like to see them vanish from the country by whatever means necessary. It places those who own and use firearms in a position of having to focus upon retaining their rights to keep those arms.
4
The 2A is hardly 'clear' about its only applying to a well regulated militia. It is the most ambiguous and least clear of any amendment.
The Heller decision settles the issue about the individual right to bear arms. The remaining questions relate only to what extent the government may regulate gun ownership. The 'militia only' argument is dead. Move on and help us all examine the remaining issues about the extent of regulation and the legal tests to be applied.
The Heller decision settles the issue about the individual right to bear arms. The remaining questions relate only to what extent the government may regulate gun ownership. The 'militia only' argument is dead. Move on and help us all examine the remaining issues about the extent of regulation and the legal tests to be applied.
3
Mr Mivka and Mr Rosenthal are correct that Heller does not prohibit reasonable firearm regulation. But the conclusions they draw cross the boundaries of reasonableness.
First, let's get beyond the 'firearms cause catastrophic damage to our society' argument. The damage is real; the damage is pervasive ... and because of the 300 million firearms in the US, it will continue unabated in the absence of confiscation, which the 2A does not permit and the public will never endure.
Second, total registration will never happen. The vast majority of firearms owners will never abide by it. It smacks too much of the very totalitarianism the citizens of this country have always abhorred. And, as a practical matter, it would fail miserably to stem the tide of criminal violence.
Third, the 'militia preamble' argument does not pass legal muster to the extent the authors trot out in the same hackneyed manner gun grabbers always do. Although it has not yet been argued and emphasized, the 2A was badly written. Because it delineates an individual right, rather than a lesser privilege, any syntax and content ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the right holder, rather than the government. It means that 'reasonable regulation' must be given strict scrutiny, rather than have the equal balancing test applied. See Kolbe v Hogan, a 4th Circuit decision applying strict scrutiny.
Heller isn't the final word. But Mssrs Mivka and Rosenthal misunderstand much of its importance and legal content.
First, let's get beyond the 'firearms cause catastrophic damage to our society' argument. The damage is real; the damage is pervasive ... and because of the 300 million firearms in the US, it will continue unabated in the absence of confiscation, which the 2A does not permit and the public will never endure.
Second, total registration will never happen. The vast majority of firearms owners will never abide by it. It smacks too much of the very totalitarianism the citizens of this country have always abhorred. And, as a practical matter, it would fail miserably to stem the tide of criminal violence.
Third, the 'militia preamble' argument does not pass legal muster to the extent the authors trot out in the same hackneyed manner gun grabbers always do. Although it has not yet been argued and emphasized, the 2A was badly written. Because it delineates an individual right, rather than a lesser privilege, any syntax and content ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the right holder, rather than the government. It means that 'reasonable regulation' must be given strict scrutiny, rather than have the equal balancing test applied. See Kolbe v Hogan, a 4th Circuit decision applying strict scrutiny.
Heller isn't the final word. But Mssrs Mivka and Rosenthal misunderstand much of its importance and legal content.
5
Given the percentage of our society whose fears of government overreach have been fueled and stoked by gun lobbyists and the politicians they control, sensible regulation of firearms is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Add to that the Republican dysfunction which continues full bore as the party is "Trumped," I urge those who offer logic and reason to restore sanity to gun regulation to use their intelligence to argue for more achievable goals.
1
As we read the pertinent Second Amendment and its genesis both in Law School and even otherwise, it is clear that the right to bear arms in this context was emphasized as the United States then did not have a standing army. Defense of the country depended on the general populace, like in the Swiss nation. Today, the US has the largest and the most powerful standing defense forces, so the Second Amendment has to be read in the present day context, which makes it clear that the underlying purpose for which this right to bear arms was ensured is gone. Thus, the right to bear arms by any and all, needs to be moderated to reflect the fact that it is not needed. Regulated ownership is also warranted for the greater welfare and the present need of the nation.
5
Apart from the question about which regulations are constitutional and politically achievable and may in the long-term be effective, there is a fundamental question that is seldom discussed. Why, in a 21st-century industrial democracy such as the US, should the "right to keep and bear arms" be defined as a basic right in the first place? If one were to draft a constitution today, behind a "veil of ignorance" (apologies to Rawls) regarding the history and myths that inform our attitudes about guns, would the Second Amendment even make the short list of fundamental rights? When I think of what one needs for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in today's America, the "right of the people to keep and drive automobiles" seems more pressing than the right to keep and bear arms. And yet would it occur to anyone to define car ownership (well regulated, of course) as a fundamental right to be written into the constitution?
2
Of course it is. People who believe in liberty (those shouting loudest about the Constitution and Bill of Rights) should know that liberty is predicated on a few core ideas, among them the right of property - notably the property of self and the right of self determination. We raise governments in order to secure the blessings of liberty; within that formulation is the right to preserve life. When a situation arises such that life is being wantonly destroyed it is incumbent upon the government to intervene. Clearly the core principal of life pre-ceeds the right of firearms ownership and when the latter collides with the former, it is time to put sensible restraint about the latter to insure the former. It could be argued furthermore that the status quo is a kind of anarchy; anarchy and liberty are dangerous bedfellows and can rarely co-exist for long. The idea that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct above public safety, in other words is not only dangerously incorrect, its downright foolish.
3
It is unfortunate that the second amendment is so ambiguously written. For example, can't "the right of the people to bear arms" be interpreted as "the people in the militia", as this is the part of the sentence that follows the "well regulated militia" part? In any case, the Framers were talking about muskets, not assault weapons. I'm sure that the Framers would see gun regulations as perfectly reasonable in this day and age. And they certainly would be aghast at the malign influence of the NRA on Congress, basically preventing Congress from acting on regulations. That's why Feinstein's initiative lost.
3
Many law abiding americans do not want the government to know what guns they are in possession of. They know the regulation won't stop with what is described in the article. It will continue until all we have left are bolt rifles, break action shotguns and black powder muskets. With ammunition that is taxed like cigarettes and eventual forced buybacks. These are reasonable fears given what the most fervent on the left truly believe. So it is difficult for a pro gun person to have a reasonable conversation and agree on a middle ground amount of regulation. It is more effective to try to fight all of it because more is always coming.
5
Let me summarize-An ex Senator, ex Federal Judge and Ex counsel to one of the most left leaning Presidents in the previous 100 years and a College Prof from the second must gun controlled STATES in the nation completely ignore the limits placed on the Federal Government via the commerce clause, the root cause of all Federal gun control, that LIMITS the federal government to ONLY intrastate intervention.
If California desires to secure their borders, inspect every inbound person for firearms and register existing firearms within the state (which they already do) the state of California can have at it.
Me, selling or purchasing a firearm in my state is of no concern to the Federal government, regardless of Mr. Mikva or Mr. Rosenthal's incorrect interpretation of the restrictions the US Constitution place on the Federal government.
"A more effective system would require" the Executive branch of government, its Justice department to enforce Federal gun law violations, which, under the Obama administration has been woefully lacking.
If you are truly in search of a resolution to violence (gun, knife or baseball bat) you need look no further than the inept Obama Justice department.
If California desires to secure their borders, inspect every inbound person for firearms and register existing firearms within the state (which they already do) the state of California can have at it.
Me, selling or purchasing a firearm in my state is of no concern to the Federal government, regardless of Mr. Mikva or Mr. Rosenthal's incorrect interpretation of the restrictions the US Constitution place on the Federal government.
"A more effective system would require" the Executive branch of government, its Justice department to enforce Federal gun law violations, which, under the Obama administration has been woefully lacking.
If you are truly in search of a resolution to violence (gun, knife or baseball bat) you need look no further than the inept Obama Justice department.
2
Any argument over gun rights and the proper reach of the Second Amendment needs to begin with a basic premise. Much of the Second Amendment absolutist position derives from the argument that individual citizens have a Constitutionally-protected right to posses firearms for the express purpose of insurrection against a "tyrannical" federal government, Under this formulation, regulation of gun sales and possession are unconstitutional because they provide government with a potential means to confiscate weapons and disarm the citizenry.
But there is nothing in the Constitution which even vaguely protects a citizen's individual right to take up arms against the government. On the contrary, waging war against the United States constitutes treason - a capital offense under Article III. Did the framers of the Bill of Rights truly intend to enshrine a personal right to own guns for the purpose of committing acts regarded elsewhere in the document as a crime punishable by hanging?
Eliminate the insurrectionist view and suddenly our differences on the Second Amendment no longer seem so insurmountable.
But there is nothing in the Constitution which even vaguely protects a citizen's individual right to take up arms against the government. On the contrary, waging war against the United States constitutes treason - a capital offense under Article III. Did the framers of the Bill of Rights truly intend to enshrine a personal right to own guns for the purpose of committing acts regarded elsewhere in the document as a crime punishable by hanging?
Eliminate the insurrectionist view and suddenly our differences on the Second Amendment no longer seem so insurmountable.
5
I think if we can ban private sales of guns, it's a step in the right direction. Heck, I can't sell medication that I no longer use, so I don't think it's an undue burden to ban this particular practice. And at this point, it's the only politically palatable step to common-sensed people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Other common-sense strategies: serialized bullets, safety features for those with children in the home and giving families and law enforcement the ability to take away the guns of the emotionally disturbed and non-compliant on medication/mental health treatment are other features that I think must be discussed.
Other common-sense strategies: serialized bullets, safety features for those with children in the home and giving families and law enforcement the ability to take away the guns of the emotionally disturbed and non-compliant on medication/mental health treatment are other features that I think must be discussed.
3
Gun ownership may be a right, but it must be well regulated. It is not well regulated today. This is a public safety issue. The public wants federal action to ensure the all weapons are registered, and that owners take their responsibility seriously, for the purpose of ensuring public safety. The recommendations in this article are practical, and sensible steps in that regard. There is no slippery slope of gun confiscation here. The author offers common sense steps that respect the current interpretation of 2nd amendment. We need increased regulation to improve safety.
5
Access to firearms can be controlled by eliminating weak links in the chain linking manufacture of a weapon to the person eventually possessing it.
Criminals don’t own gun factories, so any weapon in the hands of a disqualified person – a criminal, mentally ill person, murderous teenager, target of a protection order, or any other inappropriate holder - fell through one of these weak links. For example, many states allow random individuals to purchase unlimited quantities of weapons, say a trunkful, who can then drive across state lines and sell them in places with more effective controls on the weapons available for retail purchase.
Truly checking backgrounds means that states should have the same level of understanding of the character of a prospective gun owner that a Revolutionary War militia commander had for the men in his unit. Achieving this level of requires more rigorous background checking than is currently in place. Rigorous background and reference checking would have the following components: Any person wanting a firearm should be required to have an identification card that shows they have been vetted by a rigorous process that proves their identity and validates good character and absence of a criminal and mental health record.
This ID must be presented when a person seeks to purchase a weapon, buy ammunition, get a hunting license, transport the weapon, and use a firing range.
And none of this impedes a law-abiding citizen from acquiring firearms.
Criminals don’t own gun factories, so any weapon in the hands of a disqualified person – a criminal, mentally ill person, murderous teenager, target of a protection order, or any other inappropriate holder - fell through one of these weak links. For example, many states allow random individuals to purchase unlimited quantities of weapons, say a trunkful, who can then drive across state lines and sell them in places with more effective controls on the weapons available for retail purchase.
