Defending 2A on a website

[Guest canynracer]

Almost every state (maybe every state) that introduced CCW has seen its crime rate go down. Now, even in states that didnt the crime rate has gone down, but CCW states have experienced steeper declines.

I guess it depends on which crime rates dropped...if it was just crimes "relating to firearms" it could be that the ones that carried illegally to protect themselves, now are legal... hence, less "crime"

[DaveTN]

I’m 100% for a citizen’s right to carry. But to imply that carry laws impact crime one way or the other would imply that criminals would give this some thought. They don’t. The death penalty has no impact on crime and I can’t believe that carry laws would either. Armed robbers and car jackers run the risk of encountering an armed person wherever they go and no matter what state they are in. Just like all criminals they don’t think it will happen to them and they don’t think they will get caught.

<O:p</O:p

Want to see crime rates fall in an area? Bring in new jobs.

[Marswolf]

Dave, you are scaring me.

You seem to be agreeing with me.

Let's talk about Glocks.

[DaveTN]

Dave, you are scaring me.

You seem to be agreeing with me.

Let's talk about Glocks.

I think we are in agreement on Glocks also.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Auto registration is purely a method of raising money - the government doesn't really care who has cars and who doesn't. Voter registration is purely voluntary for those who wish to participate in the election process. his argument about those to as they relate to gun registration is just wrong. DrBoomBoom - I think your comments back to him were perfect and like tjbert47 said, if that doesn't help him understand, then he is just blind.

[Marswolf]

I think we are in agreement on Glocks also.

Oh yeah, that's right.

[Guest 2HOW]

I’m 100% for a citizen’s right to carry. But to imply that carry laws impact crime one way or the other would imply that criminals would give this some thought. They don’t. The death penalty has no impact on crime and I can’t believe that carry laws would either. Armed robbers and car jackers run the risk of encountering an armed person wherever they go and no matter what state they are in. Just like all criminals they don’t think it will happen to them and they don’t think they will get caught.

<O:p</O:p

Want to see crime rates fall in an area? Bring in new jobs.

I know that in Florida when we were among the 1st if not the 1st to have a carry permit ,violent crime dropped a whopping 77%. A gang who were called the I-95 robbers would target tourists in rental cars, when they were caught they were asked why just tourists, they said everybody else is carrying guns.

[midtennchip]

DrBoomBoom, to answer your original question, what makes your fellow poster (is that the right term??) think firearm registration is unconstitutional? Numerous states require firearm registration and even the federal government requires registration of certain firearms (such as NFA items). To my knowledge, these registration laws (as opposed to bans) have not been struck down by the courts. SeeUnited States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). (YES, I am a lawyer!) Or, see the website below:

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-02/index.html

However, the reason the registration of firearms SHOULD be held unconstitutional while vehicle or voting registration would not be unconstitution is simple. Unlike the right to "bear arms," the rights to vote or drive a vehicle are NOT written into the Constitution. Yes, the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments provide that discrimination in the voting laws is unconstitutional, the actual RIGHT to vote is not established by those Amendments (or anything else in the Constitution). That is, IF a right to vote exists (sometimes the right has been created elsewhere -- such as state constitutions or regular ole laws), then that right cannot be denied on certain discriminatory bases. For example, DC residents do not have a right to vote for members of Congress. But, female DC residents cannot be denied the right to vote for local officials (which right was granted by local law). See the websites below:

http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingAmendment.htm+

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

Now, regarding the 2^nd Amendment and the use of the term “militia,†we can debate what the founders meant with the awkward use (or lack thereof) of commas in the Amendment. If “militia†means the National Guard and Reserves (according to the anti-gun crowd, today’s “militiaâ€), which are effectively controlled by the federal government, the “right to bear arms†could be taken away by simply not calling up the “militia.†That is, if only the “militia†has the right, and the federal government controls the militia, then the federal government could negate the 2^nd Amendment with the stroke of a pen. Therefore, the Amendment (which was meant to stop a tyrannical government) could be negated by the very thing it was intended to stop!

<o:p> </o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

[DaveTN]

Now, regarding the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> Amendment and the use of the term “militia,†we can debate what the founders meant with the awkward use (or lack thereof) of commas in the Amendment. If “militia†means the National Guard and Reserves (according to the anti-gun crowd, today’s “militiaâ€), which are effectively controlled by the federal government, the “right to bear arms†could be taken away by simply not calling up the “militia.†That is, if only the “militia†has the right, and the federal government controls the militia, then the federal government could negate the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> Amendment with the stroke of a pen. Therefore, the Amendment (which was meant to stop a tyrannical government) could be negated by the very thing it was intended to stop!