Truly checking backgrounds means that states should have the same level of understanding of the character of a prospective gun owner that a Revolutionary War militia commander had for the men in his unit. Achieving this level of requires more rigorous background checking than is currently in place. Rigorous background and reference checking would have the following components: Any person wanting a firearm should be required to have an identification card that shows they have been vetted by a rigorous process that proves their identity and validates good character and absence of a criminal and mental health record.
This ID must be presented when a person seeks to purchase a weapon, buy ammunition, get a hunting license, transport the weapon, and use a firing range.
And none of this impedes a law-abiding citizen from acquiring firearms.
2
i say "amen" to this op-ed piece.
but the editorial also should be a "call to arms", to coin a phrase, for all those who want the heller decision to be reversed by the supreme court.
in addition to citizens united, heller is the primary decision which a new supreme court justice should be committed to reversing. this is a major reason why i likely will vote for hillary rather than bernie--hoping that she agrees.
the republicans have popularized "litmus-testing" judicial nominees to push the federal courts further and further to the right. it's time the dems do the same litmus-testing to push back. this is why i hope the republicans do not act on an obama supreme court nominee--obama has been much too moderate and willing to compromise to avoid fights.
for sanity's sake, we need a progressive fighter in the white house and on the supreme court.
but the editorial also should be a "call to arms", to coin a phrase, for all those who want the heller decision to be reversed by the supreme court.
in addition to citizens united, heller is the primary decision which a new supreme court justice should be committed to reversing. this is a major reason why i likely will vote for hillary rather than bernie--hoping that she agrees.
the republicans have popularized "litmus-testing" judicial nominees to push the federal courts further and further to the right. it's time the dems do the same litmus-testing to push back. this is why i hope the republicans do not act on an obama supreme court nominee--obama has been much too moderate and willing to compromise to avoid fights.
for sanity's sake, we need a progressive fighter in the white house and on the supreme court.
2
I don't have a problem with registration. But it seems pretty clear to me that the true goal of gun controllers is to ban gun ownership, and that if they can't do this outright then they will do everything they can to limit and obstruct gun ownership, to make owning a gun as difficult and inconvenient as possible.
I think a lot of the opposition to moderate gun control legislation stems from the sense that the people backing it are crusading prohibitionists; that they see guns as tools of the Devil that no decent person should ever want to own; and that they will see anything you give them as simply another step towards their ultimate goal. Given this, and given that American culture has traditionally valued the right to own guns, is it any real surprise that so many Americans are unwilling to give an inch on any sort of gun regulations, even when those regulations make sense?
I think a lot of the opposition to moderate gun control legislation stems from the sense that the people backing it are crusading prohibitionists; that they see guns as tools of the Devil that no decent person should ever want to own; and that they will see anything you give them as simply another step towards their ultimate goal. Given this, and given that American culture has traditionally valued the right to own guns, is it any real surprise that so many Americans are unwilling to give an inch on any sort of gun regulations, even when those regulations make sense?
8
No right including the Second Amendment to the Constitution in unlimited,
absolute and without requirements and limits. That is what laws are all about. Too many guns and too many crazy people with too many guns that are too easy to get.
Gun rights proponents talk a lot about "the right to bear arms" part of the Second Amendment acting like it gives them some sacred and inviolable right
to carry a gun where ever they please and do whatever they want with it. What a total pile of self serving horse manure. They conveniently ignore the second half of The Second Amendment that speaks to a "well regulated militia". If you're gioing to talk about the "right to bear arms" read the entire Second Amendment. Note the words "well regulated". The framers of the Constitution never intended guns to be anything less than "well regulated". In modern times we are not doing a very good job of following the strict interpretation of the Constitution held in such high regard by Justice Scalia. Common sense rules that are strictly enforced do not limit or take away rights they only better define how those rights can be exercised. I think Justice Scalia would agree that guns in America today are not well regulated. My God we regulate automobiles a lot more strictly than guns and automobiles are not designed to kill. America needs strict gun laws that are strictly enforced or the killing and needless deaths will continue unabated.
absolute and without requirements and limits. That is what laws are all about. Too many guns and too many crazy people with too many guns that are too easy to get.
Gun rights proponents talk a lot about "the right to bear arms" part of the Second Amendment acting like it gives them some sacred and inviolable right
to carry a gun where ever they please and do whatever they want with it. What a total pile of self serving horse manure. They conveniently ignore the second half of The Second Amendment that speaks to a "well regulated militia". If you're gioing to talk about the "right to bear arms" read the entire Second Amendment. Note the words "well regulated". The framers of the Constitution never intended guns to be anything less than "well regulated". In modern times we are not doing a very good job of following the strict interpretation of the Constitution held in such high regard by Justice Scalia. Common sense rules that are strictly enforced do not limit or take away rights they only better define how those rights can be exercised. I think Justice Scalia would agree that guns in America today are not well regulated. My God we regulate automobiles a lot more strictly than guns and automobiles are not designed to kill. America needs strict gun laws that are strictly enforced or the killing and needless deaths will continue unabated.
5
"Gun owners would also need a license that could be obtained by demonstrating they can use a gun responsibly, and passing a background check."
Every person who legally drives a car in the United States in every state is required to undergo training and an actual driving test in order to qualify for a license to drive a car. If the Constitution permits this kind of licensing requirement to drive a car, why would it bar laws requiring owners of guns to be licensed?
OK, there were no cars when the wrote the Constitution, but neither were there automatic revolvers, assault rifles, and the like.
And those who complain about their Second Amendment rights totally ignore the wish of the rest of the population to feel safe and free when they walk the streets, gather in a school, church, theater, and so on.
In other words, the gun lobby is trampling on the rights of the people to feel safe and free to move about. Who will be the first brave politiican to propose licensing of guns? Don't hold your breath.
Every person who legally drives a car in the United States in every state is required to undergo training and an actual driving test in order to qualify for a license to drive a car. If the Constitution permits this kind of licensing requirement to drive a car, why would it bar laws requiring owners of guns to be licensed?
OK, there were no cars when the wrote the Constitution, but neither were there automatic revolvers, assault rifles, and the like.
And those who complain about their Second Amendment rights totally ignore the wish of the rest of the population to feel safe and free when they walk the streets, gather in a school, church, theater, and so on.
In other words, the gun lobby is trampling on the rights of the people to feel safe and free to move about. Who will be the first brave politiican to propose licensing of guns? Don't hold your breath.
1
The NRA has shouted down any and all arguments calling for sensible background checks and registration by claiming that gun ownership is a RIGHT, clearly stated in the Bill of Rights. What is missing from the discussion is the fact that rights can have limits.
"Freedom of speech" in the First Amendment has its limitations: libel and slander laws; falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater; and even those pesky words that the FCC has banned.
"Freedom of speech" in the First Amendment has its limitations: libel and slander laws; falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater; and even those pesky words that the FCC has banned.
4
I see no reason for any one to hold Scalia's opinion in high regard. He claimed to be an originalist drawing only from the written word. He claimed that the only good constitution was a dead one - i.e. one that does not change.
The founder of this republic thought otehrwise. They encoded a process by which the Consititution can be changed. By my count we've had about one change every 10 years.
The founder of this republic thought otehrwise. They encoded a process by which the Consititution can be changed. By my count we've had about one change every 10 years.
6
This is a good article. "well regulated Militia" is definitely part of the 2nd amendment. The ad hoc gun laws/regulation that we have definitely falls outside of this. Without a change to a more compassionate, tolerant, society, we are stuck with the current status quo of seemingly unending gun violence in the U.S. Reading the Constitution, the Law is definitely on the side of more regulation and a requirement for safe use and storage. Why are so many citizens immune to acknowledging how bad the present situation is, and how easy it is to do something about it?
3
Yes, the key word in the Second Amendment is "regulated," which refers to the act of controlling or directing according to the rule of law. At present, gun ownership is essentially unregulated in the U.S.
4
I am in full agreement with all the points here, but, is there anything in this piece that Republicans in congress haven't already had shouted at them a thousand times? I think the fallacy is assuming they have any interest in any kind of reasoned argument in the first place. They don't care about logic or scholarship or data. They just obstruct.
5
1. Gun control will not make a detectable difference in the misfortunes that its advocates rightly abhor. 300,000,000 guns out there and 60-100,000,000 people who want them.
2. Owning and carrying a gun is highly unlikely to increase anyone's safety, liberty, or potency. Yes, there will always be exceptions to the rule, which prove the rule by their exceptionalism. The "good guy with a gun" is mostly a fantasy. But those 60-100,000,000 people feel very strongly otherwise. Their "clinging" is much more powerful than their opponents' indignation.
3. Give 1. and 2. above, advocacy for gun control at this time is largely a waste of limited political capital. BUT, at some point, the tables will turn and advocacy for unlimited firearms use will be a waste. That event will mark the time when our culture has changed enough for this issue to be rationally addressed. Until that time, stay safe, everybody.
2. Owning and carrying a gun is highly unlikely to increase anyone's safety, liberty, or potency. Yes, there will always be exceptions to the rule, which prove the rule by their exceptionalism. The "good guy with a gun" is mostly a fantasy. But those 60-100,000,000 people feel very strongly otherwise. Their "clinging" is much more powerful than their opponents' indignation.
3. Give 1. and 2. above, advocacy for gun control at this time is largely a waste of limited political capital. BUT, at some point, the tables will turn and advocacy for unlimited firearms use will be a waste. That event will mark the time when our culture has changed enough for this issue to be rationally addressed. Until that time, stay safe, everybody.
3
Thanks to the authors for their sound, reasoned analysis of gun regulation in the US. Reason and objectivity, however, are irrelevant in the face of the gun lobby and the politically correct culture of entitlement that it has cultivated. The gun lobby is as at least as zealous and unbending as the most radical, left-wing campus activists. Consider that:
After the slaughter at Newtown, the gun lobby told us that the answer was for mental health providers to identify dangerous people so authorities could prevent them from acquiring firearms. Then we learned that the gun lobby sponsored legislation to gag doctors, preventing them from even mentioning firearms to patients because that would offend the tender sensitivities of gun owners.
As the Times reported in December 2013 ("When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill") a dangerous Indiana man was able to recover his arsenal via a judge's order after local police confiscated his guns. The police took this action after observing his bizarre rants and threats against his neighbors. The man went on to murder four people with those firearms, including his mother and a policeman.
Background checks, waiting periods, limits on firepower the number of guns an individual can buy per month - whatever the measure to try and stop the bloodshed, it's politically incorrect and thus dead on arrival.
After the slaughter at Newtown, the gun lobby told us that the answer was for mental health providers to identify dangerous people so authorities could prevent them from acquiring firearms. Then we learned that the gun lobby sponsored legislation to gag doctors, preventing them from even mentioning firearms to patients because that would offend the tender sensitivities of gun owners.
As the Times reported in December 2013 ("When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill") a dangerous Indiana man was able to recover his arsenal via a judge's order after local police confiscated his guns. The police took this action after observing his bizarre rants and threats against his neighbors. The man went on to murder four people with those firearms, including his mother and a policeman.
Background checks, waiting periods, limits on firepower the number of guns an individual can buy per month - whatever the measure to try and stop the bloodshed, it's politically incorrect and thus dead on arrival.