No it couldn’t. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State†includes Military, National Guard, and Police Departments. The only thing the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment does right now is to keep the feds from disarming those groups. The Federal government does not control state, county and city PD’s and they could not “simply not call them upâ€. They can stoke all the pens they like, but the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> is a protection for the state; it is undeniably a state right.

<O:p</O:p

The confusion and all the battling is over whether or not “the people†is a collective term or an individual term. The SCOTUS has never answered that question; they have left it up to the Federal Districts. Supposedly they will answer that question this year. I have my doubts that they will answer that question, and if they do I do not think we will like the answer.

[The Rabbi]

They can stoke all the pens they like, but the 2^nd is a protection for the state; it is undeniably a state right.

So the phrase "the people" actually means "the states"? This is despite the fact that "the people" refers to citizens in every other place the phrase is used in the USC.

No, that just won't wash. Historically the reason is clear: there was no standing army so the average citizen had to be ready to answer the call. In order for that to happen they had to be trained to some extent, and firearms ownership was the biggest source of that training. How many soldiers in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 showed up with their own weapons? How many were issued a weapon?

But even if the reason has become irrelevant, the right remains for the citizen.

[DaveTN]

And it would be great if you are right. However I am a realist.

You have a right to protect your life or you don’t, you have a right to bear arms or you don’t. That doesn’t mean that you have a right to carry if you buy a permit from the state and it doesn’t mean that “But the Legislature shall have power, by law,</NOBR> to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime</NOBR>.â€

Supposedly the SCOTUS will decided this year if we have an individual right to protect or lives and it just pizzes me off that they are going to use a dog like the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment to do that. The 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment clearly does not give an individual a right to carry and I predict that will be the ruling on the court.

[The Rabbi]

There is the law as it is interpreted and applied now. And there is the law as it was originally intended. And there is the law as it ought to be. Seldom are they all the same thing.

I think it is undeniable what the law was meant to be. A simple reading in context will tell you that.

It is unfortunate how the law stands now. But there is an opportunity to change that.

Carrying is a state matter, and it is undecided whether the 2A applies to the states. This might be clarified in the ruling. It might not.

Personally I don't see anything good or bad coming out of a decision. The court has been too quiescent to make waves like that. I could be proven wrong though.

[DaveTN]

Personally I don't see anything good or bad coming out of a decision.

Not for Tennessee (for now), but it could have a huge impact for Illinois and California. I know you have said before that you don’t care about those states, but it could impact Tennessee in the future.

[The Rabbi]

CA has RKBA already in its constitution. In fact, a court struck down San Fran's handgun ban (again) on this basis.

IL is a lost cause. You'd sooner get RKBA in N.Korea.

[midtennchip]

No it couldn’t. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State†includes Military, National Guard, and Police Departments. The only thing the 2^nd amendment does right now is to keep the feds from disarming those groups. The Federal government does not control state, county and city PD’s and they could not “simply not call them upâ€. They can stoke all the pens they like, but the 2^nd is a protection for the state; it is undeniably a state right.

<o></o>

The confusion and all the battling is over whether or not “the people†is a collective term or an individual term. The SCOTUS has never answered that question; they have left it up to the Federal Districts. Supposedly they will answer that question this year. I have my doubts that they will answer that question, and if they do I do not think we will like the answer.

I respectfully disagree that "militia" includes police departments. The vast majority of police departments are local, not departments of a state, so the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects PDs (at least in contrast to the "people") would not mesh with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is a "state" right. The source of my assertion that "militia" means the Guard and Reserves is the arguments of pro-regulation proponents. However, in any case, a lot of details regarding the ability of the President to "call up" the "militia" is given in the Militia Act of 1792. The Act also requires that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." That certainly does not sound like the PDs.

The argument is whether the 2nd Amendment provides a right of all people (individually) or whether it says states have a right to have militias. Since the Militia Act of 1792 gave the President the right to control the militia (including a fine of one year's pay for a individual that failed to obey the President's order), I renew my argument. If the 2nd Amendment only allows a militia to be armed, the President could effectively nullify the right. That cannot be what the Constitution means.

[DaveTN]

I respectfully disagree that "militia" includes police departments. The vast majority of police departments are local, not departments of a state, so the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects PDs (at least in contrast to the "people") would not mesh with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is a "state" right. The source of my assertion that "militia" means the Guard and Reserves is the arguments of pro-regulation proponents. However, in any case, a lot of details regarding the ability of the President to "call up" the "militia" is given in the Militia Act of 1792. The Act also requires that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." That certainly does not sound like the PDs.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Here is what I would offer… I am a former Police Officer; I was an Officer for a city Police Department in Illinois. I was certified by the state; not by the city. I had full Police powers anywhere within the bounders of the state. The state had minimum requirements for that certification that municipalities had to meet. The city was simply my employer.

I think you will find that is the case with most states.

<O:p</O:p

So… you can put the pen in whomever hands you like but even the President himself can’t disarm a Police Department or a state National Guard unit. That is what the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment protects and that is all that would keep Hillary or Obama from disarming Police Officers as they are in England.

The argument is whether the 2nd Amendment provides a right of all people (individually) or whether it says states have a right to have militias. Since the Militia Act of 1792 gave the President the right to control the militia (including a fine of one year's pay for a individual that failed to obey the President's order), I renew my argument. If the 2nd Amendment only allows a militia to be armed, the President could effectively nullify the right. That cannot be what the Constitution means.

No… the argument is whether or not the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> is an individual right. Most of the pro-gun people using the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment as an argument for bearing arms have no intention of being in a militia or defending their state. They want to be able to defend their own lives and the lives of their family members. The SCOTUS has ruled that PD’s can’t be held liable for not defending a citizen. Therefore a citizen has not only the right but the responsibility to defend themselves. It’s tough to defend yourself against an armed car jacker or an armed robber when you can’t carry a gun.

<O:p</O:p

It’s sad that those of us that believe we have a right to defend ourselves, but are fully aware that right does not come from the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment, have to stand by and watch as our safety is hung on a decision that we know full well will not go our way.

[Marswolf]

As we get into the militia concept of the Constitution, we inevitably get in the "living document" concept as well.

The framers of the Constitution, had some interesting ideas in mind, having seen what had happened in Europe. They wanted the government to have no standing Army and they wanted a way for the people to prevent a dictatorship. Their answer was to have no standing Army, but instead a citizen militia to defend the country. It made a lot of sense in the 1780s and 1790s. The super-weapon of it's time was the cannon.

The no standing Army idea has proven impractical.

The framers of the Document had no way to imagine internal combustion driven tanks, aerial bombardment and certainly not nuclear weapons mounted on intercontinental missiles.

That's the argument of the "living Constitution" supporters.

The reality is that the standing military forces have clearly enough force to squash any attempt by the militia to oppose the government. It has become a political consideration, rather than a military one.

I see an argument that the original intent of the frames of the Constitution has become moot. The militia is in no situation to seriously engage the government for regress of grievances.

Thus, one needs to interpret the Constitution in light of today's reality.

As I've mentioned before, the only justice who seem inclined to view the Constitution as a strictly constructed document is Alito. We'll see how this turns out.

[Mike.357]

I don't see how anyone can think to wonder what the framers meant. How could we possibly know? None of us where there.

What we have to go by is the words that are written on that piece of paper. The letters they wrote and papers they wrote really should be inadmissable. They wrote a document and it needs to be looked at as the entity it is. There is no doubt about the words on that sheet of paper, the only doubt is how it is interpreted.

[Marswolf]

A lot of very powerful people think that the document is out of touch with the reality of our times. And it is the concepts, in light of that reality, that are important rather than the specific words.

I think the best argument for 2A is that it makes sense in our time as a way for the peoples to protect ourselves from the criminal thugs. That is, there is a logical reason for people to carry guns to protect themselves.

[Mike.357]

A lot of very powerful people think that the document is out of touch with the reality of our times. And it is the concepts, in light of that reality, that are important rather than the specific words.

To those that want to go this route I believe there is a proper procedure for removing an ammendment. Thats what they should do, not gets courts to make rulings that can change the next time the bench changes.

[midtennchip]

For purposes of federal law, the term "militia" is defined as follows:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

( The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 U.S.C. § 311.