4
That, combined with stamping ammunition with identifiers, could someday make shooting at someone much like leaving fingerprints at the scene of the crime. Firearms offenders would become far easier to catch, and the prevalence of firearms crime would decline.
Except for the fact that revolvers leave no shell casings.
Except for the fact that revolvers leave no shell casings.
1
I am a lifetime member of the NRA, having grown up with guns & hunting in Louisiana. Was also in the Army for nine years, and for the past 20 since have been an avid gun collector. AR 15s are just dang fun to shoot. I'm also a lawyer. And frankly have never understood why courts/Congress haven't latched onto the "well-regulated" part before. There's no constitutional right to drive cars, yet they are much more regulated than firearms without any constitutional requirement to do so. Here, the authors of the 2nd Amendment handed the phrase "well-regulated" to lawmakers on a silver platter. Dig in and see what works! Good article.
77
You have no clue what "well-regulated" meant back then.
Thanks for this post, from a fellow veteran, though not a gun owner.
And yes, the key words in the 2nd Amendment are "well-regulated." Can anyone convince us that the Bundy gang in Oregon were a"well-regulated militia"? Or that Uber driver in Kalamazoo? I did not think so.
And yes, the key words in the 2nd Amendment are "well-regulated." Can anyone convince us that the Bundy gang in Oregon were a"well-regulated militia"? Or that Uber driver in Kalamazoo? I did not think so.
3
Yesterday, a man with a gun in St. Louis threatened a Muslim couple who were house-hunting. The man later apologized saying he hadn't taken his medication for PTSD. Right there is the problem. Why is a man with documented post-traumatic stress disorder so severe that he needs to be medicated allowed to own a hand gun?
10
Another fantastic idea, which, if ever presented even in the form of a bill in Congress without a chance of passage, would lead to the purchase of several tens of millions of more handguns than would otherwise have been sold if it had never been proposed.
If there had never been any organized anti-gun movement in this country since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, there would probably be at least a hundred million fewer firearms, mostly handguns, in private ownership in this country than there are today, and the NRA would still be mostly a hunting, marksmanship, and gun safety organization.
If there had never been any organized anti-gun movement in this country since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, there would probably be at least a hundred million fewer firearms, mostly handguns, in private ownership in this country than there are today, and the NRA would still be mostly a hunting, marksmanship, and gun safety organization.
4
Do you really think the 2nd amendment was written to protect the rights of duck hunters?
Here's an idea: pass an amendment that ends the right for a person to keep and bear arms. End of story.
Here's an idea: pass an amendment that ends the right for a person to keep and bear arms. End of story.
It's always dismaying to read an NYT report on an important topic that includes an absolutely impossible, laughable, PCesque disconnect from reality: "Registration records would create a comprehensive database of all guns and their owners." Hello? Do you know what country you live in?
You might as well propose that babies should be tattooed across their foreheads at birth for all the obvious societal benefits, from identity theft prevention to support for total amnesiacs. It would be more popular than a gun database, the absolute bane of every gun owner itching to express an opinion under Godwin's Law.
I wonder if to get to write a column here you have to have decades of experience at NPR, know no person who actually works for a living with his/her hands, and think beef cattle should be given personhood.
You might as well propose that babies should be tattooed across their foreheads at birth for all the obvious societal benefits, from identity theft prevention to support for total amnesiacs. It would be more popular than a gun database, the absolute bane of every gun owner itching to express an opinion under Godwin's Law.
I wonder if to get to write a column here you have to have decades of experience at NPR, know no person who actually works for a living with his/her hands, and think beef cattle should be given personhood.
9
I honestly thought we knew this already.
As an aside - the gun "issue" is perhaps the one area that Republicans and Democrats reverse themselves in terms of conservative vs. liberal. What I mean by this is that on gun control - its liberals who generally exceptionally conservative: Less access, greater litmus test on ownership, etc. Whereas the Republicans generally lean towards ownership for almost anyone in any quantity - access to government-sponsored health care: bad. Access to guns: good. The former doesn't "protect" people - the latter does. Screwy, huh?
As an aside - the gun "issue" is perhaps the one area that Republicans and Democrats reverse themselves in terms of conservative vs. liberal. What I mean by this is that on gun control - its liberals who generally exceptionally conservative: Less access, greater litmus test on ownership, etc. Whereas the Republicans generally lean towards ownership for almost anyone in any quantity - access to government-sponsored health care: bad. Access to guns: good. The former doesn't "protect" people - the latter does. Screwy, huh?
1
Here's an idea, which will never fly-- once you register your gun, periodically you have to prove that you still own it. Changes in the status of the weapon (sold, stolen or "lost") must be reported. If a gun registered to you is used in crime without your having previously reported it sold, stolen or lost, you bear some responsibility, like a large fine. What a concept.
3
Thank you to the authors for pointing out the obvious. There's a time when the NRA would have been on the same side and performing a leading role in gun-owner education, but then it was taken over by paranoid misfits who are obviously anticipating taking up arms against our lawfully elected government.
4
I agree with your arguments legally, logically and morally. Never owned a gun. Just don't think it's a good idea.
But, unfortunately, from a political perspective I think we on the Left should stop talking about it. The NRA has defeated us on this issue and the longer we struggle the more it profits them. It's embarrassing.
And there are simply too many guns out there. Too many wing-nuts.
We'd do better picking a fight we can win.
But, unfortunately, from a political perspective I think we on the Left should stop talking about it. The NRA has defeated us on this issue and the longer we struggle the more it profits them. It's embarrassing.
And there are simply too many guns out there. Too many wing-nuts.
We'd do better picking a fight we can win.
2
Mikva and Rosenthal helpfully remind us that the 2nd Amendment confers a right to "keep and bear arms". I agree that this does not preclude a "sensible" system of regulation. Unfortunately, their suggestions, far from sensible, would create a regulatory nightmare. Consider, for just one example, what would be required for every gun owner to demonstrate that he "can use a gun responsibly".
2
Any laws or requirements won't be effective if a gun collector sells a large amount of guns, under the pretense of a theft. There will always be loopholes and those willing to cheat the system.
1
The Heller decision also does not prohibit eating pistachio ice cream on Thursdays. So what? This is a dumb argument.
This is a very reasonable position but it doesn't deal with the toughest question: what about a gun licensing scheme, for either home or to carry, that requires a specific need for the weapon to be shown, beyond what Heller and the writers call self defense? That is the bias built into the old law here in New York City and many other places, where the Police Department decides who gets the license for a handgun and who does not on the basis of special need. As for safety, even for a hunting license, the State requires proof of a gun safety course, but for city dwellers, it is almost impossible to take the course and the test. As a veteran Army officer, who ran firing ranges from time to time, and handled just about every individual and crew served weapon in the arsenal of the day, I was told I had to take a gun safety course (which I did, when I was 16 but couldn't prove it). Thus does the law and bureaucracy dilute the Heller case.
2
“The Second Amendment is the only provision in the Bill of Rights with a preamble, which announces its purpose: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The New York Times distortion be thy name. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not contingent on the existence of militias. It is recognized in the Second Amendment as existing alongside and independent of the existence of Militias. The most salient point and exclusively mentioned only in the Second Amendment is “shall not be infringed.” No other amendment is presented with such a clear and firm affirmation.
The New York Times distortion be thy name. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not contingent on the existence of militias. It is recognized in the Second Amendment as existing alongside and independent of the existence of Militias. The most salient point and exclusively mentioned only in the Second Amendment is “shall not be infringed.” No other amendment is presented with such a clear and firm affirmation.
2
That isn't correct. The first amendment talks about rights that can't be "abridged". That word is synonymous with "infringed" and neither stands for the proposition that such rights are absolute.
5
A strong 2nd amendment is a check on Big Money in Politics. Big Money results in taxation without representation for the 99%. Ironically those the pay no/little relative tax (i.e. the <1%) supply the Big Political Money and get their (bought) representation.
1
As with so much of our politics, both sides fail to deal with the problem. Closing the gun show loophole is a no brainer. So is the imposition of serious mandatory sentences for any crime committed with a firearm. Republicans wont do the first item and Democrats wont do the second. Sadly, only the public loses. BTW - I would also favor a law the requires consistent imposition of all rules on Congress and the Courts. If you can bring a gun into a school, I should be able to take assault weapon into the Senate chamber and the Supreme court.
3
The court described lawful self-defense as “the central component of the right itself.”
I disagree. The central purpose of 2A was not security of self but security of the state. Article I, Section 8 further clarifies that the reason for a "militia' was to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” "Self-defense" simply is not a component of the Constitution.
I disagree. The central purpose of 2A was not security of self but security of the state. Article I, Section 8 further clarifies that the reason for a "militia' was to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” "Self-defense" simply is not a component of the Constitution.
1
Article I, Sec. 8 deals with says that Congress may call forth the militia to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”; that doesn't mean that such were the exclusive function of the militia. Further, self-defense was considered an intrinsic right, it wouldn't have to be explicitly mentioned.
2
Firearms should be handled just like automobiles. Why not require registration of all sales and transactions and insurance for bodily and property damage as well. I'm sure another lobby would throw it's dollars on the other side of the issue. As a result, safety features would reduce the cost of ownership and indirectly support training and controlled access by the owner.
42
Let's do that. 16 year olds can drive, so then they can operate firearms without adult supervision.
Anyone can buy a car, without a background check.
You can buy a super fast, hopped up car. Machine guns should therefore be easy to buy.
You can drive your car in any State. You should be able to carry your firearm in any State.
If the car is not used on public property, there is no need for licensing or registration. Since I wouldn't be using my firearm on public land, unless absolutely necessary, I don't need a license or registration for it. Just the same as a car being hauled on the back of a truck needs neither.
This is starting to sound like a good plan.
Anyone can buy a car, without a background check.
You can buy a super fast, hopped up car. Machine guns should therefore be easy to buy.
You can drive your car in any State. You should be able to carry your firearm in any State.
If the car is not used on public property, there is no need for licensing or registration. Since I wouldn't be using my firearm on public land, unless absolutely necessary, I don't need a license or registration for it. Just the same as a car being hauled on the back of a truck needs neither.
This is starting to sound like a good plan.
4
These authors have presented an excellent and concise analysis of Heller and the Second Amendment. What they make clear is that there is simply no argument for choosing not to adopt a system of gun registration and/or, at the very least, a broader set of background check requirements. Under the authors' proposed scheme, non-criminals can still own and use firearms, even recreationally. In exchange for the minor inconvenience of registration, which we put up with for automobiles without protest, we can greatly increase the difficulty for criminals to obtain guns. I would love to hear anyone explain the other side of this argument on logical, legal, or moral grounds. I'd love to hear it from our Republican Congress, who constantly make the wrong choice, without explanation. Could it be that there are some other motives at play that are more important than the lives of our citizens and our children? Any Congressman/woman who makes this choice should be forced to explain themselves.
50
"Effective" regulation IS constitutional. Unfortunately so is some ineffective regulation. Effectiveness is not the standard. When dealing with a constitutional right the regulation must be the least restrictive to achieve a lawful and reasonable government purpose. The gun show loophole is a myth, all dealers at gun shows must follow registration and background check laws. The private transfer of firearms is up to the states to decide what is appropriate for their people. Firearms are registered and the records kept at the gun stores in states that do not require state registration. Tracking has been inconvenient but not that slow for law enforcement to find a gun trail. All this method does is keep registration from being in one place where all owners could be easily identified (which would only be needed if confiscation was being considered).
All of these other "great ideas" do nothing to stop criminals. Do you know how easy it is to switch barrels on most guns (even revolvers)? How easy it is to defeat a micro stamp?
Spend time and money on gun safety and keeping them away from the mentally ill and most preventable shootings will be stopped. Excessive regulation and the costs that go with them only affect the poor in a disproportionate way.
All of these other "great ideas" do nothing to stop criminals. Do you know how easy it is to switch barrels on most guns (even revolvers)? How easy it is to defeat a micro stamp?
Spend time and money on gun safety and keeping them away from the mentally ill and most preventable shootings will be stopped. Excessive regulation and the costs that go with them only affect the poor in a disproportionate way.
6
The entire point of the NRA is to represent gun manufacturers and sell us more guns through fear.
Shame on American and the Republican Party for buying into its fear mongering.
Shame on American and the Republican Party for buying into its fear mongering.
4
From your mouths to Congress's -- and SCOTUS's -- ears.
3
I have long regretted the absolutist positions often staked out in the gun rights/gun control debate. As Judge Mikva and Professor Rosenthal point out, nothing in the Second Amendment is absolute. But don't ask them, or me; just read what Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, had to say about it. Here is a bit more of the passage quoted in this piece: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
It seems to me that the question of whether we should somehow close the so-called "gun show loophole," as the authors of this piece suggest, is primarily a political, rather than a constitutional question. For better or worse, the Heller Court established an important individual right to "keep and bear Arms," but by its own terms, the Court has still reserved to us a great deal of room to regulate those arms -- room to disagree, and to cooperate.
It seems to me that the question of whether we should somehow close the so-called "gun show loophole," as the authors of this piece suggest, is primarily a political, rather than a constitutional question. For better or worse, the Heller Court established an important individual right to "keep and bear Arms," but by its own terms, the Court has still reserved to us a great deal of room to regulate those arms -- room to disagree, and to cooperate.
39
There never was a question that we can impose stronger gun laws, a premise that supported the failed efforts of Sen. Diane Feinstein in 2013. The problem is that consensus can’t be formed in Congress to do this, and that the trend at the state level is for greater not lesser liberties.
The U.S. Supreme court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008 ruled that the Second Amendment afforded citizens the right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes. Then, in 2010, the Court ruled, in McDonald V. Chicago, that this right must be respected by the states. However, it was made clear by Heller that authorities could reasonably regulate the use of firearms.
Sen. Feinstein might have accomplished a lot if she had been willing to compromise. She produced a long list of semi-automatic weapons that she wanted banned, as well as high-capacity ammunition clips. She also wanted to extend requirements for waiting periods to all gun sale venues and circumstances. My sense at the time was if she had accepted a shorter list of guns to be banned, not sought to limit high-capacity clips, and that if she had not insisted that individuals selling the odd gun also go through a waiting period, that she would have squeaked by with a passed bill. She chose not to compromise and failed badly.
The authors re-argue a tiresome issue that doesn’t need re-arguing. The problem isn’t an inability to regulate firearms, it’s the lack of resolve by Congress or the state legislatures to do so.
The U.S. Supreme court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008 ruled that the Second Amendment afforded citizens the right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes. Then, in 2010, the Court ruled, in McDonald V. Chicago, that this right must be respected by the states. However, it was made clear by Heller that authorities could reasonably regulate the use of firearms.
Sen. Feinstein might have accomplished a lot if she had been willing to compromise. She produced a long list of semi-automatic weapons that she wanted banned, as well as high-capacity ammunition clips. She also wanted to extend requirements for waiting periods to all gun sale venues and circumstances. My sense at the time was if she had accepted a shorter list of guns to be banned, not sought to limit high-capacity clips, and that if she had not insisted that individuals selling the odd gun also go through a waiting period, that she would have squeaked by with a passed bill. She chose not to compromise and failed badly.
The authors re-argue a tiresome issue that doesn’t need re-arguing. The problem isn’t an inability to regulate firearms, it’s the lack of resolve by Congress or the state legislatures to do so.
4
Richard -- do not misrepresent. The Heller decision ruled that citizens have a right to a handgun. in the home. This is nothing like all "traditionally lawful purposes," and indeed it rules that something that was not universally lawful, is now lawful.
You then segue to Feinstein-hate. Claiming that nothing can be done because Feinstein wants more than Republicans want to agree to is stupid. Everybody coming to a negotiation wants more than they are likely to get -- so what.
The over-whelming majority of the american public is for universal background checks. It's the obstructionist Republicans who are preventing it.
You then segue to Feinstein-hate. Claiming that nothing can be done because Feinstein wants more than Republicans want to agree to is stupid. Everybody coming to a negotiation wants more than they are likely to get -- so what.
The over-whelming majority of the american public is for universal background checks. It's the obstructionist Republicans who are preventing it.
7
Here is California,they require a background check and payment of $25,every time someone purchases a gun,in a store or online.Why would someone's background need to be checked constantly?Wouldn't a check,good for 5 years be enough?If it's the case,that someone's background could go bad,any day,then there is no reason to do a background check.The real reason,for the checks,is for govt to make more revenue and to increase the cost of buying guns.Democrats say they are for reasonable gun control laws,but it's obviously a lie.I expect many local govts to add more taxes and restrictions on gun and ammo purchases in the future.I think that many people,who didn't even think of buying a gun are doing so,now,because they can see the future.
3
Of course you should be checked each time you buy a gun. Domestic abuse and impulsive violence are just two examples. If there has been a fresh restraining order filed or you were arrested for a threat, naturally you shouldn't be able to buy a weapon. That's just common sense. It wont stop every death, but how much area few lives a year worth? Hundreds of thousands a year are turned away with background checks, it's hard to say how many times this roadblock allowed someone the time to calm down before acting in impulse. Twenty five bucks is a pretty trivial amount of money.
3
Gee, how many guns do you buy and sell? Perhaps you should get a FFA?
3
“District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court, by a 5-4 vote, held that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right “to keep and bear arms.”
The essence of the Heller decision was pointing out the Second Amendment is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE subject to the whims and fears of small minded political cowards in crime ridden areas looking for a scapegoat for their failures.
The essence of the Heller decision was pointing out the Second Amendment is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE subject to the whims and fears of small minded political cowards in crime ridden areas looking for a scapegoat for their failures.
12
It may be a right, but not an absolute one. All the rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to regulation. The same is true of this one.
44
Sorry, read the actual text of the 2nd Amendment. The word "individual" is not used. Only the word "people," as a collective body. Big difference, especially in the context of the Constitution's definition of a Militia as a body called up by Congress to maintain the security of the free state.
3
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
3
While the authors make a number of good arguments, the claim that the words "well regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment specifically encourages gun control,
3
Yes, the key word in the Second Amendment is "regulated," which refers to the act of controlling or directing according to rule of law. At present, gun ownership is essentially unregulated in the U.S.
2
Congress, as presently constituted, is not interested in sane and logical argument. It is unfortunate that until there is a change in the political climate and a change in the political control in congress, there will be no gun control passed. Mean while 10's of thousand additional guns will populate this country.
19
Additional guns: wrong order of magnitude. There are over 300 million guns in the US; the number will increase by tens of *millions* due to NRA-mandated Congressional inaction.
2
Tens of thousands? There were more than 3 million NICS background checks in December 2015 alone!
President Obama has been the best thing the gun manufacturers have seen in decades. Just check the official figures. Every perceived anti-gun move produces a big uptick in sales-- every time.
President Obama has been the best thing the gun manufacturers have seen in decades. Just check the official figures. Every perceived anti-gun move produces a big uptick in sales-- every time.
4
"The Second Amendment therefore means that all who exercise firearms rights should be “well regulated.” "
I'm very fond of the 'well regulated' part of the 2nd and couldn't agree more with this reasoning. Even Scalia concurred that regulation of the right is routine oversight and that's OK. Let's get to it.
I'm very fond of the 'well regulated' part of the 2nd and couldn't agree more with this reasoning. Even Scalia concurred that regulation of the right is routine oversight and that's OK. Let's get to it.
9
As a non American I never understood this.
If, according to the Constitution, every citizen has a right to bear arms, can there be any sub-constitutional regulation restricting what type of arms you can bear? For example, aren't us federal laws prohibiting possession of nuclear weapons or other WMD's unconstitutional?
If yes, shouldn't they be attacked before the Supreme Court so that ordinary US citizen's rights were not interfered with?
If, according to the Constitution, every citizen has a right to bear arms, can there be any sub-constitutional regulation restricting what type of arms you can bear? For example, aren't us federal laws prohibiting possession of nuclear weapons or other WMD's unconstitutional?
If yes, shouldn't they be attacked before the Supreme Court so that ordinary US citizen's rights were not interfered with?
4
Rights can be restricted if the restriction has a legitimate government purpose and the restriction is the least restrictive to achieve that. We see it in freedom of the press and free speech and searches of home being regulated but that regulation is under strict scrutiny.
It is not a stretch to regulate WMDs. If someone wanted to challenge it in court they would have to show the regulation was too restrictive beyond a lawful purpose (like private ownership of your own nuclear arsenal).
The Heller decision made clear the right to own firearms is an individual right and an outright ban is unlawful. It did not mean anyone can have any weapon they want and carry it around where ever they want, as some would suggest.
It is not a stretch to regulate WMDs. If someone wanted to challenge it in court they would have to show the regulation was too restrictive beyond a lawful purpose (like private ownership of your own nuclear arsenal).
The Heller decision made clear the right to own firearms is an individual right and an outright ban is unlawful. It did not mean anyone can have any weapon they want and carry it around where ever they want, as some would suggest.
18
Yes, it's all bluster and obfuscation from the far Right. In fact, owning fully automatic weapons, including machine guns, is already illegal and has been for decades. So there are indeed restrictions on weapons at the mundane level of firearms, let alone nuclear weapons.
The lunatic fringe is ultimately concerned that any attempt to identify and keep track of gun owners will lead to mass confiscation of guns, with everyone being shuttled to be imprisoned in FEMA camps. FEMA is already amassing vast quantities of emergency trailers, you see, and the only logical explanation the far Right can come up with is an imminent Federal takeover resulting in the imprisonment of our citizenry. Why this would happen is never fully explained. And don't get them started on jet contrails....
The lunatic fringe is ultimately concerned that any attempt to identify and keep track of gun owners will lead to mass confiscation of guns, with everyone being shuttled to be imprisoned in FEMA camps. FEMA is already amassing vast quantities of emergency trailers, you see, and the only logical explanation the far Right can come up with is an imminent Federal takeover resulting in the imprisonment of our citizenry. Why this would happen is never fully explained. And don't get them started on jet contrails....
3
Well, p266, there is no constitutional obstruction to regulating weapons, or placing some restrictions upon them. Even Justice Scalia said that in Heller, which interpreted the Constitutional right to bear arms as a personal right. We are generally not allowed to have a personal stock of C4.
What we have is a rabid gun lobby, backed by a huge industry that sells and resells guns and plans to continue to do so, taking each expansion in gun rights and trying to top it. This justifies their existence, and the need and ability to collect money so that they can continue to exist. Without having a reason to continue to double down, even after the basic victory in Heller, the lobby would wither and die, leaving many lobbyists in poverty. Expect to see arguments for personal nukes in the near future.