Therefore, if the 2nd Amendment applies only to the "militia," the right would ONLY belong to "able-bodied males" between 17 and 45 years old and female members of the National Guard. There's nothing in that definition for police officers. Also, the modern PD didn't arrive until the NYPD was creatd in 1845. Prior to that, constables and sheriffs were the most prevalent of the local "police" entities, both of which were generally elected by the local electorate (ie, not a state department). Dave, if you have a reference with which I am unfamilar, by all means correct me. But, I am unaware of any argument made in a court of law or by a legal scholar explaining the 2nd Amendment in terms of protecting a state's ability to arm police.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/constable

Secondly, if the 2nd Amendment protects, as you state, PDs and the Guard, the Militia Act would be completely unconstitutional (since it gives the President control over the "militia"). Since 1792, that Act has never been challenged on a constitutional basis. Further, the same people who drafted the Constitution voted on the Militia Act of 1792. If they thought the 2nd Amendment applied only to the militia (and couldn't be subverted by the President), why did they give such sweeping power to the President over the militia?

www.lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm

We agree, as far as I can see, that the issue before the SCOTUS now is whether the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (I thought I made that clear, but maybe not). But, where we disagree is that I believe the 2nd Amendment IS an individual right. Why? Because the Militia Act and others make it clear that those who ratified the Constitution and voted on the Militia Act knew that the two did not contradict each other. They understood the 2nd Amendment to mean:

Because "[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not not be infringed." Yes, the Amendment is not written this way, but the use of three commas (instead of two or one) makes the language in the Amendment ackward. Luckily, the SCOTUS will likely make this more clear in a few months. Personally, I think, like Rabbi, that the SCOTUS will find that the Amendment confers an individual right. However, like many other rights (including free speech), the SCOTUS will clarify that the individual right is not absolute. As a result, many new gun control laws will be enacted. They just will not be able to ban guns outright.

[DaveTN]

I don't see how anyone can think to wonder what the framers meant. How could we possibly know? None of us where there.

Those who study Constitutional law study the men that wrote that document, and what their intent was. The same thing Judges do in criminal cases; they look at not only the written law, but the intent of the law.

This problem was foreseen and they gave absolute power over interpreting the Constitution to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was insured that they answer to no one (not even “the peopleâ€) and their rulings are final. (Without a change in the Constitution.)

What we have to go by is the words that are written on that piece of paper. The letters they wrote and papers they wrote really should be inadmissable. They wrote a document and it needs to be looked at as the entity it is. There is no doubt about the words on that sheet of paper, the only doubt is how it is interpreted.

If it was as simple as reading the written words; the SCOUTS would be English Professors instead of lawyers.

<O:p</O:p

I’m not an English major and I really didn’t even do very well in it; but when I read the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment it is crystal clear to me that the intent was to make sure we have an armed militia that can maintain the security of a free state.

<O:p</O:p

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.

<O:p</O:p

If the intent was to insure the rights of the individual to keep and bears arms it would say.

<O:p</O:p

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

<O:p</O:p

Don’t you agree?

You have to remove the emotion and what you want it to say and look at what it says and what its intent was. Because that is what the SCOTUS will do.

[DaveTN]

To those that want to go this route I believe there is a proper procedure for removing an ammendment. Thats what they should do, not gets courts to make rulings that can change the next time the bench changes.

No… we need to add an amendment.

<O:p</O:p

That would be a valid argument if the intent of the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment was to give you the right to protect yourself. But it isn’t. On COPS the other night they showed London Police Officers operating without firearms. Cops here don’t have to worry about that without a change in the Constitution. Why? Because of the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment.

<O:p</O:p

I will say again that I do not make these arguments because I belive we shouldn’t have the right to protect ourselves; I absolutely believe we have the right to carry guns. I just don’t want that right decided on a ruling that has nothing to do with our personal protection.

If this decision that they are talking about does in fact happen this year, and the Supreme Court rules that the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> is a collective right of the state and not an individual right; what will we be left to argue/discuss? Caliber wars and Glocks?

[The Rabbi]

.

<o></o>

I’m not an English major and I really didn’t even do very well in it; but when I read the 2^nd amendment it is crystal clear to me that the intent was to make sure we have an armed militia that can maintain the security of a free state.

Yes, and that militia was made up of free citizens, not a standing force.

<o></o>

If the intent was to insure the rights of the individual to keep and bears arms it would say.

<o></o>

<o></o>

Don’t you agree?

You have to remove the emotion and what you want it to say and look at what it says and what its intent was. Because that is what the SCOTUS will do.

Dave, it DOES say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first clause does not modify the second but gives a reason for it. Even where that reason is no longer valid, the strength of the amendment is in the second, primary, one.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

I'd contend that citizens who protect themselves and/or other citizens are the "well regulated militia" that maintains the security of the free state.