And when you read the comments, marvel at the sheer number of Constitutional law experts we have among the general US population.
What we have is a rabid gun lobby, backed by a huge industry that sells and resells guns and plans to continue to do so, taking each expansion in gun rights and trying to top it. This justifies their existence, and the need and ability to collect money so that they can continue to exist. Without having a reason to continue to double down, even after the basic victory in Heller, the lobby would wither and die, leaving many lobbyists in poverty. Expect to see arguments for personal nukes in the near future.
And when you read the comments, marvel at the sheer number of Constitutional law experts we have among the general US population.
5
I don't agree at all with how this editorial characterizes the Heller opinion. The opinion said that keeping and bearing arms is a right of "the people" and it actually did not say that the "militia" is everyone qualified to keep and bear arms. It said the militia was a subset of the people.
Americans should read the opinion for themselves to understand what it said instead of relying upon a NYT opinion to give them THEIR version of it.
Americans should read the opinion for themselves to understand what it said instead of relying upon a NYT opinion to give them THEIR version of it.
7
I have read Heller carefully. I have read the constitution carefully.
"The people" is plural. The 2nd amendment grants a collective right of all the people to bear arms, It does not grant every individual a right to have arms, and indeed Heller, and particularly Scalia's dissent, enumerate current classes of people who may not.
Heller grant the individual right, to a pistol, in the home, for self-defense. Nothing about this can be found or construed from the second amendment or prior holdings thereon.
Scalia cites jurisdictions at the time of the constitution that allowed pistols, but there were many cities at the time and thereafter that had ordinances restricting them. Tombstone and Dodge City not-only had no-carry ordinances, it was no-possession in town. The battle of the OK Corral was fought because the Earps were enforcing Tombstone's gun ordinance.
Heller is invented out of whole cloth, as far as the 2A goes. In effect it is an enlargement of English common law -- if a man has a castle he must have cannon ... so every little bungalow can have a pistol.
"The people" is plural. The 2nd amendment grants a collective right of all the people to bear arms, It does not grant every individual a right to have arms, and indeed Heller, and particularly Scalia's dissent, enumerate current classes of people who may not.
Heller grant the individual right, to a pistol, in the home, for self-defense. Nothing about this can be found or construed from the second amendment or prior holdings thereon.
Scalia cites jurisdictions at the time of the constitution that allowed pistols, but there were many cities at the time and thereafter that had ordinances restricting them. Tombstone and Dodge City not-only had no-carry ordinances, it was no-possession in town. The battle of the OK Corral was fought because the Earps were enforcing Tombstone's gun ordinance.
Heller is invented out of whole cloth, as far as the 2A goes. In effect it is an enlargement of English common law -- if a man has a castle he must have cannon ... so every little bungalow can have a pistol.
2
I have read the opinion and the 5 voting in favor are now only 4. The current Supreme Court does not agree with Heller now that the crazy one is gone so, as a lawyer, I would not rely on Heller as the law too much anymore. As soon as it is challenged again Heller will not be the law. Thank God, we can now recast some of the worst decisions of the Court without the fraud of Scalia and get back to rational. Scalia's willingness to make HUGE decisions for the country with a meaningless 1 vote majority is finally curbed by his death. Citizens United, Heller, Bush v. Gore on and on with that guy. so glad he is gone and the country can start rebuilding a respected Judiciary.
6
Or just use common English. A phrase only indicates one reason for the right. Remove it and the sentence means the same thing. That is simple English needs no legal education.
"The Second Amendment therefore means that all who exercise firearms rights should be “well regulated."
It neither says nor implies any such thing. The relevant sentence, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” in no way establishes that membership in a regulated militia is a REQUREMENT for gun ownership.
Literary critics such as the authors of this piece of attempted hornswoggling ought for a moment to dilate on the use in the relevant sentence of "shall not infringe." Does the verb "infringe" invite the new governmental control of the sort they wish to impose? Why was this verb used? The authors need to answer that question.
It neither says nor implies any such thing. The relevant sentence, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” in no way establishes that membership in a regulated militia is a REQUREMENT for gun ownership.
Literary critics such as the authors of this piece of attempted hornswoggling ought for a moment to dilate on the use in the relevant sentence of "shall not infringe." Does the verb "infringe" invite the new governmental control of the sort they wish to impose? Why was this verb used? The authors need to answer that question.
4
Scalia's "Heller decision, ...described the `militia' not as a formal military organization, but as everyone qualified to keep and bear arms." So much for originalism. Like zealots quoting the Koran or the Bible, Scalia was able to find whatever he was looking for in the Constitution. Including things that aren't there.
45
That definition of militia comes from the Second Militia Acts of 1792. Since it was passed only a few years after the Constitution was ratified it's quite plausible that such a definition was also what was in mind when the word was used in the Second Amendment.
3
more than a little ironic as he always described himself as an originalist, or a textualist. Raving hypocrite is more like it.
2
The "unorganized militia" is a federal legal construct of 1956, legislated by congress, precisely to effectively nullify consideration of the establishment clause. Note however that the unorganized militia are males 17-45 ... a strict construction would argue that only these men are protected by the 2nd amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
1
The intent of the 2nd Amendment is explicitly to ensure the “security of a Free State.” It is clear that the Amendment intended the vehicle for security to be a well-regulated Militia, at the time when there were no permanent armies or law enforcement bodies.
Many gun advocates cite the 2nd Amendment but ignore Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which clarifies that the roles of Militias are to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Further, power and responsibility for “calling forth,” and for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” Militias lies with Congress. Thus, a bunch of gun enthusiasts banding together and acting on their own volition would not be a Militia and would not be acting in accordance with either Article 1, Section 8 or the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
The meaning of the phrase “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is more vague. It doesn’t explicitly state that ownership of arms itself must be regulated, only that the Militia itself. However, it would be difficult to see how a Militia or any other armed body could be well-regulated if ownership of the arms they used was unregulated. The Amendment does not even require that individuals have the right to own arms and keep them in their private homes, only that they be available, say in a depot or arsenal, accessible in times of need to those of the people who comprise the Militia.
There is much room for discussion about gun regulation.
Many gun advocates cite the 2nd Amendment but ignore Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which clarifies that the roles of Militias are to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Further, power and responsibility for “calling forth,” and for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” Militias lies with Congress. Thus, a bunch of gun enthusiasts banding together and acting on their own volition would not be a Militia and would not be acting in accordance with either Article 1, Section 8 or the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
The meaning of the phrase “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is more vague. It doesn’t explicitly state that ownership of arms itself must be regulated, only that the Militia itself. However, it would be difficult to see how a Militia or any other armed body could be well-regulated if ownership of the arms they used was unregulated. The Amendment does not even require that individuals have the right to own arms and keep them in their private homes, only that they be available, say in a depot or arsenal, accessible in times of need to those of the people who comprise the Militia.
There is much room for discussion about gun regulation.
66
The Supreme Court says you are not correct. Maybe you should work on amending the Constitution if you believe you are right.
No there is no room for discussion, the phrase means nothing, the right is an individual one. Now what we can agree on is that criminals and the mentally ill have no such right and that is where our time and attention is required. Not in more regulation of normal people or other things. Pretty simple.
1
The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so armed citizens will be available to form militias, if necessary, to defend themselves from tyranny. The term "shall not infringe" means the right to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted. A law that said Americans had to keep their firearms in a state arsenal would be a restriction of the right to keep and bear arms.
Many Americans—but far from all—agree that the time for militias is past, but his doesn’t mean we can simply ignore the amendment. The Constitution provides a process for updating, revising or repealing the Second Amendment. Congress can send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification or the states can ask Congress to call a new constitutional convention
Many Americans—but far from all—agree that the time for militias is past, but his doesn’t mean we can simply ignore the amendment. The Constitution provides a process for updating, revising or repealing the Second Amendment. Congress can send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification or the states can ask Congress to call a new constitutional convention
2
This sounds like it was written by, and sponsored by Michael Bloomberg, Barak Obama, and the rest of the Democratic party. "Common Sense" is the new catch-word, but everything they propose is the precursor to more regulation, and eventually confiscation, as has happened in the Commonwealth countries, and Europe. I look at states like NY, CA, MD, and MA that have strict gun control, and cities such as NY, Baltimore, Chicago, LA, Detroit and such which do have strict and onerous gun control, and high crime rates. Contrary to this op-ed, these cities and states make it very difficult to obtain a permit for a gun. What makes the writers think a more comprehensive registration scheme will make it any easier for a LAW ABIDING citizen to purchase, and own a gun?
8
As long as the NRA and its supporters continue to support non-sensical laws the term "common sense" will be used.
For example, thanks to the NRA and the polititians it has bought a doctor in Florida is prohibitied from discussing gun-safety with new parents. That same doctor can warn new parents about the dangers of cleaning fluids under the sink, pools in the back yard, scissors and electric outlets, but not storing loaded guns in nightstands.
These non-sensical laws are not only hard to believe, but reek of the kind of government over-reach that "LAW ABIDING" citizens can't stop complaining about.
Convince your NRA chapter to publically ridicule these laws and I'll be glad to stop thinking of all of you as hypocrites.
For example, thanks to the NRA and the polititians it has bought a doctor in Florida is prohibitied from discussing gun-safety with new parents. That same doctor can warn new parents about the dangers of cleaning fluids under the sink, pools in the back yard, scissors and electric outlets, but not storing loaded guns in nightstands.
These non-sensical laws are not only hard to believe, but reek of the kind of government over-reach that "LAW ABIDING" citizens can't stop complaining about.
Convince your NRA chapter to publically ridicule these laws and I'll be glad to stop thinking of all of you as hypocrites.
7
Actually, New York City, Los Angeles and most big cities in the country now have middling to LOW crime rates. The highest crime rates are in small cities and rural areas in the South and West of the country.
Detroit and Chicago are the only truly big cities that have not seen a big drop in crime rates. And by the way, Detroit does not have strict gun control, nor does my home state of Michigan. Such laws only mean something if they are enforced; and the police forces in both those cities, and elsewhere, are not staffed to the size necessary to get crime down. And I wonder, did you read what they wrote? How on earth can anyone resist treating a lethal weapon the same way we treat an automobile (which can be used to kill people, deliberately, too in fact): each State registers and track ownership; and selling one requires notifying the State government where you live. And each one has a permanent unique identifying number. Could we stop these Charlton Heston tantrums and actually consider reasonably just what "law-abiding gun owner" should mean ?
Detroit and Chicago are the only truly big cities that have not seen a big drop in crime rates. And by the way, Detroit does not have strict gun control, nor does my home state of Michigan. Such laws only mean something if they are enforced; and the police forces in both those cities, and elsewhere, are not staffed to the size necessary to get crime down. And I wonder, did you read what they wrote? How on earth can anyone resist treating a lethal weapon the same way we treat an automobile (which can be used to kill people, deliberately, too in fact): each State registers and track ownership; and selling one requires notifying the State government where you live. And each one has a permanent unique identifying number. Could we stop these Charlton Heston tantrums and actually consider reasonably just what "law-abiding gun owner" should mean ?
2
It may be difficult to get a permit for a gun in those cities. However, thanks to lax gun laws in other states, it is frighteningly easy for criminals to purchase guns illegally in those states.
There is absolutely no reason why guns/purchases are registered in some instances and not in others. It defies credulity.
There is absolutely no reason why guns/purchases are registered in some instances and not in others. It defies credulity.
6
Ironic that gun shows don't want people walking around with loaded firearms. From the webpages of the Southeastern Guns & Knives show: "No loaded firearms are permitted into the show ... with the exception of law enforcement .. and security ... ." See http://www.guns-knives.com/regulations.php Sounds like a reasonable rule to me. So how is it OK to bring loaded firearms to church, school and the supermarket?
62
Also, as I understand it, no member of the public is allowed to carry a gun into the Congressional sessions or to the Supreme Court hearings - where these decisions are made that subject everyone else but them to the risks involved.
4
Do people buy, sell, or trade guns in your local churches, schools, or supermarkets? If so, restrictions on bringing loaded firearms into those places are reasonable!
4
"A more effective system would require everyone who owns or acquires a gun to register it. Gun owners would also need a license that could be obtained by demonstrating they can use a gun responsibly, and passing a background check."
Since when are the constitutional liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights subject to a "demonstration [to] use ... responsibly"? Would you apply this standard to speech? Or religious practice?
Also "well regulated" in the context of the Second Amendment means "in good working order or repair". That phrase does not translate as "registration".
The NYT has consistently published criticism of only one of the first ten amendments. And bemoans that fact there is no reasonable "debate" with law-abiding firearm owners about reasonable regulations.
Since when are the constitutional liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights subject to a "demonstration [to] use ... responsibly"? Would you apply this standard to speech? Or religious practice?
Also "well regulated" in the context of the Second Amendment means "in good working order or repair". That phrase does not translate as "registration".
The NYT has consistently published criticism of only one of the first ten amendments. And bemoans that fact there is no reasonable "debate" with law-abiding firearm owners about reasonable regulations.
10
Speech is subject to to a responsibility standard all the time. Yell "fire" in a movie theater, or better yet, yell "I have a bomb" on a plane and you will see that your "free speech" rights are justifiably restricted based upon context and use.
7
The point you miss is that "well regulated" absolutely does imply necessary laws to which you as a firearm owner must abide. You also miss the fact that every amendment in the Bill of Rights, not to say every article of the Constitution, is subject to interpretation, which is why we have a Supreme Court and a vast body of law to support the Constitution itself.
7
Well, yes, JDK, I would apply the responsibility standard to speech and religion. Freedom of speech doesn't allow you do yell Fire! in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion doesn't allow you to perform human sacrifice to Aztec gods.
3
I am a HS teacher in Los Angeles. On Friday, two of my students were absent. They are twin girls, 12th graders. Both are black. On Monday, when I asked why they had missed school, they broke into tears. Two of their cousins had been gunned down in separate incidents. The killers? One was a father who shot his 18 year old son during a domestic dispute. The other--a police officer. He shot my students' cousin and her friend while they sat in their car after a traffic stop. A gun wasn't recovered.
The NRA, via Wayne LaPierre, has adamantly held that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Really? By that twisted logic, had the boy been armed too, he and his father would have come to a peaceful agreement. And aren't police officers supposed to be the good guys?
The problem isn't 'criminals' getting guns, it's human beings getting guns. Over 30,000 gun deaths a year in our country isn't because 'bad guys' pull triggers. Stronger regulation is a good start, but we need leaders who have the guts to take on our NRA-loving legislature. The 2nd says "Well-regulated." Let's do what it says.
The NRA, via Wayne LaPierre, has adamantly held that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Really? By that twisted logic, had the boy been armed too, he and his father would have come to a peaceful agreement. And aren't police officers supposed to be the good guys?
The problem isn't 'criminals' getting guns, it's human beings getting guns. Over 30,000 gun deaths a year in our country isn't because 'bad guys' pull triggers. Stronger regulation is a good start, but we need leaders who have the guts to take on our NRA-loving legislature. The 2nd says "Well-regulated." Let's do what it says.
221
Well, it will be pretty tough to disarm police officers....
2
The Uber driver in Michigan was a "good guy with a gun" up until he had a bad day.
4
Your examples are not compelling. Maybe if the 18 year old had a gun things would have been different. Maybe the father was defending himself. The reality is domestic violence was the problem and using a knife, club, etc would have resulted in serious injury or death to one of the other parties. This example is a social issue that is beyond the method used to end the argument.
The police officer shooting is another social issue we must work on and not look at the gun as the problem (if what you said is even true). Do you want to disarm police? Do police make mistakes? yes they do, and those who do should be punished, but none of this has anything to do with private lawful gun ownership.
The police officer shooting is another social issue we must work on and not look at the gun as the problem (if what you said is even true). Do you want to disarm police? Do police make mistakes? yes they do, and those who do should be punished, but none of this has anything to do with private lawful gun ownership.
Yesterday we had a multiple school stabbing outside Toronto - a very rare event. What struck me was the fact that the assailant, an alleged 14-year old girl, actually stated that she could not obtain a gun so she took what she could - two kitchen knives to inflict the damage. I have no doubt that this situation plays out daily around the world - except in the US. Desperate or disturbed people ready to do harm, but limited in the damage they may inflict by the fact that firearms are NOT readily available. In this case, the event was still shocking for the community, and the wounds to the six victims were minor, but it speaks to the propensity for mass carnage ONLY when guns are available. The NYT has written frequently and eloquently on the need to regulate firearms effectively, and this editorial is a rational, thoughtful, and compassionate piece in that same vein.
28
Yes, a mentally ill 14 year old Canadian should be the model for all American gun legislation.
1
The second amendment gun owners to belong to a 'well-regulated militia'.
Indeed. The majority opinion in Heller was written by the arch-originalist Antonin Scalia Himself. The right to keep and bear arms is and has been limited, as to what, who and where, and how obtained. We may not develop nuclear weapons or even carry RPG's; inmates of mental institution and convicts--current and "ex"-- are precluded from carrying firearms; we may not bear arms in airplanes, court, etc.; there are already regulations as commerce in firearms.
The NRA should please get over it.
The NRA should please get over it.
7
Refreshing!
Background checks had seemed to me a pitiful excuse for sensible gun regulation. This makes them seem quite valuable. Perhaps there is hope.
Background checks had seemed to me a pitiful excuse for sensible gun regulation. This makes them seem quite valuable. Perhaps there is hope.
2
GOP Members of Congress have taken a position so extreme about the interpretation of the Second Amendment that they even outdo the 75% of the NRA who are in favor of gun control. Why a political party should be held captive by 25% of a private organization, or about 1.25 million persons, and allow them to overwhelm others of the 318 million US residents, has never been addressed, leave alone explained. Another stunning fact is that one of the definitions of militia is all able-bodied citizens who are capable of military service. I've often wondered what dictionary Scalia was using when he defined his terms. Because his positions often ignore any defintion, originalist or not, that did not comport with Scalia's unique vision of Scalialandia. As with cars, owners of fire arms should be required to register them. The police will impound them if not registered. Recently a 19 year old male committed suicide in a high profile case using his father's antique rifle. When I pass by the father's office, I think of the needless waste of that kid's life because his father was not required to put his antique guns into a secure gun safe separate from a secure safe for the storage of ammunition. No change will bring back that kid. But more conscientious gun control could prevent such future tragedies from happening. If guns are better regulated in the proper way, the criminals will have a much harder time using them with impunity. Such regulation of firearms is long overdue!
5
I feel sorry for the family, but why would someone keep around a loaded antique rifle? if it wasn't, and the 19 year old man was determined enough to properly load and fire it (not as easy as it sounds) he was determined enough to use another method to end it all.
I know this editorial is necessary to write, so thanks for doing it.
But it's really sad that in 2016, after everything this country has been through, we are still at the point where the New York Times is publishing tenuous, rational defenses of why addressing gun violence is probably constitutional.
I'll keep on voting for the least insane politicians out there, but the moral arc of American history is not responsive on a human timescale. We will still be trying to figure out if maybe mental health is an issue in gun violence in 2045, with no new federal regulations, mark my words.
But it's really sad that in 2016, after everything this country has been through, we are still at the point where the New York Times is publishing tenuous, rational defenses of why addressing gun violence is probably constitutional.
I'll keep on voting for the least insane politicians out there, but the moral arc of American history is not responsive on a human timescale. We will still be trying to figure out if maybe mental health is an issue in gun violence in 2045, with no new federal regulations, mark my words.
6
While I agree with the points being made, given the current Congress, the majority of whom are quislings to the NRA and its minions, Good luck with trying to legislate ANY commonsense measures to prevent gun violence.
Not wishing anything bad, but why if we should be able to tote guns just about everywhere in some states, that there is so much security at the Capitol and other buildings where our legislators are present. Note that I refuse to call what Sen. McConnell and his gang are doing, work. Last I checked, obstruction and shirking of one's duties is definitely not work. Most of us would get fired with no benefits etc.
Oh, and please can we start calling these measures what they actually are: measures to Prevent gun Violence.
Not wishing anything bad, but why if we should be able to tote guns just about everywhere in some states, that there is so much security at the Capitol and other buildings where our legislators are present. Note that I refuse to call what Sen. McConnell and his gang are doing, work. Last I checked, obstruction and shirking of one's duties is definitely not work. Most of us would get fired with no benefits etc.
Oh, and please can we start calling these measures what they actually are: measures to Prevent gun Violence.
10
I cannot believe that two "scholars" can get the meaning of the 18th century phrase "well regulated" so wrong. It's still in use - perhaps the two of them should watch a few episodes of "Keeping Up Appearances". It means, quite simply, "in proper working order".
2
Well, that's certainly an NRA talking point.
4
Unless you believe that "proper working order" arises spontaneously, wouldn't some party/agent be required to assess deviations from what is "proper" be required, perhaps to set parameters for what counts as "proper" and "working", etc. In our republic, we grant our electived representatives the privilege of setting such standards on our behalf. D'ya get where I'm going with this, Sparky?
3
No it means whatever the sitting SCOTUS says it means. 4 say it means we can regulate and 4 say it means we cannot. I think the states should start making restrictive gun laws, NRA will appeal to the court and we will get an impasse (4-4) leaving the state court or lower fed court to decide. If a Judge in the Western District of Washington interprets the 2nd to allow wholesale regulation, that will be the law unless and until a higher court reverses. Without Scalia, there will be no reversal at the highest level.
3
This is one of the most well-reasoned explanations of the Second Amendment and its current status as you will find anywhere. I look forward to a healthy discussion of it but doubt such as discussion is possible these days.
13
The second amendment appears to justify the purpose of the right to bear arms as "the security of a free state." It seems a stretch to me to then refer to a need for individual security as the ultimate justification in the Heller decision. Is there precedent for this individual security interpretation? What empiric evidence is there to support or refute the idea that regulations on weapons improve or harm personal security on a national level? If we are to accept that the right to bear arms for individual security is constitutionally guaranteed, then regulations/restrictions that can empirically be shown to improve individual security are not only legally justifiable, but also may be the basis for any further constitutional judgments on gun laws. Thoughts?
2
If only we could send the leadership of the NRA to the gun-freedom utopia that is Somalia for a few months, followed by a stay in Britain's disarmed Orwellian nightmare.
27
The current debate has been framed by the NRA as an attempt to take guns away. Unfortunately the opposition has fallen into this debate and continues to let the gun lobby control the conversation. In the past, as least in Arizona, one was not allowed to transport a gun without the ammunition being locked up separately. This was a very sane approach predicated, I believe, on the assumption that gun accidents would be minimized.
Re-enacting this type of law, prohibiting any type of loaded gun on the street (or in a car), vastly restricting the concealed carry to only those in law enforcement would be a worthy adjunct to any gun control law. We submit ourselves to random DUI checks recognizing the good they do, the same could be enacted for gun checks. Unfortunately, with over 300 million guns in the US we must do this to have any hope of reducing gun violence by anyone.
Lastly, this would not prohibit gun owners from owning and keeping loaded guns in their home so they can fend off the US Military or just ordinary home intruders.
Re-enacting this type of law, prohibiting any type of loaded gun on the street (or in a car), vastly restricting the concealed carry to only those in law enforcement would be a worthy adjunct to any gun control law. We submit ourselves to random DUI checks recognizing the good they do, the same could be enacted for gun checks. Unfortunately, with over 300 million guns in the US we must do this to have any hope of reducing gun violence by anyone.
Lastly, this would not prohibit gun owners from owning and keeping loaded guns in their home so they can fend off the US Military or just ordinary home intruders.
6
The discussion of gun rights seems to focus on the Second Amendment by itself without also looking at the powers of Congress described in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. There, the Congress can make rules for "calling forth the militias" and "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". It would seem that the second amendment is written to support those powers of Congress. The right to keep and bear arms would seem to be subject to the duty of Congress to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia as described in the Constitution. Two questions then arise. Is Congress organizing, arming and disciplining the militia or has it abdicated this responsibility through inaction? Which part of the Constitution takes precedence- Article I, Section 8 or the Second Amendment?
9
Article I, Section 8 applies to militias while the Second Amendment applies to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to organized, equip and discipline the militia while the Second Amendment prohibits any law that would infringe the right ot the people to keep and bar arms. The Second Amendment apples to all Americans, not just those in state militia or armed services.
2
Even among my well educated, thoughtful conservative friends, there is one overriding attitude that makes this well constructed argument for effective regulations completely ineffective to them: The creation of a gun data base will be used "when the government decides to confiscate our guns." This idiotic conspiracy theory is pervasive among gun nuts. Thus "nuts."
44
Even if this theory were correct, do these geniuses really believe they possess the firepower to fight off the military?
5
Precisely correct. This is exactly the point I constantly try to make, and which is obvious from the Constitution itself, both from an originalist and textualist viewpoint.
In this respect, it is hard to understand how anyone could reasonably object to requiring those who want to possess fire arms to submit to national gun registration and back ground checks, as well as safe handling and shooting qualifications.
Furthermore, like climate change, it is way past any argument that our "militia" is far less regulated than it needs to be, not just against the increasingly common plague of mass shootings, but the far more deadly occurrence of unsafe and criminal fire arms use across the nation.
In this respect, it is hard to understand how anyone could reasonably object to requiring those who want to possess fire arms to submit to national gun registration and back ground checks, as well as safe handling and shooting qualifications.
Furthermore, like climate change, it is way past any argument that our "militia" is far less regulated than it needs to be, not just against the increasingly common plague of mass shootings, but the far more deadly occurrence of unsafe and criminal fire arms use across the nation.
17
Heller is a sound opinion, despite the authors' uninformed and specious opinion. It isn't incompatible with "tougher" gun laws, but what is proposed here is beyond Bloombergian fantasy. Comprehensive database, unique characteristics of a gun barrels (they can be changed out, y'know), micro-engraving of ammo, etc. The constituency of law-abiding, qualified gun owners would shrink faster than wool in a hot wash, and that is the ultimate purpose. Complete with an intention misreading and interpretation of the 2A, with the fictional aspect of "preamble", willfully ignoring the meaning of "well regulated" as and when it was used. The premises and justifications offered here are as far fetched as the John Yoo torture memos.
Interesting to note that only 8 hours after publication were comments allowed, after having no comment section at first, then an empty one with the section closed. That move and this article are both cheap shots, as I wrote in a letter to the editors earlier today. Your paper, your agenda, I get it. It's still journalistic cowardice, any way you cut it.
Interesting to note that only 8 hours after publication were comments allowed, after having no comment section at first, then an empty one with the section closed. That move and this article are both cheap shots, as I wrote in a letter to the editors earlier today. Your paper, your agenda, I get it. It's still journalistic cowardice, any way you cut it.
9
If you're law abiding, why would you care if there's a registry?
It's just like the registry for those who drive cars.
It's just like the registry for those who drive cars.
2
I have a son who just turned 16. To get his drivers license so he is safe and does not hurt himself or others by accident he must take a certain number of hours of instruction and then take a written and drivers test. Sounds like a prudent and wise course of action. It's much more stringent than when I turned 16 but we have come along way since then to improve safety of cars and roads. Seems like i would call that "well regulated" as well as common sense.
Complicated yes - but we manage in the name of safety.
The same is true for his car - the car - which is essentially a tool - like a gun- could be used to cause harm by accident so they are " well regulated" and insured.
Why can't the same exact standards we use to protect human life on the roads be used with guns? We keep going back to what the founders intended which is really only ever going to be debatable, never fact, while 30,000. people die each year. I'm not sure what the founders would say about all this but since they did such a good job forming the framework for the country I need to give them the benefit of intelegence to know we live in a much different world now.
If they were writing 2a today I could imagine something like - "right to bear arms shall not be infringed, provided each firearm and owner of said firearm is educated on its use, registered, licensed and insured against liability"
Like we require of our 16 yr olds to drive a car.
Complicated yes - but we manage in the name of safety.
The same is true for his car - the car - which is essentially a tool - like a gun- could be used to cause harm by accident so they are " well regulated" and insured.
Why can't the same exact standards we use to protect human life on the roads be used with guns? We keep going back to what the founders intended which is really only ever going to be debatable, never fact, while 30,000. people die each year. I'm not sure what the founders would say about all this but since they did such a good job forming the framework for the country I need to give them the benefit of intelegence to know we live in a much different world now.
If they were writing 2a today I could imagine something like - "right to bear arms shall not be infringed, provided each firearm and owner of said firearm is educated on its use, registered, licensed and insured against liability"
Like we require of our 16 yr olds to drive a car.
7
Airplane pilots kill far fewer people than gun owners. Even if one considers the recent tragic murder-suicide by a German commercial pilot, the number of intentional deaths by pilots is exceedingly rare.
Pilots are licensed through a rigorous process of training and examination. Aircraft are registered and insured. Pilot's face recurrent experience and examination requirements. Commercial pilots are required to have periodic medical examinations.
Post 9/11 there are requirements on Pilots (and particularly Certified Flight Instructors) to observe and report any behavior that suggests instability or terrorism. The concurrence of two Flight Instructors can subject any pilot to an FAA review, including medical/psychological fitness.
The next time you get on an airplane think about whether you'd like pilots to have the "freedome" you demand. And think about the fact that modern combat aircraft are certainly "arms" ... and many of us have flown them.
Pilots are licensed through a rigorous process of training and examination. Aircraft are registered and insured. Pilot's face recurrent experience and examination requirements. Commercial pilots are required to have periodic medical examinations.
Post 9/11 there are requirements on Pilots (and particularly Certified Flight Instructors) to observe and report any behavior that suggests instability or terrorism. The concurrence of two Flight Instructors can subject any pilot to an FAA review, including medical/psychological fitness.
The next time you get on an airplane think about whether you'd like pilots to have the "freedome" you demand. And think about the fact that modern combat aircraft are certainly "arms" ... and many of us have flown them.
2
Then would these regulations be unreasonable?:
License and liability insurance for all guns, retroactively. Renewed every four years.
Ban assault weapons.
Ban hollow point bullets.
License and liability insurance for all guns, retroactively. Renewed every four years.
Ban assault weapons.
Ban hollow point bullets.
46
Yes, we don't want poor people defending themselves. let's increase the costs to them.
You may want to define assault weapons, because the actual definition is a fully automatic of select fire rifle in a medium caliber used for (guess what) assaulting buildings (such as an AK-47). You may be mistaking civilian versions of battle rifles as assault weapons. Private ownership of automatic weapons is so highly regulated that lawful automatic weapons are not used in crime.
Let's ban hollow points. We wouldn't want a bullet to stop inside a person or animal that was shot, preferring penetration so the bullet can keep on traveling (to where?). We wouldn't want a gun fight to end in one or two shots, preferring the perceived need to empty a magazine.
The answer is No.
You may want to define assault weapons, because the actual definition is a fully automatic of select fire rifle in a medium caliber used for (guess what) assaulting buildings (such as an AK-47). You may be mistaking civilian versions of battle rifles as assault weapons. Private ownership of automatic weapons is so highly regulated that lawful automatic weapons are not used in crime.
Let's ban hollow points. We wouldn't want a bullet to stop inside a person or animal that was shot, preferring penetration so the bullet can keep on traveling (to where?). We wouldn't want a gun fight to end in one or two shots, preferring the perceived need to empty a magazine.
The answer is No.
1
I am a slightly overweight white Male
I have a concealed carry permit
I own guns
I am a retired Marine
I vote
I think that anyone who wants to write or report the news should be required to register with the Federal and state governments and take a written test to ensure that they have read and understand the Constitution of the United States, as it is written, not as you think it should be.
We require tests for driving, should not a test to be a news person be required.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits such a test.
You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded room so there are some limits we can place on speech.
Semper Fi
I have a concealed carry permit
I own guns
I am a retired Marine
I vote
I think that anyone who wants to write or report the news should be required to register with the Federal and state governments and take a written test to ensure that they have read and understand the Constitution of the United States, as it is written, not as you think it should be.
We require tests for driving, should not a test to be a news person be required.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits such a test.
You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded room so there are some limits we can place on speech.
Semper Fi
9
Victims of irresponsible journalism live to rebut the claims. Victims of irresponsible gun ownership, not so much.
We have slander and liable laws as protections for victims of bad journalism. Victims of bad gun ownership, well hopefully the felon is caught; though usually the relative who left a gun laying around for a child or suicidal person to pick up and cause injury with gets too much sympathy to be prosecuted.
And, no people with a violent history, restraining order or severe mental illness should not be allowed to own guns, any more than a repeat drunk driver should have a car.
And, no, reasonable gun laws are not a slippery slope to totalitarian rule. But since the paranoid rule part of the debate this will fall on deaf ears.
We have slander and liable laws as protections for victims of bad journalism. Victims of bad gun ownership, well hopefully the felon is caught; though usually the relative who left a gun laying around for a child or suicidal person to pick up and cause injury with gets too much sympathy to be prosecuted.
And, no people with a violent history, restraining order or severe mental illness should not be allowed to own guns, any more than a repeat drunk driver should have a car.
And, no, reasonable gun laws are not a slippery slope to totalitarian rule. But since the paranoid rule part of the debate this will fall on deaf ears.
4
The authors are a federal judge and law professor. Are you suggesting that you know more about the Constitution than they do? Because if I need Constitutional advice I'm going to them.
5
So do proponents of gun legislation that presumably improves public safety also support the government's request for Apple to open up iPhones for information that may identify terrorists and other criminals?
The overriding theme is that public safety trumps other concerns so these would be consistent ideologies but I suspect that many people love gun control but want their iPhone's free of government intrusion.
The overriding theme is that public safety trumps other concerns so these would be consistent ideologies but I suspect that many people love gun control but want their iPhone's free of government intrusion.
3
This article explains the position many of us have, that we don't have a problem at all with responsible gun ownership. It's the tens of thousands of weapons conveniently lost, stolen or sold with a wink if not outright defiance of the law. The flow of weapons start legally at manufacturers, then to distributors, then gun shows and shops. All presumably responsible and adamantly opposed to any liberal gun laws. Yet, this system supplies terrorists and criminals with a steady supply of any type of gun. We wouldn't need liberal minded gun control laws if the responsible owners could control their guns.
9
Beautifully written; thoughtful and with powerful path forward. Do we have any legislators who can sponsor the recommendations so we can move forward on gun regulation and gun safety?
10
Imagine if all those called "candidates" were discussing serious presentations of information and possibilities for future public policy instead of brandishing their religiosity.
Imagine.
Never in 21st century USA so far. Maybe in the 22d century?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE
Imagine.
Never in 21st century USA so far. Maybe in the 22d century?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE
1
If sandy hook could not impress enough people to stop the gun madness, what will?
8
And that is indeed the saddest truth in all of it.
1
The Second Amendment does not mean that all who exercise firearms rights should be “well regulated.” The term “well-regulated” as used in the amendment is an adjective that modifies “militia.” It does not modify people or the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not grant Americans the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms grew out of English common law. The Second Amendment acknowledges that this right exists and states it shall not be infringed so that Americans can form militias, if necessary, to protect themselves against tyranny. If the authors of the Constitution had meant to restrict firearms to militiamen enrolled in a militia, they would have said so. Many people—including me—wish the Second Amendment read, “Public safety being of paramount concern, Congress shall regulate the manufacture and licensing of firearms,” but it doesn’t.
10
Excellent analysis. Sad to tell, entirely useless, as it will be entirely ignored by those who have power.
2
But no right is absolute. Even the First Amendment back in the day when Justice Black thought it was. So, how is this insightful?
When Obama or Hillary appoint Justice Scalia's replacement the big fight in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence will be whether the restrictions passed by federal, state or local governments are tantamount to denying the right of private ownership established in the DC and Chicago cases.
Much will depend upon the level of scrutiny the court imposes for making that determination. For example, the bar for a prior restraint on speech is very very high. The bar for a regulation of commercial rights is relatively low.
We'll see!
When Obama or Hillary appoint Justice Scalia's replacement the big fight in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence will be whether the restrictions passed by federal, state or local governments are tantamount to denying the right of private ownership established in the DC and Chicago cases.
Much will depend upon the level of scrutiny the court imposes for making that determination. For example, the bar for a prior restraint on speech is very very high. The bar for a regulation of commercial rights is relatively low.
We'll see!
4
To point out the obvious, criminals don't obey the law and there are hundreds of millions of unregistered guns already in circulation. Not only are you purposing to lock the barn after the horse has fled, but your unpractical intellectual musing will greatly inconvenience millions of law abiding citizens. The last time that happened was prohibition and we all know how that ended.
44
Prohibition was a total ban on alcohol, with some very minor exceptions, for example, sacramental wine. No one is proposing prohibition of firearm ownership,
106
Quite obviously, a provision must be made toward eventual universal fire arms registration. Clearly, it will take time, and the law must provide ample opportunity and time for individuals to comply, and then some, given the reality of the task. It will have to account for what are sometimes vast collections, sometimes inherited with little documentation, and miscellaneous fire arms in attics that no one has thought about for decades.
In the mean time, those who commit crimes with unregistered fire arms will be doubly penalized, and those guns will finally be registered properly.
In the mean time, those who commit crimes with unregistered fire arms will be doubly penalized, and those guns will finally be registered properly.
36
Your argument, that because there are so many guns out there already, registering them now would just be an inconvenience to millions of law abiding citizens, but not change anything at all, is perhaps the most frustrating counter argument to gun control suggestions.
We won't stop *more* guns from flowing from good guys to bad guys because there are already so many guns out there. What's a few million more? Why inconvenience everyone?
I dunno. Because one person's convenience is another person's funeral?
At some point, we just have the responsibility to act like grown ups. And grown-ups put up with inconvenience, when it can be a life saver.
We won't stop *more* guns from flowing from good guys to bad guys because there are already so many guns out there. What's a few million more? Why inconvenience everyone?
I dunno. Because one person's convenience is another person's funeral?
At some point, we just have the responsibility to act like grown ups. And grown-ups put up with inconvenience, when it can be a life saver.
41
Like every public policy issue on the Republican right, the subject of guns has been turned into a religious issue where reason and sensible regulation has been discarded in favor of an evangelized belief of guns as a sacred item of worship, fetishization and divine right.
There's simply no reason not to have universal background checks and to close the completely Yemeni-like anarchy of the American gun show loophole...except that the NRA, a small number of gun manufacturers, their Republican front men and the right-wing Supreme Court's Citizen's Corrupted decision all conspire for Guns Over People-based Greed Over People in one of the world's most shameless exercises in the worship of Mammon.
No one wants to take away everyone's guns, but 300 million guns and counting in America is clearly a number that is much closer to nationally-assisted-suicide-homicide policy than anything approaching reasonable public safety.
Amazing how the right-wing likes to subject women to five-hour-drives and 48-hour waiting periods to control her own uterus, but is thrilled to give men instant carte blanche to buy an assault weapon at a gun show so he can slaughter a dozen Americans instantly with no questions asked.
"Free-dumb"-Hyprocrisy-Misogyny-Greed-God- and-Guns Over People: GOP 2016
D to go forward; R to increase your chances of getting shot and killed.
There's simply no reason not to have universal background checks and to close the completely Yemeni-like anarchy of the American gun show loophole...except that the NRA, a small number of gun manufacturers, their Republican front men and the right-wing Supreme Court's Citizen's Corrupted decision all conspire for Guns Over People-based Greed Over People in one of the world's most shameless exercises in the worship of Mammon.
No one wants to take away everyone's guns, but 300 million guns and counting in America is clearly a number that is much closer to nationally-assisted-suicide-homicide policy than anything approaching reasonable public safety.
Amazing how the right-wing likes to subject women to five-hour-drives and 48-hour waiting periods to control her own uterus, but is thrilled to give men instant carte blanche to buy an assault weapon at a gun show so he can slaughter a dozen Americans instantly with no questions asked.
"Free-dumb"-Hyprocrisy-Misogyny-Greed-God- and-Guns Over People: GOP 2016
D to go forward; R to increase your chances of getting shot and killed.
118
Here is the political dichotomy of this country in a nutshell. The Democrats, now owned by Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and their fellow travelers in the professions represents the educated, affluent 10% living in our big coastal cities. These people, who want nothing to do with guns, in their smug "right thinking" arrogance fear and distrust the working people of America to whom firearms represent sport, protection and a traditional way of life. The only fly in the ointment of their schemes is democracy and the fact that there are more gun owners who vote than gun grabbers.
3
Socrates;
I own guns, shoot frequently for sport and food. I carry concealed most of the time. I support all rights for all women, don't go to church, not politically affiliated and am no more or less greedy than you or the average American. I like "Heller", and despise "Citizens United". I do drive a pickup with a gun rack and have a junkyard dog. I believe in reasonable controls, but the definition of reasonable is what divides us. I've bought and sold guns privately, and have refused to sell on some occasions for various reasons. The stridency displayed in your post makes me wonder who the true zealots are here. I understand that millions of folks in your corner of the country are indoctrinated from day 1 to have a visceral fear of firearms, that doesn't make it right. There's another bunch of us who are comfortable with them, and it's our country too. I've born arms to defend, among others, your right to not have a gun. Reading your and other' descriptions of us a rabid goobers doesn't do you any good, if you're interested in having some dialogue. If you just want to preach to your crowd and make yourself feel good, then you've succeeded.
I own guns, shoot frequently for sport and food. I carry concealed most of the time. I support all rights for all women, don't go to church, not politically affiliated and am no more or less greedy than you or the average American. I like "Heller", and despise "Citizens United". I do drive a pickup with a gun rack and have a junkyard dog. I believe in reasonable controls, but the definition of reasonable is what divides us. I've bought and sold guns privately, and have refused to sell on some occasions for various reasons. The stridency displayed in your post makes me wonder who the true zealots are here. I understand that millions of folks in your corner of the country are indoctrinated from day 1 to have a visceral fear of firearms, that doesn't make it right. There's another bunch of us who are comfortable with them, and it's our country too. I've born arms to defend, among others, your right to not have a gun. Reading your and other' descriptions of us a rabid goobers doesn't do you any good, if you're interested in having some dialogue. If you just want to preach to your crowd and make yourself feel good, then you've succeeded.
4
Tell me where only men can buy an assault weapon at a gun show instantly. Give me an example of where someone walked into a gun show, bought an assault rifle, and immediately slaughtered people.
Do you really think that there are no liberal Democrat gun owners?
Do you really think that there are no liberal Democrat gun owners?
3
I've never like guns...
I've never owned one and I consider myself a pacifist.
I'm also a vegetarian.
I do not even kill for food.
However, if you want to take away people's guns, may I suggest you start with the police? They work for the government and they've got a lot of guns.
Point being, the government needs to walk its gun talk before taking away the people's guns. If people like cops, people who are trained in self-defense and have radios and back-up, do not feel safe walking the streets without a gun, then ordinary people should not only have the right to own guns, they should have the right to carry them around openly, just like the police do.
That said, I will not be carrying one, myself.
Not the way to bet...the victim of that gun, all too often, is its owner.
I've never owned one and I consider myself a pacifist.
I'm also a vegetarian.
I do not even kill for food.
However, if you want to take away people's guns, may I suggest you start with the police? They work for the government and they've got a lot of guns.
Point being, the government needs to walk its gun talk before taking away the people's guns. If people like cops, people who are trained in self-defense and have radios and back-up, do not feel safe walking the streets without a gun, then ordinary people should not only have the right to own guns, they should have the right to carry them around openly, just like the police do.
That said, I will not be carrying one, myself.
Not the way to bet...the victim of that gun, all too often, is its owner.
7
Texas recently became one of 20 states that permit people to openly carry firearms. Americans use guns in self-defense much more often than they used guns to murder someone or to kill themselves. Some disputed studies conclude Americans use guns in self-defense up to 2.5 million times per year. However, federal data also shows Americans frequently use guns in self-defense. Table 14 (Justifiable Homicides) of the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that 444 Americans—exclusive of law enforcement officers—used firearms in self-defense to kill their assailants in 2014. These are instance in which authorities concluded people used a gun to save their lives. This number includes only cases in which the assailants died; it does not include the far more numerous incidents in which assailants were wounded or frightened away. A recent study based on FBI and National Crime Victimization Survey Data showed that 235,700 Americans used guns in self-defense between 2007 and 2011, a total that works out to 47,140 incidents a year, more than five times the number of Americans murdered by firearms in 2014 and more than three times the number—about 11,000 each year—of suicides by gun. There are about 600 accidental guns death per, but accidental gun deaths are not a leading cause of accidental deaths in the United States. About 2,500 people choke to death each year on food. About 25,000 Americans are killed each year by falls on steps or in bathtubs and showers.
3
"Taking away guns" is not the topic of this article. Those words and that idea do not exist in this article.
4
taopraxis, The article is not about taking away people's guns as you say. It's about regulating them.
6
How you will get them implemented and duly followed is the question.